Compensation Claim u/s 42A Was Premature as Appellants Consented to Cost Hike and No Violation of CCI’s Order Occurred

Case Details: Sateyendra Singh vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 150 (NCLAT-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, Judicial Member & Naresh Salecha, Technical Member
• Dinesh Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Ms Srashti Parashar, CCI R1, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Shashank Singh, Naveen Soni & Deborah Serto for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants-allotees were allotted Economically Weaker Section (EWS) flats in housing scheme announced by respondent authority. Later, possession of flats was delayed by respondent.

Consequently, the respondent issued a letter to all allottees, including appellants demanding a revised final cost. The appellants filed a complaint and subsequently, the CCI passed impugned order concluding that respondent was engaged in abusive conduct in violation of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Accordingly, CCI directed respondent to cease and desist from such behavior and imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 1 crore. On appeal, appellants requested to direct respondent to compensate appellants for their losses and recover and pay imposed penalty amount from respondent and pay directly to appellants. It was noted that appellants gave their consent for enhancing cost.

NCLAT Held

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal observed that since there was no violation by respondent of CCI’s order, question of claiming compensation was premature in view of section 42A. Further, it was held that the appellants could seek other appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law and thus, instant appeal was to be rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order passed by CCI in Case No. 86/2016, dated 28-2-2018, (Para 44), affirmed.