AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The information in the present case was filed by Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma and twenty one others as listed above ('Informants') under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the 'Act') against Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited ('OP 1'), Shri Jai Krishana Singh Rana ('OP 2'), Shri Bharat Jain ('OP 3'), Shri Vishvanath Pratap Singh ('OP 4'), and Shri Bipin Singh Yadav ('OP 5') alleging contravention of the provisions of the Act.
It is stated that OP 1 is a public limited company engaged in real estate business and it collects money from the public through its appointed agents for further investment. It is stated that OP 1 runs Kalpataru Mega Mart Shopping Chain, Kalindi Green and Kalpataru multi-trade outlets through which it mobilises savings/ deposits from the public by signing an application form cum agreement. Further, it is stated that OP 2, OP 3, OP 4 and OP 5 are the directors of OP 1.
According to the Informant, as per the conditions laid down in the application form or agreement executed with the depositors, OP 1 is required to pay a guaranteed amount to its depositors on maturity of bond/ policy. It is averred that OP 1 is fooling and misleading the public by collecting money from them with a promise to pay them the amount on maturity with agreed returns or to allot them plots of land. It is stated that OP 1 has engaged marketing agents on commission basis to collect money from the public as per the scheme/ policy/ bond and deposit the same with OP 1 and in turn, it issues receipts to such depositors. To receive the final payment on maturity, the depositors have to produce the said receipts before OP 1.
It is alleged that the cheques issued by OP 1 to many of its customers on maturity of their policy/ bond have been dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in its account. Further, it is alleged that since April, 2015, OP 1 is not paying to the Informants on maturity of their bond/ policy despite submitting the original receipt. Even though one of the directors of OP 1 vide letter dated 20.10.2015 has assured the Informants to pay all the sums due, till date no money has been received by the Informants. In this regard, the Informants have served a legal notice dated 27.06.2016 to the OPs, but of no avail. It is also alleged that OP 1 has not been paying salary to its employees for the last several months.
Based on the above, the Informants, inter alia, have requested the Commission to direct OPs to pay the total amount due to them along with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The Informants have also prayed for interim relief in the matter.
The Commission has perused the information and other materials available on record.
The Commission takes note of the fact that the main allegation of the Informants is that OP 1 and its officials are not paying them money on maturity of their policy/ bond as per the agreement. It is noted that OP 1 had allegedly collected money from the Informants and others by issuing policy/ bonds with a promise to pay the same on maturity along with an agreed rate of return and in some cases, money was collected from the people with the promise to allot land to them. The Commission observes that as per the allegations OP 1 cheated and defrauded the Informants. The Commission is of the view that the averments made by the Informants do not raise any competition issue and therefore, the case does not fall within the ambit of the Act.
In view of the above, the Commission concludes that no case of contravention of any of the provisions of either Section 3 or 4 of the Act is made out against any of the OPs in the instant matter. Accordingly, the matter is closed under the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act.
The Secretary is directed to inform all concerned accordingly.