Jaya Pandey & Prakash C Pandey And Advance India Projects Limited

Case No. 05 of 2026

Page 1 of 10

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No. 05 of 2026

In Re: Jaya Pandey and Prakash C Pandey Informants A-88, 2nd Floor, SS Group, The Palladian, Sector 47, Gurugram, Haryana 122018

And

Advance India Projects Limited AIPL Business Club, 5th Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 62, Gurugram, Haryana 122101 Opposite Party (OP)

CORAM

Ravneet Kaur Chairperson

Anil Agrawal Member

Sweta Kakkad Member

Deepak Anurag Member

Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002

1. The Information has been filed by Smt. Jaya Pandey & Shri. Prakash C Pandey (‘Informants’) against Advance India Projects Limited (‘Opposite Party’/ ‘OP’) alleging contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (‘the Act’).

Case No. 05 of 2026

Page 2 of 10

2. The Informants have stated that they are bona fide purchasers/allottees of commercial units developed and marketed by the OP. In particular, the Informants own the following properties: a. Unit No GF-120, AIPL Joy Central, Sector 65, Gurugram; b. Unit No GF-30, AIPL Joy Street, Sector 66, Gurugram; and c. Unit No. GF-109 & GF 110, AIPL Joy Square, Sector 63A, Gurugram.

3. The Informants have stated that they have invested substantial amounts (aggregating several crores) in the above projects based on representations made by the OP regarding commercial viability, premium positioning, assured footfall, tenant mix and projected rental returns. These representations induced the Informants to commit significant capital investment.

4. The Informants have alleged that the OP, by virtue of its established brand presence and multiple large scale commercial retail developments in Gurugram, holds a position of significant economic strength in the market for organised commercial retail real estate in Gurugram. The Informants have stated that being individual investors, they do not possess bargaining power and are entirely dependent on the developer-controlled commercial ecosystem, once investment is made.

5. The Informants have alleged that the Buyer Builder Agreements (‘BBAs’) executed by the OP across the aforementioned projects are unilateral and non-negotiable contracts. These agreements allegedly: a. Confer excessive discretionary powers upon the developer; b. Impose penalties and financial liabilities disproportionately on buyers; c. Restrict the commercial autonomy of allottees; and d. Provide limited or ineffective remedies against the developer.

6. It is alleged that the one-sided nature of these agreements reflect the economic imbalance between the parties and the absence of countervailing buyer power. The non- alignment of these agreements with statutory fairness principles embodied under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA’) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 further demonstrates the exploitative nature of the contractual framework imposed by the OP.

Case No. 05 of 2026

Page 3 of 10

7. It is further alleged that after collecting substantial consideration from the Informants, the OP has retained centralized and unilateral control over critical commercial aspects affecting earning potential, including: a. Leasing and tenant selection; b. Rental structuring and pricing mechanisms; c. Security deposit management; d. Tenant mix and zoning; and e. Operational and business environment decisions.

8. The Informants submitted that the OP has engaged in practices resulting in artificial rental suppression within its projects. By exercising centralized control over leasing strategy and rental benchmarks, the OP influences and controls rental levels instead of permitting natural market forces of demand and supply to operate freely. This distorts competitive pricing mechanisms in organized commercial retail space.

9. It is further submitted that even in cases where units have been leased out, rental income and security deposit dues are not remitted to the Informants in a timely manner. There have been delays, irregularities, and lack of transparency in rental disbursements and accounting. Such conduct places investors in financial distress, increases economic dependency on the developer, and strengthens the OP's leverage over allottees.

10. The Informants have alleged that the pattern of conduct described above is not confined to a single project but is observable across all OP`s projects, thereby demonstrating a systematic and structured approach rather than an isolated contractual dispute. The Informants have alleged that the cumulative effect of unilateral BBAs, rental suppression, centralized leasing control, and delayed financial remittances has resulted in: a. Financial prejudice to investors; b. Restriction of commercial freedom; c. Distortion of rental discovery mechanisms; d. Increased dependency of allottees; and e. Artificial control over organized commercial retail space.

Case No. 05 of 2026

Page 4 of 10

11. The Informants submitted that such conduct amounts to imposition of unfair and discriminatory conditions and exploitative practices by a dominant enterprise within the meaning of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The actions of the OP ostensibly have caused and continue to cause appreciable adverse effect on competition in the relevant market of organized commercial retail real estate in Gurugram, warranting investigation by the Commission.

12. The Informants have sought interim relief under Section 33 of the Act vide Interlocutory Application (‘IA’) No. 80 of 2026 in the present matter, praying for handover of physical possession of shops, fair and timely disbursement of dues and to restrain continuation of unfair practices, based on the following: “(i) Irreparable Loss The Informants are suffering continuous and irreparable financial harm due to developer not handing over physical possession and keeping our shops vacant for years, and for the other allotees by imposing unilateral rental suppression, delayed disbursement of rental income, and non-payment/delay of security deposit dues. Such conduct adversely impacts cash flows, investment viability, and market valuation of the units for all allotees. The injury is ongoing in nature and cannot be adequately compensated if allowed to continue during the pendency of proceedings. (ii) Balance of Convenience The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Informants, as the interim relief sought directs the respondents to give us the physical possession of our freehold properties, fair and timely disbursement of dues and restrains continuation of unfair practices. Granting interim protection will not prejudice the OP but will prevent ongoing financial harm to the Informants pending investigation.”

13. The Informants have prayed for the following main relief from the Commission: a. To order investigation by the Director General under Section 26(1); b. To declare OP`s conduct to be anti-competitive; c. To direct immediate, unconditional handover of physical possession of Informants properties;

Case No. 05 of 2026

Page 5 of 10

d. To prohibit exclusive leasing and pricing control without allottee's protection to financial losses due to lower than market leasing rates, uncontrolled vacancy periods; e. To impose penalties under Section 27 of the Act; and f. To pass cease-and-desist orders to restore competition.

14. The Commission considered the present matter in its ordinary meeting held on 29.04.2026 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course.

15. The Commission notes that the OP is engaged in the business of building real estate for residential and commercial purposes and is therefore an enterprise under Section 2(h) of the Act.

16. The Commission notes that the Informants have alleged violation of Section 3 of the Act by the OP, but has not adduced any evidence or argument in support of the same.

Section 3(1) of the Act is extracted here for reference: “Anti-competitive agreements 3. (1) No enterprise or association of enterprises or person or association of persons shall enter into any agreement in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India”