DLF Asks SC To Waive Deposit Of Rs 580 Crore Penalty – Livemint – 20-Nov-2014
November 20, 2014 - Uncategorized
Real estate company DLF Ltd has approached the Supreme Court seeking a waiver of the balance amount of the penalty imposed upon it by the antitrust regulator in 2011 for alleged unfair business practices. Of the Rs.630 crore penalty, Rs.580 crore remains to be deposited. As an alternative to waiving the payment at this stage, DLF has sought to provide land as security for the remaining Rs.580 crore. The apex court had, on 27 August, directed payment of the entire sum of Rs.630 crore within three months, and an undertaking to pay 9% interest on the principal if DLF’s appeal against the penalty failed. DLF said it deposited the first instalment of Rs.50 crore along with the undertaking in compliance with the apex court’s direction on 17 September. DLF had approached the apex court against a 19 May Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) order that upheld the penalty. In its application, DLF said it had filed the appeal raising “crucial and central points of law”, which also included the “reasonableness” of penalizing the company on its annual revenue. Its persistent argument has been that the “relevant turnover” is limited to its revenue in relation to three real estate projects in Gurgaon, which amounted to Rs.101.43 crore for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. In its application, DLF contended that a recent Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) order restraining it and some of its directors from “buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities” for three years has caused some financial difficulties to the company. It added that its shareholder resolution to raise Rs.5,000 crore through non-convertible debentures has accordingly come to a halt. DLF couldn’t be reached for a comment. The dispute arose in 2010, when flat buyers’ associations of the three DLF developments in Gurgaon—DLF Park Place, Magnolias and the Belaire—had come before the Competition Commission of India, alleging that DLF had one-sided apartment buyer agreements with them, that there were delays in the projects and that more floors were being constructed than planned.