Competition Commission has rejected allegations of unfair business practices against diversified group Religare in the market for loans provided by NBFCs in lieu of securities.
A complaint filed by an individual investor alleged that Religare Enterprises, Religare Securities and Religare Finvest were dominant in the market of financing 'certain securities of a value in excess of Rs 20 lakhs' due to which they have been able to dictate terms and impose unfair and discriminatory conditions.
It was also alleged that there was an agreement between the Religare firms in the nature of a 'tie-in arrangement' and 'refusal to deal' for the benefit of the group companies, which was in violation on the competition norms.
While Religare Securities is a brokerage firm, Religare Finvest is an Non-banking Financial Company (NBFC). Religare Enterprises is the holding company of Religare Securities and Religare Finvest.
In an order dated February 5, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) said that "there arises no competition concern actionable under...The (Competition) Act and the case deserves to be closed".
The Commission said that since there are a large number of brokers and NBFCs, Religare was not dominant in the segment concerned.
"When opposite parties (Religare) are not dominant in the relevant market, the question of abuse of dominant position in that relevant market does not arise," CCI said.
The complainant, who opened a trading account with Religare Securities, had alleged that the broker without opening a margin funding account started charging an interest of 18 per cent per annum on delayed payments for trades done.
According to the complainant, for a broker to charge interest on the outstanding amounts due from a client, a 'margin funding' account was required to be opened.
It was also submitted that at the instance of Religare Securities, the complainant used to avail loan against securities/margin funding facilities from Religare Finvest and was not allowed to take loans from a third party.
Further, it was charged that the loan was arbitrarily and abruptly withdrawn by Religare Finvest without a reason.
