SC: Casual Workers Can't be Denied Regularisation if Similar Daily Wagers were Regularised  ||  Supreme Court: Illegal Change of Land Use under Punjab Act Cannot be Legalised Later  ||  Allahabad High Court: Magistrate Must Consider Closure Report Even After Taking Cognizance  ||  Allahabad HC: CGST Arrest Memo Must Include Grounds as Annexure; Reasons to Believe Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC: Petitioner’s Identity Must be Verified Via SHO in Cases of Bank Account Defreezing  ||  J&K&L HC: Undenied Pleadings are Deemed Admitted by Implication under the CPC  ||  Kerala HC: Transfer Order Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot be Disguised as Punishment  ||  Allahabad HC: GST, Incentives, 0r Festival Advances Cannot be Deducted From Employee’s Retiral Dues  ||  SC: Absconding Accused Cannot Claim Anticipatory Bail Solely Because a Co-Accused Was Acquitted  ||  Supreme Court: District Cricket Bodies Must Adopt Good Governance Voluntarily, Not Follow BCCI Rules    

In Re M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., M/s Jaypee Infratech and Ors. - (Competition Commission of India) (26 Oct 2015)

CCI clears Jaypee Group of abuse amidst heavy dissent

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India in a majority ruling dismissed complaints against Jaypee Group’s alleged abuse of its dominant position. It determined that the Group was not in a dominant position in the relevant real estate market, as the market comprised small, medium and large companies, suggesting low entry to barriers. Further, buyers had a plethora of options, leaving Jaypee with an indisputably large, yet unconsolidated position so far as using its position to include unfair contract terms with buyers. In a vehement dissent, however, two members of the Commission ruled that the contractual terms, restricting buyers’ freedoms to exit the contract and access to areas surrounding their properties were severe suggesting the existence of negotiating power beyond that accepted. They noted that Jaypee Group, being several times larger than their closest competitor was clearly in a dominant position. That some of the land it owned came to be acquired pursuant to the agreement the Yamuna Expressway (connecting Delhi and Agra), did not negate its dominance in the region.

Tags : PROPERTY   JAYPEE   DOMINANT   RESIDENTIAL   ABUSE   POSITION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved