NCLAT: Can’t Set Aside Liquidation Order u/s 33 IBC When 3rd Party has Taken Possession of Property  ||  NCLAT: Unless Amendment Application Filed, Authority Can’t Suo Motu Amend Date of Default  ||  Delhi HC Directs Removal of 'Kindpan' Trademark in Petition Filed by ‘Mankind’  ||  J&K HC: Limitation for Challenging Award Starts after Signed Copy is Received by Party  ||  Delhi HC: ‘High Speed’ Not Sufficient to Conclude Driver Acted in Rash and Negligent Manner  ||  Allahabad HC: Huge Difference between Executing a Particular Document and Being a Witness  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Consider Co-Opted Members of Bar Council as Separate Class from Elected Members  ||  J&K HC: Govt. Failing to Communicate Rejection of Detenue’s Representation in Time Vitiates Order  ||  SC: Electricity Act Empowers State Commissions to Regulate Open Access Within their Respective States  ||  SC: Limitation Begins from Date of Registration of Sale Deed that Constitutes Constructive Notice    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved