Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams  ||  SC: Central Government Employees under CCS Rules are Not Covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act  ||  Supreme Court Holds CrPC Principles on Discharge and Framing of Charges Continue under BNSS  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Must Independently Assess SC/ST Act Charges in Section 14A Appeals    

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