CCPA Fines Chaayos Rs.50,000 for Default Inclusion of Service Charge in Bills  ||  MP HC: Major Unmarried Daughter Need Not Prove Disability to Claim Maintenance if Unable to Earn  ||  Madras HC: Travel Costs Must be Reimbursed to Independent Special Public Prosecutors  ||  MP HC: Timely Coordination Between Police, Banks and Telecom Bodies is Crucial in Cyber Fraud  ||  Kerala HC: Foreign Counsel Cannot Conduct Cross-Examination Before Commissioners  ||  Allahabad HC: Proclaimed Offenders Get Anticipatory Bail Only in Rare and Exceptional Cases  ||  Madras HC: Repeated Intimacy Alone Doesn't Prove Consent; Coercion & Deception Must be Examined  ||  SC: Government Can Revise Royalty under the MMDR Act Despite a Silent Lease Deed  ||  SC: Recovery of a Weapon Alone is Insufficient to Prove Guilt Without Conscious Possession  ||  SC: Section 68 of Evidence Act Does Not Require Attesting Witnesses to Prove Registered Sale Deeds    

Shri Shyam Vir Singh and M/s DLF Universal Limited - (Competition Commission of India) (04 Jan 2016)

CCI dismisses complaint against DLF

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India dismissed a complaint against DLF Universal Limited, a real estate company of national renown, for abusing its dominant position in the market. The Informant had averred that DLF was dominant in Gurgaon, Haryana, having received over half of all realty project licences issued between 1981 and 1990; and it owned nearly 15.23 million square feet of office space and 143 million square feet of land in Gurgaon. Relying on the Director General’s investigation, Commission held DLF to hold only 8.9 per cent of the market share, and it was between the 3rd and 5th largest developer of commercial real estate in the region. Coupled with the abundant choice buyers had, DLF was determined to not be in a position to “influence the conditions of competition in the relevant market”.

Tags : DOMINANT POSITION   REAL ESTATE   GURGAON   DLF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved