Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed || Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict || Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award || Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9 || Tripura HC: Tax Authorities Cannot Revive Repealed VAT Powers or Retain Deposits Without Law || J&K&L HC: Obtaining a Passport is a Constitutional Right; Citizens Need Not Prove Travel Necessity || Allahabad HC: Police Report in Non-Cognizable Offence is a Complaint; Accused Must Be Heard First || Kerala HC: Hospitals Must Display Rates and Cannot Deny Emergency Care For Lack of Advance Payment || Orissa HC: Convict’s Refusal to Appeal Through Legal Aid Must be Recorded in Writing || SC Halts Deer Translocation From Delhi’s AN Jha Park And Orders a Probe into DDA Negligence

Yashpal Raghubir Mertia v. M/s Aura Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - (Competition Commission of India) (29 Mar 2016)

CCI inundated by real estate complaints

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Commission of India has over the past few months been inundated by disputes between individuals masquerading as competition concerns. In the latest iteration, it received a complaint from the buyer aggrieved by delayed grant of possession of his flat, unhelpful conduct of the property developer and one-sided ‘discriminatory’ contract terms. The Commission concluded that the complainant had not made out a case of contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act; besides, in a similar case the previous year the Commission had ruled the property builder to not be dominant in the relevant market in Pune.

Tags : REAL ESTATE DOMINANT INDIVIDUAL DISPUTE

Share :