Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals || Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment || Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society || SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers || J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated || Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour || Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases || Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act || MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments || J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution

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 :