SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree || SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together || MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth || Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It || Allahabad HC: Will in Favor of Someone Does Not Affect Compassionate Appointment Based on Dependency || MP High Court: Mere Illness of a Family Member, If Improving, is Not Sufficient for Interim Bail || Bombay HC: ?25K Fine for Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha; Parents Must Ensure Responsible Conduct || Delhi High Court: Home State Must be the First Preference For Claiming Insider IFS Cadre Allocation || SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance || SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property

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 :