SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed || SC: Properties Acquired by Karta are Presumed to be Joint Hindu Family Assets unless Proven Otherwise || SC: Trial Courts Must Record that Free Legal Aid was Offered to Accused Before Witness Examination || SC: State Government Employees Cannot Claim Dearness Allowance Twice a Year Unless Rules Allow || P&H High Court: Anticipatory Bail on Settlement Can be Revoked if Compromise is Broken || Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults can Choose Life Partners Without Societal or Parental Approval || Cal HC: Excessive Palm Sweating Alone Cannot Render Candidate Medically Unfit for CAPF Appointment || Del HC: Mother's Right to Education and Personal Growth Cannot be Restricted Due To Custody Disputes || SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds || Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes

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 :