Delhi High Court: Assets From Illegal Cricket Betting are Proceeds of Crime Attachable by ED || Delhi HC: Extension to Issue SCN U/S 110 of The Customs Act Must be Granted Before Six Months Expire || Delhi HC: Statements to Customs under Section 108 During Goods Seizure Aren't Admissible As Evidence || Delhi HC: Oral Waiver of a Show-Cause Notice is Invalid And Continued Detention of Goods is Unlawful || Supreme Court: Letter of Intent is a 'Promise in Embryo', Rights Arise Only After Conditions Met || SC Auction Sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC Cannot Be Challenged on Pre-Proclamation Grounds || NCLT Kochi: CoC May Invite Fresh Bids, Regulations Only Restrict Alteration of Existing Bids || Chhattisgarh HC: Father Must Provide Maintenance and Marriage Expenses to Unmarried Adult Daughter || Delhi HC Rules That ‘Hermès’ and the 3D Shape of its ‘Birkin’ Bag are Well-Known Trademarks in India || Kerala HC: Arrest is Illegal if Accused isn’t Produced in 24 Hours and Rearrest From Prison is Barred

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 :