Patna HC: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Impose Major and Minor Penalties in a Single Order || Calcutta HC: Landlord Decides His Residential Needs; Courts Cannot Set Living Standards in Eviction || Orissa HC: Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Remains Invalid Even After First Wife's Death || Karnataka HC: Appeals Against Acquittal in Bailable Offences Lie Only Before High Court || Supreme Court: Stamp Duty on an Agreement to Sell is Leviable Only if Possession is Transferred || SC: Motive Becomes Irrelevant When Direct Evidence Such as a Dying Declaration is Available || Supreme Court Issues Directions to CoC in Builder Insolvency Cases To Protect Homebuyers’ Interests || MP High Court: Women Retain Reservation Benefits After Marriage if Caste is Recognized in Both States || Allahabad HC: Police Must Prosecute Informants of False Firs, and IOs May Face Contempt if They Fail || MP HP: Over-Age Candidate Cannot Claim Age Relaxation Due to Delay in Earlier Recruitment

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 :