Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC || Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts || Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines || Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act || NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties || Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT || Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage || SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance || SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession || Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows

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 :