SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC || Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued || MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance || Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected || Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent || Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists || Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid || Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law || Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports || Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists

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 :