Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

Raghubir Mertia v. Aura Real Estate Private Limited - (Competition Appellate Tribunal) (26 Apr 2016)

Compat: Flat buyers need not apply

MRTP/ Competition Laws

The Competition Appellate Tribunal affirmed what the Competition Commission has been trying to tell residential flat buyers all along - builders cannot be held in contravention of competition laws for including lopsided contractual terms in sale-purchase agreements.

The Tribunal was unequivocal in its ruling: due to the construction boom in preceding years the real estate sector invited several builders resulting in none of them being in a ‘dominant position’, being unable to effect unfair contract terms. With the appellants not providing evidence to the contrary, CCI was correct in concluding that Aura Real Estate was not dominant in the relevant market and, as such, investigation could not be ordered against it.

The CCI has received a spate of complaints, most of which it has dismissed, from individual property buyers who have been stung by unequal contractual reliefs for delayed delivery of possession by real estate companies. Inadequate compensation and eluding responsibility for timely completion of construction have topped the list of grievances for which buyers claim to have been adversely affected by a ‘dominant’ builder.

Tags : COMPAT   REAL ESTATE   DOMINANT POSITION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved