Cal. HC: WB Government Directed to Finalise Minimum Wage of Tea Plantation Workers Within Six Weeks  ||  Delhi HC: Woman Cannot be Held Liable for Her Lover Committing Suicide Due to Love Failure  ||  All. HC: Medical Report Determining Age of Victim in POCSO Cases to be Submitted to Court Promptly  ||  Concerns About Rise in Low-Quality Law Colleges Raised by Bar Council of India  ||  Appointment of Technical Assistants as Assistant Engineers in Tamil Nadu PWD Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Committee to Examine Issues Relating to Queer Community Constituted by Central Government  ||  Karnataka High Court: Accused can’t be Morally Convicted by Trial Court in Absence of Legal Proof  ||  Supreme Court in Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT Verification: Human Interference to Create Problems  ||  Bom HC: Person Cannot be Deprived of Right to Sleep by Recording Statements at Unearthly Hours  ||  Supreme Court: Enable E-Filing & Virtual Appearance Facilities At UP District Courts    

Heritage City Resident Welfare Association and ors. v. Unitech Ltd. - (Competition Appellate Tribunal) (20 Jul 2016)

Flat-buyers’ endeavours against Unitech stumped by COMPAT

MRTP/ Competition Laws

A complaint by flat-buyers against Unitech’s failure to allow full access to common areas and facilities promised in advertising literature for the residential project was dismissed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered whether by failing to execute sale deeds in favour of those who booked flats in its ‘Heritage City’ project, and failing to provide amenities and facilities mandated under law, Unitech indulged in unfair trade practices.

For a variety of technical reasons, not least of which was the failure to implead the owner of the property, complaint before the Competition Commission proved unsuccessful.

The Tribunal noted that some of the complainants had booked flats with the Unitech before a brochure or advertisements had been issued. For such buyers, it could not be said that they were misled by literature released by respondents qua the common areas and facilities. Respondent’s failure to construct EWS flats within the project was also not a failure to deliver on the promise as complainants would not have purchased the same.

The complaint was dismissed, however relying on an earlier Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal reiterated that the flat-buyers were entitled to use the common areas and facilities without hindrance. It also dismissed pleas for nullifying the sale deeds in whole or part, noting that the same would have to be pursued before the courts.

Relevant : DLF Limited v. Manmohan Lowe and Ors. MANU/SC/1255/2013


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved