NEWSLETTER

Sign up to read weekly email newsletter

13 years 🥳 of Publication, 100k+ Stories, 30+ Countries

Legal Desire Media and Insights
Donate
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Reading: CCI imposes fine of Rs.13.82crore on Jaiprakash Associates Limited for contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002
Share
Aa
Legal Desire Media and InsightsLegal Desire Media and Insights
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Follow US
Legal Desire Media & Insights
Home » Blog » CCI imposes fine of Rs.13.82crore on Jaiprakash Associates Limited for contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002
Judgments

CCI imposes fine of Rs.13.82crore on Jaiprakash Associates Limited for contravention of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002

By Legal Desire 2 Min Read
Share

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has found Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (Act) for abuse of dominant position in the market of independent residential units such as villas, estate homes in their integrated township, by imposing unfair/ discriminatory conditions on the allottees in Wish Town, Jaypee Greens project, in Noida and Greater Noida.

The final order was passed on an information filed by a buyer who alleged that conditions imposed by JAL were arbitrary and heavily tilted in favour of it.

Based on the investigation, the Commission found that the standard terms and conditions imposed by JAL were one-sided and couched in a manner so as to unilaterally favour itself and be unfavourable to the consumers. Moreover, terms were vague and did not confer any substantive rights on the buyers. The conduct of JAL, such as collecting money/charges from the buyers without delivering the residential/dwelling unit on time, adding additional construction and amending /altering the layout plans, imposition of various charges, right to raise finance from any bank/financial institution/body corporate without consulting buyers was held to be abusive.

Therefore, the Commission concluded such conduct of JAL to be in violation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Resultantly, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 13.82 crore (Rupees Thirteen Crore Eighty Two Lakh) on JAL. The penalty was calculated @ 5% of the average revenue of JAL from sale of independent residential units in the relevant market. Besides, a cease and desist order has also been issued to JAL.

Read Order Here:

[embeddoc url=”https://legaldesire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/99-of-2014.pdf” download=”all”]

You Might Also Like

The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. was granted a stay on operation of an order vacating ad-interim injunction of Tis Hazari District Court on 07th November 2023, by the Delhi High Court

Aditya Birla restrained by Delhi High Court from Infringing Trademark registered by Under Armour

Guilt Of Appellant For Murder Of Deceased Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Supported By Circumstantial Evidence By Prosecution: Delhi HC

Supreme Court of India upholds validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd. v. Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd: Case Note

Subscribe

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Legal Desire August 13, 2019
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Email Copy Link Print
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. was granted a stay on operation of an order vacating ad-interim injunction of Tis Hazari District Court on 07th November 2023, by the Delhi High Court

Brief Background The appellant, The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., filed the appeal before the Delhi High Court against the order dated…

Judgments
November 16, 2023

Aditya Birla restrained by Delhi High Court from Infringing Trademark registered by Under Armour

Two famous brands - Under Armour and Aditya Birla recently had a dispute before the Delhi High Court regarding their…

JudgmentsNews
May 4, 2023

Guilt Of Appellant For Murder Of Deceased Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Supported By Circumstantial Evidence By Prosecution: Delhi HC

While setting aside all layers of doubt on when guilt of appellant for murder can be presumed, the Delhi High…

Judgments
November 19, 2022

Supreme Court of India upholds validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

The top court of India has upheld almost all the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)…

JudgmentsNews
July 27, 2022

For over 10 years, Legal Desire provides credible legal industry updates and insights across the globe.

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Legal Marketing Service for Law Firms and Lawyers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Condition
  • Cancellation/Refund Policy

Follow US: 

Legal Desire Media & Insights

For Submissions/feedbacks/sponsorships/advertisement/syndication: office@legaldesire.com

Legal Desire Media & Insights 2023

✖
Cleantalk Pixel

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?