SC proactively backs CCI: DLF to stump up full Rs 630 cr anti-trust penalty pending appeal

Thursday, 28 August 2014 By Legally India Bar, Bench & Litigation

A Supreme Court bench of justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and NV Ramana told real estate developer DLF that it should deposit with the court the entire penalty of Rs 630 crore that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had imposed on it in 2011, pending the outcome of its appeal against the Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat) order of May of this year.

DLF should pay Rs 50 crore within three weeks, Rs 580 crore within three months, and should undertake to pay another Rs 170 crore in interest if its apex court appeal should fail, reported IANS. DLF was fined for “highly abusive” apartment buyers agreements in several of its developments.

Supreme CourtCompetition Commission of India (CCI)Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat)DLF

Comments

?? 28 Aug 2014, 11:29
+0 -6
DLF may have erred but that was not for the CCI and COMPAT to decide. I sincerely hope that SC puts the Competition Law Jurisprudence on the right path.
bhai... 28 Aug 2014, 12:05
+3 -0
Why was it not for the CCI and COMPAT to decide? It was a legitimate competition issue and the COMPAT atleast (I havent read the CCI order) gave a well reasoned order on the matter.
?? 29 Aug 2014, 04:38
+0 -1
And if I may ask why was it 'legitimate' competition issues in your opinion and not a contractual/consumer law dispute or for that matter of breach of trust by DLF?
atithi 31 Aug 2014, 13:28
+0 -0
pray who in your view would have the jurisdiction to decide ?
Guest 28 Aug 2014, 17:23
+0 -0
1 seems to be the old school civil court lawyer where the damages awarded aren't worth the fight.
Another guest 29 Aug 2014, 04:39
+0 -0
2 seems to have no clue whatsoever about the competition law.
Apalled 1 Sept 2014, 09:47
+0 -0
Why are you all beating around the bush? Just state your point if you have one!


[b]@ 1 and 1.1.1 (and maybe 2.1)[/b]

Why isn’t a highly abusive contract a “competition” issue? Anyone who thinks a contract term is not subject to competition law should read the law.
Commenting is closed for this article.