{"id":6747,"date":"2015-08-14T10:08:00","date_gmt":"2015-08-14T10:08:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6747"},"modified":"2015-10-15T15:51:57","modified_gmt":"2015-10-15T10:21:57","slug":"compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/","title":{"rendered":"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected"},"content":{"rendered":"

Competition Appellate Tribunal: <\/span><\/b>Deciding a transferred case under the erstwhile MRTP Act, 1969, the Competition Appellate Tribunal held that the delay in delivery of possession of constructed apartment by the builder and non-disclosure of progress of construction to the buyer amount to unfair trade practice under section 36-A (1); of the Act.\u00a0 The tribunal observed that unilateral cancellation of allotted flat for the reason the buyer did not pay the demanded instalment is illegal and arbitrary if the buyer has reasonable cause for not to pay. <\/span><\/p>\n

In this case, the complainant had already paid four instalments but the builder did not complete the stipulated construction of the flat on time and did not inform the buyer about the progress of the construction. The builder in its brochure had promised to hand over the flat in three years but it could not do even in 15 years. The Tribunal taking note of the decisions by consumer courts against the same builder ruled that activities of the builder were unfair trade practices. The tribunal also rejected the plea that delay was caused by litigations involving the builders and the real estate market was down due to non-payment of instalments by the buyers and demand of refunds.<\/span><\/p>\n

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ghaziabad<\/span> Development Authority <\/span><\/i><\/span>v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal<\/i>, (2008) 7 SCC 686<\/a>, the tribunal rejected the prayer of the complainant for directing the builder to deliver possession of allotted flat. The Supreme Court had held in that case that MRTP Commission did not have power of civil court to order specific performance of contract. However, for serving the ends of justice the tribunal directed the builder to repay the amount paid by the buyer with compound interest of 15% per annum. <\/span>Manjeet Kaur Monga <\/span><\/i>v. K.L.\u00a0Suneja,\u00a0<\/i><\/span>(2015) Comp AT 3<\/a>,\u00a0decided on <\/i>03.08.2015<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Competition Appellate Tribunal: Deciding a transferred case under the erstwhile MRTP Act, 1969, the Competition Appellate Tribunal held that the delay in <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[3684],"class_list":["post-6747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-unfair_trade_practices"],"yoast_head":"\nCompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Competition Appellate Tribunal: Deciding a transferred case under the erstwhile MRTP Act, 1969, the Competition Appellate Tribunal held that the delay in\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-08-14T10:08:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-15T10:21:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/\",\"name\":\"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-08-14T10:08:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-15T10:21:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected","og_description":"Competition Appellate Tribunal: Deciding a transferred case under the erstwhile MRTP Act, 1969, the Competition Appellate Tribunal held that the delay in","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2015-08-14T10:08:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-15T10:21:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/","name":"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2015-08-14T10:08:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-15T10:21:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/14\/compat-awarded-compound-interest-15-p-a-under-erstwhile-mrtp-act-to-the-victim-of-unfair-trade-practice-by-builder-prayer-for-delivery-of-possession-rejected\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CompAT awarded compound interest 15% p.a. under erstwhile MRTP Act to the victim of Unfair Trade Practice by builder, prayer for delivery of possession rejected"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":284063,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/16\/up-builder-not-liable-to-pay-interest-to-the-allottee-in-accordance-with-order-xxi-rule-4-cpc-amount-deposited-with-registry-should-be-deposited-with-banks-to-avoid-loss-supreme-court-asks-courts-judi\/","url_meta":{"origin":6747,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Amount deposited with the Registry should be deposited with banks to avoid loss\u2019; Supreme Court asks Courts\/Judicial Forums to frame guidelines","author":"Editor","date":"February 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In a builder-home buyers\u2019 dispute, the Supreme Court agreed with the builder 's argument that the rule embodied in Order XXI, Rule 4 of CPC, was applicable and the builder could not be fastened with any legal liability to pay interest after April 2005. The bench further opined that all\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-393.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":256645,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/02\/law-on-unfair-trade-practice\/","url_meta":{"origin":6747,"position":1},"title":"Law on Unfair Trade Practice | Builder insisting to sign on papers which stated that \u201cbuyer was receiving villa in full ready condition\u201d even when it was not in a liveable condition: Is builder\u2019s act under \u2018unfair trade practice\u2019? NCDRC decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Noting unfair trade practice by the builder while insisting the buyers to sign a paper wherein it was stated \u201cthat they were receiving possession in full ready condition\u201d which was false, Coram of C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) and Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Member)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6748,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/08\/13\/parties-and-their-counsel-are-responsible-for-delay-in-disposal-of-the-cases-compat-imposed-cost-of-rs-20-000-upon-a-party-for-causing-adjournment\/","url_meta":{"origin":6747,"position":2},"title":"Parties and their counsel are responsible for delay in disposal of the cases: CompAT imposed cost of Rs. 20,000\/- upon a party for causing adjournment","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 13, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Appellate Tribunal: The Chairperson, Justice G.S. Singhvi, of the Competition Appellate Tribunal who alone is hearing a large number of appeals against CCI orders, compensation applications under the Competition Act, 2002, and transferred cases under the erstwhile MRTP Act, 1969 took a serious note of delays cases by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258031,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/02\/tribunals-regulatory-bodies-commissions-monthly-roundup-november-2021\/","url_meta":{"origin":6747,"position":3},"title":"Tribunals\/Regulatory Bodies\/Commissions Monthly Roundup | November 2021","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Here\u2019s a run-through of all the significant decisions covered in the month of November 2021 under the Section of Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-129.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223688,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/30\/ncdrc-buyer-cannot-be-made-to-wait-indefinitely-for-possession-of-flat-when-the-entire-consideration-amount-has-been-made\/","url_meta":{"origin":6747,"position":4},"title":"NCDRC | Buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat when the entire consideration amount has been made","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0R.K. Agrawal (President) while deciding the present consumer case held that, \"Wherever the Builder commits a particular date or time frame for completion of the construction and offering possession to the Buyer, they must necessarily honour the commitment made by them.\" In the present matter,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220877,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/cci-builder-buyer-agreement-does-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-s-3-of-competition-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":6747,"position":5},"title":"CCI | Builder Buyer Agreement does not fall within the ambit of S. 3 of Competition Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 15, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Competition Commission of India (CCI): The Coram of Ashok Kumar Gupta (Chairperson) and Sangeeta Verma (Member) and Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (Member), analysed the dominance of Vatika Limited and held that it has no dominance in the relevant market. Present information filed by \u201cInformant\u201d under Section 19(1)(a) of Competition Act, 2002\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Competition-Commission.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6747\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}