A PYMNTS Company

Lack of evidence of abuse of dominance frees Emaar from Silapuri lawsuit

By  |  May 31, 2012

The Competition Commission of India was unable to rule that Emaar abused its dominance, despite finding that agreements it entered into with Silapuri Colonizers were anti-competitive. The antitrust watchdog did not find any evidence that supported Emaar had abused its dominance.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    The case was brought by Silapuri, who claimed that Emaar used unfair tactics and misrepresentations in the agreements over pricing, location, construction, and design specifications for the Palm Drive real estate project in Gurgaon. Silapuri paid Rs 9 crore for construction, which was delayed.

    Full content: The Hindu Business Line

     

    Related content: India’s New Antitrust Regime (Aditya Bhattacharjea, University of Delhi)

     

    Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.