CCI warns Oberoi Realty, Purvankara and other players for unfair practices

oberoiBy Accommodation Times News Services

Oberoi Realty, a Mumbai based developer was warned by The Competition Commission of India, reports PTI. The Commission came hard on Oberoi Relaty and 22 other Builders including Ansals, Omaxe, Parsvnath, Purvankara, SuperTech, Unitech and others. Treating their business process as “Exploitative Conduct” The commission warned these builders of Unfair Practices for which the Commission is watch dog.

The Commission also inserted that Real Estate must have a regulatory authority to safe guard the interest of home buyers. Disposing off case against these 23 builders and their association CREDAI without any penal action, The Commission strongly directed them to take steps to enhance transparency and appropriate measures to address the concerns.

The Commission also urged their trade association which is self-regulated to look into the grievances of the end customer.





Similar Articles

One thought on “CCI warns Oberoi Realty, Purvankara and other players for unfair practices

  1. To share tentative thoughts:

    As is widely known and complained of by the aggrieved buyers’ community, most of the builders across the country do not care to comply with the fundamental requirements of the governing laws. For instance, the mandates. – (a) to have a ‘housing society’ formed and registered within the prescribed time limit, strictly following the procedure laid down, (b) timely and full completion, in all material respects, of the project (c) execute a ‘proper’ sale deed / deed of conveyance, on a timely basis,(d) adhere to the essential formalities of ‘final conveyance’ and handing over ‘possession’ of the property in the building complex to the CHS or OA (‘owners’ association’, so on , so forth.
    Knowing what the law unequivocally provides / mandates, in one’s longstanding conviction, the Registry, as an important and vital functionary in the whole process, is duty bound, responsible , and ensure that no agreement to sell, sale deed or conveyance deed , or any other related document , is accepted for registration, unless and until satisfied , at least prima facie, apart payment of stamp duty, the Vendor has fulfilled all his statutory obligation in relation to the Vendee. Besides, one may be lawfully justified in urging, and expecting, that any default by Vendor with regard to any of the attendant principal legal requirements, having an impact on the legal validity of the transaction itself, is tantamount to “unfair practice’”, as coming within the purview of oversight by the CCI. As, otherwise, it is not only the legal rights of Vendee, but also the vested interests of others, such as mainly of the banking institutions lending to both parties (finance to realtor / home loan to buyer) would be at great risk / imperilled.
    Incidentally, attention may be invited to a recently highlighted development and case law on the consequences of ROC’s negligence in relation to company related affairs – Read Here > The Liability of the Registrar of Companies for Negligent Entries (ICL Blogs)
    Extending the same logic, there seems to be no rhyme or reason why the property Registrar, in case of his negligence in performance of his duties, should not be exposed to and meted out with like consequences. Any clarification in the matter should go a long way in calling a halt to the ongoing irregularities for long.
    Over to , besides to the empowered authorities in governance, the property law experts at large, in the expectation of eminent guidance for the common good of one and all concerned.

Leave a Reply

Top