M/S Satya Enterprises vs. Union Ofindia & Ors.
Facts
The petitioners, comprising several real estate companies, sought the remand of their matters. They referred to a previous judgment and order dated January 29, 2024, passed by the Delhi High Court. The respondents, including the Union of India and the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA), were represented. The counsel for the Union of India stated that since the NAA had not challenged paragraph 129 of the aforementioned judgment, the respondents had no objection to the remand of these real estate company matters. The court was presented with a list of eight specific writ petitions for remand.
Held
The Court held that the eight listed matters should be remanded. This decision was based on the petitioners' request to have their cases reconsidered in light of the Delhi High Court's judgment and order dated January 29, 2024. The respondents, including the Union of India, did not oppose this request, particularly because the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) had not challenged paragraph 129 of the prior judgment. The reasoning was that the parties involved were in agreement regarding the remand, facilitating a procedural step towards a final determination. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to a remand based on a prior High Court ruling, and no opposition is raised by relevant authorities concerning specific aspects of that ruling, the court will grant the remand. The operative direction was to remand these eight matters to the Competition Commission of India for determination or decision in accordance with the January 29, 2024 judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the eight listed real estate company matters should be remanded in accordance with the Delhi High Court's judgment and order dated January 29, 2024? The petitioners argued that their matters should be remanded as per the prior judgment. The respondents, specifically the Union of India, indicated no objection to the remand, noting that the NAA had not challenged a specific paragraph (paragraph 129) of the earlier judgment. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioners beyond their prayer for remand based on the prior ruling. The respondents' position was one of acquiescence to the remand.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
$~30 to 134 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10999/2018 M/S PYRAMID INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhishek A Rastogi (through VC), Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms.
Meenal Songire, Advocates.
Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vrinda Baheti and Mr. Kashish G. Baweja, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC with Mr. Olson Nair, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Ms.Abhipriya Rai and Mr.Vivek Gaurav, Advocates for NAA and DGAP.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with Ms.
Charu Sharma, Advocate for R-4. + W.P.(C) 12647/2018 LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sparsh Bhargava with Ms.Ishita Farsaiya and Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Advocates.
Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC for UOI.
Mr.
Vivek Gurnani, Mr.
Sanjeev Menon, Ms. Abhipriya Rai and Mr.
Vivek Gaurav, Advocates for NAA and DGAP.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is do
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.