M/S Nandi Infratech PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioners, primarily real estate companies, sought the remand of eight matters to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), formerly the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA). This request was made in accordance with a previous judgment and order dated January 29, 2024, passed by the Delhi High Court. The respondents, including the Union of India and the CCI/DGAP, were represented. The CCI had not challenged paragraph 129 of the aforementioned judgment. The court was to decide on the remand of these specific real estate company matters, while other matters were to be heard on merits.
Held
The Court held that the eight real estate company matters should be remanded to the Competition Commission of India. This decision was based on the petitioners' prayer for remand in accordance with the Court's judgment and order dated January 29, 2024. The respondents, including the Union of India, stated they had no objection to this course of action, particularly because the CCI had not challenged paragraph 129 of the prior judgment. The reasoning was that the parties were in agreement with the remand for a determination or decision by the CCI as per the earlier ruling. The Court's operative direction was to remand these specific eight matters. The judgment did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the eight real estate company matters should be remanded to the Competition Commission of India for determination in accordance with the Delhi High Court's judgment and order dated January 29, 2024? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the matters should be remanded as per the prior judgment of the Court. They relied on the fact that the CCI had not challenged paragraph 129 of that judgment, indicating no objection to the remand. Respondent's contention: The Union of India, through its counsel, stated that they had no objection to the remand of these specific real estate company matters, given that the CCI had not challenged the relevant paragraph of the earlier judgment. The CCI/DGAP's counsel also appeared.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the provided text
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.