https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460068 An increase in the estimated cost of an allotted house was held not to constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, because the complaint related to immovable property and the communication was only an estimate later revised. The alleged conduct did not amount to a false representation about the standard, quality or grade of any service, and the transaction was not supply of services in the statutory sense. The complaint therefore fell outside Section 36A, and the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:28:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460068 An increase in the estimated cost of an allotted house was held not to constitute an unfair trade practice under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, because the complaint related to immovable property and the communication was only an estimate later revised. The alleged conduct did not amount to a false representation about the standard, quality or grade of any service, and the transaction was not supply of services in the statutory sense. The complaint therefore fell outside Section 36A, and the Commission lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460068