Eduacation Alert – February 2013

Eduacation Alert – February 2013

1. High Court Cases

1. Shariq Rehman v. Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard University) & Ors., decided on February     08,  2013 by the Delhi High Court.

Facts:

The appellant had applied to the MBBS programme of the respondent university and appeared for the entrance test. His name appeared in the fifth selection list under the management quota. After the counseling, the appellant deposited the requisite fees. However, he was not allowed by the respondent to attend classes, alleging that he was not eligible for admission on the day he had filled up the application form. The respondent alleged that the appellant had not cleared the chemistry paper at the time of filling up of the application form nor after the re-evaluation of the same. Accordingly the appellant had not obtained a minimum of 50% marks in aggregate that was required for admission to the MBBS course. The single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant. During the pendency of the petition, a few successful candidates in the management quota were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition and the High Court directed such writ petitions to be listed along with the main writ petition for hearing.

Ruling and Order:

The division bench of the High Court noted Regulation 4 (3) of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (“MCI Regulations”) which state that in the matter of admission and selection to medical courses, the admission in MBBS courses cannot, in any case, be made after 30th September of the year in which the academic session commences. The Court held that it was not open for the courts to direct admission after the expiry of the aforesaid deadline. The court was also of the opinion that if the direction for admission of the appellant were given then it would be impossible for him to fulfill the condition of 75% compulsory attendance as mandated by the MCI Regulations. Without taking a view on the decision of the single judge, the Court dismissed the appeal by taking into account the aforementioned observations.

The Court, in this case, made a reference to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Purohit and Ors. v. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors.[1]. The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case did not cancel the admission of students who fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down in Regulation 4, even though the said admissions were not in line with the method of selection prescribed under Regulation % of the MCI Regulations.

[1] (2012) 10 SCC 770.

2. Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., decided     on February 19, 2013 by the Delhi High Court.

Facts:

The petitioner, in this case, questioned the guidelines dated November 23, 2010 framed by the Government of India through Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education and Literacy and the order dated December 15, 2010 passed by the Director, Department of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. These guidelines gave power to unaided schools not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet their expenses from the appropriate Government or the local authority, to formulate their own criteria for admission of children for 75% of seats that were not allocated to the economically weaker section (“EWS”) category students under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (“RTE Act”).

The petitioners contended that since Section 13(2) of RTE Act prohibits subjecting a child to screening procedure, all the admissions even to pre-elementary (pre-primary and pre-school) classes are required to be made only by a random method and no categorisation of the children in terms of the objectives of the school or criteria such as sibling, transfer case, single parent and alumni is permissible, even to the unaided private schools.

The issues that came up for consideration in the case were:

     Whether RTE Act is applicable to pre-school including nursery schools and for education of children below six years of age?

      Whether RTE Act applies to admission of children in respect of 75% of the seats apart from 25% of the seats for children covered under the definition given in Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the RTE Act?

Ruling and Order:

The Court relied on the definition of “child”, “elementary education” and school under the RTE Act. On the basis of the aforementioned definitions, the Court held that the RTE Act is applicable only to elementary education from Class I to VIII and to the children of the age of six years to fourteen years. Therefore the Court held that the RTE Act is not applicable to only pre-primary education.

The Court also held that any guidelines issued under the RTE Act shall not be applicable to 75% of the admission made to pre-elementary (pre-primary and pre-school) classes by private unaided schools.

However, the Delhi High Court recommended to the union government to consider necessary amendments to the RTE Act to make it applicable to nursery classes as well.

          

2. Consumer Cases

1.  Akash Aggarwal (minor) through his father Shyam  Sunder Aggarwal v. Bal Mandir Sr. Sec. School & Ors., decided on February 04, 2013 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi.

                       

            Facts:

        The appellant/complainant complained that his son was admitted to the school of the respondent/ opposite party (“OP”) in 2005. In 2009, when the complainant’s son was in class XII, he remained ill from time to time. At the time of distribution of the admit cards, the complainant’s son along with some other students were denied admit cards by the principal stating that the Central Board of Secondary Education (“CBSE”) did not send the admit cards for want of minimum attendance on the art of the students. The complainant then instituted a suit at the district court to which CBSE was made a party. In the district court, CBSE stated that no admit cards were withheld and the same were sent to OP 20 days before. On the order of the Court, the Vice-Principal of the OP delivered the admit card. The complainant alleged that due to the sheer negligence of the OP in not issuing the admit card, mental agony and harassment was suffered by his son and on account of this he had secured lesser marks than expected. The OP contended that no medical certificates were provided except for one which stated that the complainant’s son was suffering from dengue. It was further contended that in the civil suit filed by the complainant, CBSE had condoned the shortage of attendance and hence the complainant was not entitled to any relief. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (“District Forum”) had dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.

            Ruling and Order:

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”) held that despite the advance submission of the medical certificate to the school, it had not taken any step to send the papers and to obtain the condonation for shortage of attendance. It was the prime duty of the school to forward all medical certificates to CBSE for obtaining condonation for shortage in the attendance. The State Commission further observed that the CBSE had already sent the admit cards to the schools and the same were deliberately not distributed to the students. The State Commission set aside the decision of the District Commission and directed the OP to pay Rs 75,000 for as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering, inclusive of all the litigation charges, within 30 days from the date of the judgement. The State Commission further directed that a copy of the judgment to be sent to Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to initiate proceedings for cancellation of recognition/affiliation of the OP and also to inform the State Commission.

2.   M. P. Bhoj ( Open) University v. S. Narendra, S/o S. Vishnu & Ors., decided on  February 06, 2013 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh.

                       

            Facts:

The respondent/complainant took admission in the appellant/Opposite Party number 1 (“OP1”) open university in the M.Sc (Physics) course. The complainant had paid the requisite fees to OP1 through a study centre (OP2). OP1 issued a hall ticket through OP2 and the complainant sat for the annual examination. When the results were announced by OP1, the marks memo sent to the complainant showed M.Sc (Maths) instead of M.Sc (Physics) as the subject. Even the hall ticket number was wrong. This discrepancy was brought to the notice of OP1 and OP2, but it was not solved. OP1 then demanded second year fee and that the same was paid and the complainant then appeared in M.Sc ( Physics) final examination but the result of the final year were withheld on account of the discrepancy of the course appeared in first and second year examination. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (“District Forum”) partly allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite parties to pay, jointly and severally, Rs.25,000 towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant together with costs of Rs.2,000. OP1 appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”) for quashing the order of the District Forum. It contended that there are series of judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Supreme Court of India that a “university” does not render service for consideration in conducting examination, evaluating papers and declaring results. Hence, an order for deficiency in service could not be maintained.

            Ruling and Order:

The State Commission referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha wherein it was held that function of an education board is not that of a service provider and therefore a complaint for deficiency in service would not be maintainable. In view of the aforementioned decision, the State Commission held that the complainant was neither the consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act nor did opposite parties render any service. The order of the District forum was set aside.

C.    REGULATIONS

1.      Delhi Directorate of Education directs schools to admit students under EWS category

The Delhi Directorate of Education (“DOE”) on February 26, 2013 issued a circular (No. F.15 (172)/DE/Act/2010/7099-7113) to schools that took land from the Delhi Development Authority on concessional rates. The schools were directed to admit 10% students for all grades in all fresh admissions, above the entry level, under the economically weaker section (“EWS”) category with immediate effect. It was further directed that an additional 5% of students, who are wards of the employee of the particular school, were to be admitted. The provisions of such 15% admission reservation, was also made applicable to minority schools that had been allotted land by government agencies.

D.    NEWS

1.      Supreme Court seeks opinion of the Centre on neighbourhood criteria for EWS seats

The Supreme Court, on February 26, 2013, sought the opinion of the Central Government on the distances within which schools are to admit EWS category students. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by Federation of Public Schools against a Delhi High Court order that had modified the government’s notification which mandated that the neighbourhood limit for EWS children would be the same as general category students. The High Court had held that schools should adopt four distances – 1km, 3km, 6km and beyond; and children should be admitted to the extent of 25 percent on the basis of priority as per the distance. 

***************************************** 

Disclamer

This newsletter is being provided to the recipient solely for the purpose of his/her/its information. It is meant to be merely an informative summary and should not be treated as a substitute for considered legal advice. This update covers significant legal developments in the field of higher and school education in India during the month of February, 2013, including judgments, laws and notifications issued by courts and the regulatory bodies, as applicable. If you wish to receive more information about any content of this newsletter, please feel free to contact:

Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors

A – 35, Sector – 2, NOIDA 201 301

T: +91 120 430 9050

E: mani.gupta@sarthaklaw.com

Real Estate - July - August 2013

Real Estate - July - August 2013

1. High Court Judgements

1.   Sajid Ullah v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad High Court, decided on July 12, 2013

Facts:

A public interest litigation was filed on May, 2013 seeking seeking removal of illegal encroachments on certain parcels of land shown as lake (jheel) in the revenue records. About 8 to 10 years earlier approximately 600 persons belonging to a particular community had constructed houses illegally over the land in question. The Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, attempted to get the land freed from encroachments in past and also filed criminal cases against six persons in Thana Sahibabad. However, no action was taken in the matter.

Order:

The Court ordered a high level probe into illegal construction of 600 houses on the said land. The court also asked principal secretary of the state revenue department to complete the probe within two months and to identify the guilty officials who did not take any action to clear the encroachment.

2.    Ram Pal Singh and other v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad High Court decided on June 07, 2013

Facts:

The case was filed against the action of NOIDA Development Authority in demolishing construction on a plot without notice or opportunity of hearing. The demolition had rendered the petitioners roofless. A writ of mandamus was prayed requiring the respondents to permit the petitioners to raise the construction as they were standing earlier.

Order:

The court, taking note of illegal demolition of the building by the NOIDA Development Authority directed the Uttar Pradesh government to hold an enquiry against the manner in which demolition of the construction happened. The court further directed that if the enquiry results into a conclusion that such demolition has taken place in contradiction to the statutory provisions, then the responsibility of such action should be pin pointed against the officials. The court also ordered that the amount of compensation payable will be realised from personal assets of the guilty officials.

2. Policies

1. Affordable Housing Policy, 2013

The Haryana Government has approved the Affordable Housing Policy, 2013 to make housing affordable in the urban centres of Haryana. The projects under the said policy will be allowed only in the residential zone of the notified Development Plans of various towns/ cities in the state of Haryana. According to the policy, the apartments will be low cost in order to ensure affordability for the lower-income strata. As per the said policy, the maximum allotment rate for the apartment units approved under such projects would be Rs. 4,000 per square feet of carpet area in the development plans of Gurgaon, Fairdabad, Panchkula and Pinjore-Kalka, Rs. 3,600 per square feet in the development plans of other high and medium potential towns and Rs 3,000 per square feet in the remaining low potential towns. Any person, which includes his/her spouse or his/her dependent children, who do not own any flat/plot in any HUDA developed colony/ sector or any licenced colony in any of the Urban Areas in Haryana, Chandigarh, NCT Delhi and the other NCR towns will be eligible to apply for an apartment approved under this policy. Only one application will be made by an applicant. Any successful applicant under this policy will not be eligible for allotment of any other flat under this policy elsewhere. An affidavit to this effect would be required to be submitted by all such applicants.

2. Property Tax Settlement Scheme 2013-14

The North Delhi Municipal Corporation has approved the Property Tax Settlement Scheme, 2013-14 (“Scheme”) to benefit the property owners/taxpayers/defaulters within its jurisdiction. The Scheme has commenced with effect from August 19, 2013 and will be valid till November 30, 2013.

The scheme would benefit to all the cases of non-payers and part-payers of tax under the Rateable Value Method (for the Financial Year 2003-04 and earlier), both ex-parte assessments and assessments on merit and nonpayers and part-payers of tax and non-filers and irregular filers of returns of Property Tax under the Unit Area Method (from the Financial Year 2004-05 and after but excluding current FY 2013-14). The Scheme will be available only to the extent of amount outstanding and to those who make complete payment of Property Tax under the Scheme within the stipulated time. The Scheme would provide full immunity from penalty imposed / imposable on full payment of property tax dues. Under the Scheme any assess/ taxpayer who might have applied under the earlier schemes will be required to file a fresh application to avail the benefits of the Scheme. The full or part waiver of interest will be on the full payment of dues under the Scheme within the time stipulated as under:

Amount of waiver of interest	Ex-Parte RV Assessment cases	RV Assessment on merit cases	UAM Cases
00% waiver  of interest	If paid within 15 days of the demand raised	If paid within 30 days of the  beginning of  Scheme	If paid within 30 days of the beginning of Scheme
75% waiver of interest	If paid after 15 but within 30 days of the demand raised	If paid after 30 days but within 60 days of the  beginning of Scheme	If paid after 30 but within 60 days of  the beginning of Scheme
50% waiver of interest	If paid after 30 but within 45 days of the demand raised	If dues paid after 60 but within 90 days of the beginning of Scheme	If paid after 60 but within 90 days of the beginning of Scheme
25% waiver of interest	If paid after 45 but within 60 days of the demand raised	If dues paid after 90 days of the beginning of Scheme but within period  the of Scheme	If paid after 90 days of the beginning of Scheme but within period  the of Scheme
No waiver of interest	If not paid within 60 days of the demand raised	If not paid within the period of the scheme	If not paid within the period of the Scheme

3. Circular

1.      Sale Through GPA

Government of NCT of Delhi vide its Circular dated July 22, 2013 clarified that a registered property owner (holding registered and valid deed of transfer like sale deed, gift deed, partition deed relinquishment deed etc.) is competent to execute a general/special power of attorney. Such power of attorney can be issued in favor of, owner’s relative or any person of his trust, to manage the property or to execute any further deed of transfer, for example conveyance, gift etc. on behalf of the registered owner.

The Circular further states that an immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred, only through a registered deed like gift, conveyance etc. Mere execution of general/special power of attorney or Will does not convey any title in the immoveable property. Therefore, execution of general/special power of attorney or Will is not a valid mode of transfer of immovable property. Further, as per the Circular, a lease can be validly transferred only through a registered assignment of lease.

The Circular has been issued pursuant to the Delhi High Court order dated April 30, 2013 in the case of Pace Developers and Promoters Private Limited v. Government of NCT; 199(2013)DLT347, setting aside Delhi Government’s Circular dated April 27, 2012 (“2012 Circular”). Giving reference to the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana; (2012) 1 SCC 656, Delhi Government vide its 2012 Circular, had issued directives to all the Registrars and Sub-Registrars not to register any conveyance, which is based on a general power of attorney.

Delhi High Court setting aside the 2012 Circular observed that the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp case did not hold that a conveyance cannot be registered by taking recourse to a general power of attorney. Rather, the Supreme Court opined that as long as the transaction is genuine, the power of attorney will have to be registered by the Sub-Registrar.

Further, the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp case made specific reference to the transaction, where a person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for development of a parcel of land or for construction of apartments in a building, and held that for this purpose a power of attorney empowering the developer to execute sale agreements, can be executed.

4. News

1.      DDA approves new land-pooling policy

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on July 26, 2013 approved its new ‘land pooling’ policy that promises to radically change the way land is acquired and developed in the Capital. The policy titled ‘policy on public-private-partnership in land assembly and development in Delhi’, will allow the entry of the private players in the sector. The policy will allow consolidation of the private land by its owners through pooling and surrendering it to the DDA. As per the policy, the DDA will take the land from these private players, develop it and then give a chunk of it back to them. Instead of compensation, they would get back 40-60 per cent of land after development of infrastructure by DDA, which they can keep for themselves or give to private developers. As per the policy, the developed land, which the owner will get back, will be required to be used as per the conditions laid down in the policy. The DDA approved the recommendation of the Board of Inquiry, which held hearings on June 22 and 23 suggesting that minimum land pooling size should in two categories, first with 20 hectares and above and, second between two and 20 hectares.

In the first category, 60 per cent of the pooled land would be used by DDA (53 per cent for residential purpose, five per cent for commercial and two per cent for public and semi-public use). For the second category, it would be 48 per cent (43 per cent for residential, three per cent for commercial and two per cent for public and semi-public use). The ground coverage has also been increased from 33 per cent to 40 per cent.

2. Noida property circle rates hiked up to 25%

The circle rates in Noida have been increased by 10 to 25 per cent with effect from August 1, 2013. Agriculture land rates too have been hiked by 5-8 per cent. On August 1, 2013 the AIG stamps and officiating Deputy Inspector General, stamps, confirmed the hike to PTI.

3.    Amendments to Registration Act to help land owners

A proposal to modify India’s land registration law to make way for clear titles and help the government to fairly compensate owners, if their land was acquired for industrialization was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on August 8, 2013. The amendments to the Registration Act, 1908, mainly relate to ensuring transparency and digitization that will help establish clear land ownership. The Registration (Amendment) Bill, 2013, was cleared by the cabinet in June, 2013. The proposed amendments include registration of documents relating to the adoption of a daughter to ensure gender equity, opening of the miscellaneous register that contains details of all registered documents to public scrutiny and promotion of electronic registration of documents. Documents such as power of attorney, developers/promoters agreements and any other agreements relating to the sale or development of immovable property will need to be mandatorily registered, if the Bill is passed. This is being done with the intention of minimize cases of document forgery. Many of the changes proposed will also help in the award of compensation to land owners under the proposed Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill, 2012, which is pending before Parliament.

4.   Haryana government issues new guidelines in property transactions

Haryana government has issued new guidelines to make property transactions more transparent. It is now mandatory to attach photographs of buyers and sellers of property with sale deeds. The photographs will be taken by a camera, which automatically indicates the date on which the photo was taken. 

This decision has been taken to supplement measures taken by the government to check undervaluation of property. All divisional commissioners and deputy commissioners in the state have been directed to comply with the new instructions. 

5.    Government may relax FDI norms for real estate sector to boost fund flows

The government is considering sweeping changes in the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) norms for the real estate sector to boost fund flows to the cash-strapped sector as well as to bolster the battered Indian currency. The Urban Development Ministry has suggested that real estate firms with less than 50% foreign ownership be exempted from all current restrictions, including the minimum area norms for development of projects. Some of the proposed relaxations for such investments are reduction in the minimum land parcel size for plotted development to 5 acres (2 hectares) from 10 hectares now and permission to purchase farmland for FDI-funded firms. In case of construction-development projects, the present requirement of minimum built-up area of 50,000 square meters will come down to 25,000 square meters. The Urban Development Ministry's proposals have been sent to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. The suggestions/ recommendations made should apply to the present and future investments, the ministry has stressed in its proposal. Besides reducing the minimum areas for plotted and construction development, the urban development ministry has suggested that the non-resident investors in a real estate company be freely allowed to sell their shares to another non-resident investor. The proposal, if accepted, would ease the liquidity problem for foreign investors as there is ambiguity at present on transfer of foreign investment made in this sector by one non-resident investor to another non-resident. "Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999, which allows transfer of shares between non-residents without any conditions, should be extended to the construction development sector. This would ensure greater investor confidence," reasoned the ministry. There should not be any need for obtaining additional completion certificate for housing plots from any local body's service agency either by the FDI investor or by the recipient Indian company as a pre-requisite for selling such plots". The Indian company having FDI should be considered on a par with other Indian-held construction development companies as the development is being undertaking by the Indian company only," the proposal states.

6.   Electronic Stamping facility introduced in Gautam Budhh Nagar

To ensure transparency in payment of registration fee in property transactions, electronic stamping (e-stamping) facility was introduced in Gautam Buddh Nagar district. From July 15, 2013 e-stamps were made available to the residents from certain bank branches. The facility has been introduced to cover applications of the denomination of Rs 10,000 and above. Stock Holding Corporation of India has been appointed as the Central Record Keeping Agency for computerised stamp duty administration system. In order to pay the stamp duty, one has to visit a designated bank or sub-registrar office, where upon payment he will be given a receipt having a unique identification number. The said receipt then needs to be submitted at the office of Stock Holding Corporation of India at Sector-18, Noida, which will issue the E-stamping certificate.

**********************************************

Disclamer

This newsletter is being provided to the recipient solely for the purpose of his/her/its information. It is meant to be merely an informative summary and should not be treated as a substitute for considered legal advice. This update covers significant legal developments in the field of real estate in the states of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana for the months of July, 2013 and August, 2013. If you wish to receive more information about any item in this newsletter, please feel free to contact:

Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors

A – 35, Sector – 2, NOIDA 201 301

T: +91 120 430 9050

E: knowledge@sarthaklaw.com

Real Estate – September - 2013

1. Supreme Court's Judgements

1.      Threesiamma Jacob & Ors. v. Geologist, Department of Mining & Geology & Ors., decided on July 8, 2013.

Facts:

The petitioner’s husband had obtained jenmon assignment of 2 Acres of granite rocks situated in some village in Malabar. The petitioner’s husband obtained the property from the previous jenmy, C.P. Thampurankutty Menon. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband executed a registered gift deed. The property was enjoyed by the earlier jenmy and thereafter by the petitioner without any interference from the Government. Due to the ignorance of the legal position, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the Department of Mining and Geology to conduct quarrying operations in her property. Later, she realised that it was not necessary to pay any royalty to the Government with regard to the property belonging to her. In the above circumstances, she made a fresh application to the ddepartment for licence. But the respondents failed to provide necessary permits to the petitioner. When she received a notice from the Kerala Minerals Squad directing her to stop the quarrying activities, she gave a reply to reconsider her contention. Thereafter, she was informed by the Department to renew the lease. The claim of the appellants was based on the belief and assertion of the appellants that the holder of the jenmom rights is not only the proprietor of the soil for which she has jenmom rights, but also the owner of the mineral wealth lying beneath the soil.

Held:

The SC was of the opinion that there is nothing in the law which declares that all mineral wealth/sub-soil rights vest in the State, on the other hand, the ownership of sub-soil/mineral wealth should normally follow the ownership of the land, unless the owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid process. In the instant appeals, no such deprivation is brought to the notice of the SC and therefore the SC held that the appellants are the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in their lands. The SC further made it clear that they are not making any declaration regarding their liability to pay royalty to the State as that issue stands referred to a larger Bench. The SC was also of the view that Mines and Minerals Act is an enactment made by the Parliament to regulate the mining activities in this country. The said Act does not in any way purport to declare the proprietary rights of the State in the mineral wealth nor does it contain any provision divesting any owner of a mine of his proprietary rights.

2.      M/s. Rana Girders Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., decided on August 16, 2013.

Facts:

M/s. P.J. Steels Pvt. Ltd. (“Borrower”) had taken loans from the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (“UPFC”). Due to consistent default on the part of the Borrower in re-paying the loans, the UPFC took possession of the land and building of the Borrower which were mortgaged/ kept as security with the UPFC. After taking physical possession of the properties, the UPFC issued an advertisement in the newspapers for public auction of the said properties. The public notice also stipulated certain terms and conditions on which offer were invited. First condition thereof, which is relevant for our purpose, is reproduced below:

“All the statutory liabilities arising out of land shall be borne by purchaser (except electricity dues). Other terms and conditions of sale may be sent at the office.”

In the public auction conducted by UPFC, the appellant (which was earlier known as Sarju Steels Private Limited) was the successful bidder. The sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant qua the land and building. In the sale deed, it was specifically mentioned that the property is free from all encumbrances by stating that “the vendor herein confirms that the property purchased through the sale deed in favour of vendee is free from all charges and encumbrances.......” Another condition in the sale deed, which was also mentioned in the public notice was: “All the statutory liabilities arising out of said properties shall be borne by the vendee and vendor shall not be held responsible.”

Likewise, an agreement was also executed in favour of the appellant conveying the ownership of the plant and machinery. The Borrower had not questioned the validity of the said auction which has attained finality. The Borrower was also required to discharge the liability qua excise duty which had amounted to Rs.1,00,72,442/-. To recover that amount, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut-I (respondent No.2) was pressing the appellant to discharge this liability as purchaser and successor-in-interest of the land and building plus plant and machinery of the borrower. The appellant resisted the demand with the posture that since the aforesaid properties have been purchased by the appellant in an open auction from the UPFC, free from all encumbrances, it is not the liability of the purchaser to make payment of the dues of excise department.

Held:

Setting aside the impugned order of the High Court (“HC”), and concluding that the judgment of the HC is unsustainable in law, the SC quashed the notice of the excise department. The SC held that in so far as legal position was concerned, the UPFC being a secured creditor had priority over the excise dues. The SC further held that since the appellant had not purchased the entire unit as a business, as per the statutory framework he was not liable for discharging the dues of the Excise Department. The SC, while interpreting the clause of the sale deed for land and building and similar clause in Agreement of sale for machinery on the basis of which appellant is held to be liable to pay the dues, noticed that in the first instance it was mentioned not only in the public notice but there is a specific clause inserted in the Sale Deed/Agreement as well, to the effect that the properties in question are being sold free from all encumbrances. At the same time, there was also a stipulation that “all these statutory liabilities arising out of the land shall be borne by purchaser in the sale deed” and “all these statutory liabilities arising out of the said properties shall be borne by the vendee and vendor shall not be held responsible in the Agreement of Sale.”  

The SC further held that excise dues are not the statutory liabilities which arise out of the land and building or the plant and machinery. Statutory liabilities arising out of the land and building could be in the form of the property tax or other types of cess relating to property etc. Likewise, statutory liability arising out of the plant and machinery could be the sales tax etc. payable on the said machinery. As far as dues of the Central Excise were concerned, they were not related to the said plant and machinery or the land and building and thus did not arise out of those properties. The dues of the Excise Department became payable on the manufacturing of excisable items by the erstwhile owner, therefore, the statutory dues were in respect of those items produced and not the plant and machinery which was used for the purposes of manufacture.

2. Policy

1.      Land Policy in Delhi

The central government had modified the Master Plan for Delhi- 2021 and has introduced the land policy (“Policy”). The new Policy is based on the concept of land pooling wherein the land parcels owned by individuals or group of owners are legally consolidated by transfer of ownership rights to the designated land pooling agency, which later transfers the ownership of the part of land back to the land owners for undertaking of development for such areas. The policy is applicable in the proposed urbanisable areas of the urban extensions for which Zonal Development Plans (“ZPD”) have been approved.

Under the Policy, the government/ Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) will act as a facilitator with minimum intervention to facilitate and speed up the integrated planned development. Under the Policy a land owner, or a group of land owners (who have grouped together of their own volition/will for this purpose) or a developer entity (“DE”) will be permitted to pool land for unified planning, servicing and subdivision / share of the land for development as per prescribed norms and guidelines. Each landowner will get an equitable return irrespective of the land uses assigned to their land in the ZDP with minimum displacement.

The declarations of areas under land pooling and preparation of layout plans and sector plans will be based on the availability of physical infrastructure. The return of the prescribed built up space / Dwelling Units for the economic weaker sections (“EWS”) would be as per the DDA policy.

Under the Policy, 50% of the EWS housing stock shall be retained by DE and disposed only to the apartment owners, at market rates, to house community service personnel working for the residents / owners of the group housing. These will be developed by DE at the respective group housing site / premises or contiguous site. Remaining 50% of EWS housing stock developed by DE will be sold to DDA for EWS housing purpose at a base cost of Rs. 2000/- per sq. ft.

The DE will be allowed to undertake actual transfer/ transaction of saleable component under its share/ ownership to the prospective buyers only after the prescribed land and EWS housing component is handed over to the DDA.

3. News

1.    Land Acquisition Bill becomes law after President's assent

The President gave his assent to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, replacing a British-era law of 1894. The new law provides for fair compensation to owners whose land is taken over, and brings transparency to the process and also lays down measures for rehabilitation of those displaced.

2.      In a first, unauthorised colony land acquired for hospital by Delhi govt

The Delhi government has approved the acquisition of 2.5 acres of land, located in an unauthorised colony in West Delhi’s Uttam Nagar, for a hospital. This is the first time the government has acquired land in an unauthorised colony, setting the stage for similar projects in such colonies across Delhi. The government had completed all the formalities to buy the plot of land for the construction of a 200-bed hospital.

3.      Property fraud cases to now get solved easily

The cases relating to forgery of registration of land and property in Gautam Budh Nagar can be resolved at the department of stamps and registration in Noida. Earlier, complainants had to move various courts to adjudicate these matters, which often stretched for several years owing to pendency of cases. The department has now been empowered to handle these cases through a recent UP government order. According to the guidelines contained in the order, the stamps department would be fully empowered to declare a registration as ‘null and void’ if it is found to be incorrect in records available with it. The order gives the department the right to declare a registration as ‘null and void’ after two notices within a couple of months if respondents fail to turn up. The department has also been empowered to register FIR’s with the police in accordance with the order, if required in the case.

4.      DDA to offer service apartments on minimum 2,000 sq mt plot

To meet short- and long-term housing requirements in the city, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) gave final clearance for small dwelling units (service apartments) under the Master Plan-2021 review process. The DDA has decided to offer service apartments which will be introduced on a minimum plot size of 2,000 sq mt. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) has been enhanced to 225 from 150. The minimum size of the service apartments has been fixed as 40 sq mt and it will be allowed on roads having width of 12 meters. The DDA has also approved enhancement of permanent sample plots (PSP) FAR from existing 150 to 225 for educational facilities such as vocational training centre, management institute, teacher training centre, research and development institute or professional college. For large university campus, the FAR has been enhanced from 122 to 225. The proposal will be sent to Ministry of Urban Development for final approval.

5.      HUDA’s drive against greenbelt encroachers

The Haryana Urban Development Authority is planning to start a month-long drive against violators encroaching greenbelts in the residential and commercial areas in the city. The civic agency has registered FIR’s against greenbelt encroachers in different sectors. In order to rein in violators HUDA is also planning to rope in corporate houses to adopt greenbelts.

6.    Failed Haryana SEZs set to become lucrative realty projects, Ansal Properties, Parsvnath in list

Real estate giants and multinational firms which bought hundreds of acres of land in Haryana to set up Special Economic Zones (SEZs) but could not do so, have been given another chance to put it to use. The state government has decided to denotify such SEZs and allow the blocked land to be used for other purposes. As a result, nearly two dozen projects, many of them in the lucrative real estate markets of Gurgaon and Faridabad are expected to be converted into residential and commercial properties. Haryana had over the years notified 35 SEZs, of which only six have so far been set up. Although most of the 35 SEZs were notified to focus on information technology and IT-enabled services, many of them were promoted by real estate giants who will now benefit from a change in land use.

********************************************** 

DISCLAMER

This newsletter is being provided to the recipient solely for the purpose of his/her/its information. It is meant to be merely an informative summary and should not be treated as a substitute for considered legal advice. This update covers significant legal developments in the field of real estate in the states of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana for the month of September, 2013. If you wish to receive more information about any item in this newsletter, please feel free to contact:

Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors

A – 35, Sector – 2, NOIDA 201 301

T: +91 120 430 9050

E: knowledge@sarthaklaw.com

 

Competition Law Alert – September 2013

Competition Law Alert

ORDERS By COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

A.            Anti-Competitive Agreements

Synopsis of the legal provisions

Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 (“Act”) prohibits an enterprise or association of enterprises or persons to enter into agreements in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services, which causes or is likely to cause appreciable adverse                       effect on competition in India.

Following kinds of agreements between enterprises, persons or association of persons or enterprises, or practices or decisions taken by association of persons or enterprises, including cartels, engaged in similar or identical trade of goods or provision of services is presumed to have appreciable adverse effect on competition:

a)      Agreements or decisions that directly or indirectly determine purchase or sale price.

b)      Agreements that limit or control production, supply, market, technical development, investment or provision of services.

c)      Agreements to share market or source of production or provision of services by way of allocation of geographical area of market or type of goods or services, or number of customers in the market or any other similar way.

d)      Agreements that, directly or indirectly, result in bid-rigging or collusive bidding.

However, agreements entered into by way of joint ventures are excluded from above restriction if such agreements increase the efficiency in production, supply, distribution, acquisition, or control of goods or provision of services.

Under the Act, ‘cartel includes an association of producers, sellers, distributors, traders, or service providers who, by agreement amongst themselves, limit control or attempt to control the production, distribution, sale or price of, or trade in goods, or provision of services’.

Further, under section 19(3) of the Act, following factors are to be considered by Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) in determining whether an agreement has appreciable adverse effect on competition:

a)      Creation of barriers to new entrants in the market.

b)      Driving existing competitors out of the market.

c)      Foreclosure of competition by hindering entry into the market.

d)      Accrual of benefits to consumers.

e)      Improvement in production or distribution of goods or provision of services.

f)       Promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services.

B.            Abuse of Dominant Position

Synopsis of legal provisions

Section 4 of the Act prohibits any enterprise or group to abuse its dominant position. ‘Dominant position’ has been defined to mean ‘a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market, in India, which enables it to –

(i)        operate independently of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market; or

(ii)      affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favor’.

In light of the above provisions, we produce the summary of CCI’s orders passed in the month of September, 2013:

1.             Casa Paradiso Owners’ Welfare Association v. M/s Sanathnagar Enterprises Limited, decided on September 2, 2013

The case was filed by Casa Paradiso Owners’ Welfare Association (“Owners’ Association”) against M/s Santhnagar Enterprises Limited (“Defendant Developer”) alleging abuse of dominance.

Owners’ Association inter alia alleged that the Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) executed between an individual buyer and Defendant Developers contains unilateral terms, which highly favours Defendant Developer.  It was also alleged that the Agreement was inconsistent with the oral assurances of the Defendant Developers. Further, Owners’ Association stated that there was a huge difference between the penalties applicable for purchaser and Defendant Association, in case of respective default.  

Based on the information given in the red herring prospectus of parent company of the Defendant Developer, Owners’ Association stated, that Defendant Developer is dominant player in the market of “provision of services towards development of residential apartments in Hyderabad”.  As per the red hearing prospectus, the parent company of Defendant Developer has 38 projects in Mumbai and 1 project each in Hyderabad, Pune and Lonavala etc. Further, the red herring prospectus and news paper reports also state that the parent company of the Defendant Developer is a major real estate developer in Mumbai. 

CCI stated that the relevant market for the case is “provision of services towards development of residential apartments in Hyderabad”. Based on the information of the projects of the parent company, CCI noted that Defendant Developer has a miniscule presence in the relevant market, as it has only one project in the relevant geographic market i.e. Hyderabad. CCI held that the claims of an enterprise in its red herring prospectus cannot be a decisive evidence of dominance per se. Further, the presence other players in the relevant market indicates that Defendant Developer is not a dominant player in the market.

Based on the above observations and analysis, CCI held that Defendant Developer is not a dominant player in the market and hence no prima facie case of abuse of dominance could be established against it. Therefore, CCI ordered for closure of the case.

2.             In Re: Om Prakash, and Central Bureau of Narcotics and Narcotics Control Bureau, September 16, 2013

The case was filed by Mr. Om Prakash (“Informant”) against Central Bureau of Narcotics (“CBN”) and Narcotics Control Bureau (“NCB”) alleging abuse of dominance.

Informant stated that CBN and NCB have not properly implemented the EXIM Policy 2009-2014 (“EXIM Policy”), which requires every importer to register its import contract of Opium. Informant alleged that CBN is the sole body which regulates import and export of poppy seeds in India and that it is not following the mandatory requirement of registration of opium import contract. Informant further alleged that CBN has permitted import of a huge amount of illegal poppy seeds. 

Aggrieved with the above conduct of CBN, Informant has approached the CCI.

CCI noted that prior to year 2000, import of poppy seeds into India was not permitted. Later, the prohibition was revoked and import of 500 metric tonnes was allowed. Subsequently, the Exim Policy removed the ceiling allowing unlimited import of poppy seeds into India. However, importers are required to register their import contract with CBN. 

On the basis of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Policy (the ‘NDPS Policy’), which was framed for import of poppy seeds by way of import contract, CCI observed that import contracts require prior registration, as well as, a certificate of lawful production of poppy. Further, CCI observed that demand of poppy seeds is more than total production of poppy seeds in India, and it was also noted that NDPS Policy specifically provides that poppy seeds will be imported, until India acquires self sufficiency. 

CCI stated that for establishing case against CBN and NCB, it is necessary to know whether both entities can be covered under the definition of enterprises or group as provided in the Act. On the basis of the analysis of the CBN and NCB and their respective functions, CCI observed that CBN and NCB are government agencies only regulating and controlling the import of poppy seeds in India. CCI further observed that CBN and NCB do not perform any commercial activity, hence they cannot be considered as enterprises under section 2 (h) of the Act.

CCI noted that import of poppy seeds is governed by Exim Policy of Ministry of Commerce, whereas NCB and CBN are agencies of Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance respectively. Based on the above analysis and observations, CCI held that no prima facie case could be established against CBN and NCB. Therefore, CCI ordered for closure of the case. 

3.             All Odisha Steel Federation v. Odisha Mining Corporation Limited, decided on September 19, 2013

The case was filed by All Odisha Steel Federation (“Steel Federation”) against Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (“OMC”) alleging abuse of dominance.

Steel Federation is an association of steel manufacturers and related industries whereas, OMC is a PSU engaged in the in the activities of raising, assembling and transportation of ore and other minerals in the state of Odisha.

Steel Federation stated that chrome ore is used in the metallurgical industries, such as steel industry, and Odisha is the only state in India, where such ore is available. Steel Federation further stated that OMC is the sole body, which has control over the extraction of ore from all non-captive mines.   

Steel Federation mentioned that its members are registered with OMC and therefore they get a regular quota of chrome ore based on their manufacturing capacity. However, the unregistered manufacturer has to take part in Price Setting Tenders (“PST”) for getting supply of chrome ore. 

Steel Federation alleged that earlier the price of chrome ore was decided on the basis of sale price of IFCAL (state owned entity) or purchase price of chrome ore by Steel Authority of India Limited. However, after 2007 the prices are fixed on the basis of the highest bid in PST.

Steel Federation alleged that under PST method, a very small quantity of chrome ore is tendered for sale and therefore companies, which cover less than 2% of the total quantum of sale by OMC quote abnormally higher price. Subsequently, the highest bid price becomes the benchmark price for member of Steel Federation and other industries, which cover 70% of the quantum of sale by OMC.

Steel Federation further alleged that if the highest price of a particular PST bid is lower than the price of preceding PST bid, then the highest price of preceding PST bid becomes the benchmark price.

Steel Federation contended that in year 2012, OMC issued notice for an e-auction and the base price for the same was substantially higher and had no correlation with cost of production. It was also contended that OMC has restricted the supply of the ore by not making all mines operational. 

Aggrieved with the conduct of OMC, Steel Federation approached CCI. Subsequently, CCI ordered for DG investigation.

Based on the findings from DG’s report, CCI pronounced its order.

Relevant Market

As per the DG report, CCI observed that the chrome ore can be categorized into three classes and metallurgical industries use a particular class of chrome ore i.e. friable chrome. CCI also observed that friable chrome cannot be substituted with other classes of chrome ores, as chrome ores of different size require different furnaces.

CCI noted that 99.5% of the friable chrome is available in Odisha. Therefore, even consumers located outside Odisha are also dependent on Odisha for supply of chrome. Therefore, CCI ascertained the relevant market as the market of friable chrome ore in the state of Odisha.

Dominance

Based on the DG report, CCI noted that OMC is the only source for friable chrome in domestic market. Tata Steel Limited (which used to supply substantial amount of ore) has also stopped sale of chrome ore since 2007. CCI noted that in the year 2010-11, OMC covered 85.81% of the total sale of chrome ore in the domestic market.   

CCI observed that government has leased 11 mines to OMC. As per the government policy, new entry is hardly possible. Therefore, the consumers have no countervailing power. Based on the above findings, CCI stated that OMC is a dominant player in the relevant market.

Abuse of Dominance

Based upon the allegations of Steel Federation, CCI stated that abuse of dominance needs to be considered on three levels i.e. excessive prices at PST, price of e-auction and restriction on supply of ore. 

PST Prices 

CCI observed that there are certain clauses in PST document, which protects the commercial interest of OMC. Accordingly, if OMC believes that the highest quoted price under PST is not the true indicator of prevailing market price, then in such cases OMC can invoke such clause and fix the price. Therefore fixing of price by OMC, instead of going with highest bid price is not unfair.

 Price of e-auction

Based on the DG report, CCI noted that in cases where OMC believes that the quoted price are not the prevailing price of market, it chooses other mechanism for pricing for providing chrome at lower prices. Accordingly, OMC opted for e-auction in year 2012 instead of PST. CCI further noted that the prices of e-auction were not unreasonable and were based on the international standards.

CCI also pointed out that if OMC was selling chrome at excessive prices than Tata Steel would not have left the market. CCI also mentioned that chrome is a mineral and has limited supply for a limited period of time therefore, unlike other consumer products, its correct price could not be ascertained. Hence, CCI stated that price charged under e-auction were not excessive and unfair as per section 4 of the Act.

Restriction of supply

Steel Federation lastly alleged that OMC has restricted the supply of chrome by not making all mines operational. However, CCI referred to DG Report, where it was noted that all mines could not get operational on account of pending statutory clearances, such as clearance from the National Board of Wildlife and consent of the Ministry of Environment and Forest.       

Therefore, on the basis of above findings, observations and analysis, CCI held that OMC is a dominant player in the relevant market, however the alleged conduct of OMC is not abusive in terms of the provisions of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and 4(2)(a)(ii) of the Act.

                

C.            Combination Registrations

1.             Combination Registration No. C-2013/09/130, decided on September 19, 2013

The notice for the combination was filed by HT Global IT Solutions Holdings Limited (“Acquirer”), a company belonging to the Baring Private Equity Asia Group. 

As per the proposed combination, the Acquirer will acquire 41.48 per cent of equity share capital of Hexaware Technologies Limited (“Hexaware”). Acquirer will further acquire 26 per cent of the equity share capital of Hexaware by way of open offers pursuant to the provisions of SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations 2011.

The proposed combination was filed in furtherance of two separate share purchase agreements. First agreement was executed between Acquirer, Elder Infosystems Private Limited and Elder Venture LLP and the second between the Acquirer and GA Global Investments Limited.

Hexaware is a public listed company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of providing information technology (“IT”) and Business Processing Outsourcing (“BPO”) services.

Acquirer is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and is a part of the Baring Private Equity Asia Group.  It was stated that neither Acquirer nor any company/private equity fund of Baring Private Equity is engaged in the business of providing IT and ITES services in India.

CCI noted that the present combination does not contemplate combination of two existing companies engaged in the IT and ITES services in India. Therefore, CCI approved the combination.

2.             Combination Registration No. C-2013/08/129, decided on September 10, 2013

The notice for combination was filed by Ratnakar Bank Limited (“Ratnakar Bank” or “Acquirer”). As per the proposed combination, the Acquirer will acquire credit card business, mortgage portfolio business and banking business of the Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (“RBS”). The combination was pursuant to Master Sale and Purchase Agreement entered between the Acquire and RBS      .

As per the information, Acquirer is a banking company registered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Acquirer is engaged in the business providing retail banking, treasury and financial services, corporate and institutional banking, agri-banking services etc.

RBS is a wholly owned subsidiary of RBS Holdings N.V., which is incorporated under the Dutch law. RBS is stated to be engaged inter alia in the business of providing retail and corporate banking, financial services, insurance and wealth management services, transaction banking, fixed income and foreign exchange products and services etc. 

Based on the RBI’s report on Trend and Progress of Banking in India 2011-12, CCI noted that Acquirer and RBS have small number of branches in India.

CCI noted that Acquirer has no presence in the business of credit cards. Further, post combination RBS would exit from credit card business, mortgage portfolio and business banking segment. CCI further observed that post combination, the presence of Acquirer in the mortgage and banking business would be insignificant.

Therefore, based on the above observations and analysis, CCI approved the combination.

D.            News

1.             CREDAI considers moving CCI on sudden cement price hikes

Confederation of Real Estate Developer's Associations of India (“CREDAI”), the apex body of real estate developers may move to CCI against cement manufacturers alleging cartelisation. Last month, the price of cement has increased from Rs 210 to Rs 275. CREDAI believes that the price hike could be a result of cartelisation. Chairperson of CREDAI stated that the rise of Rs. 50 per cement bag has increased the cost of construction by Rs. 20-25 per square feet.

In the year 2012, CCI had imposed a penalty of around Rs 6,200 crore on 11 leading cement companies for price cartelisation.

2.             CCI decision soon on probe into telecom players' cartelisation

Recently, CCI has started investigation against mobile operators for a possible cartelisation during the re auction of the cancelled spectrum. Mobile operators have informed that they did not participated in the bid as the floor price was higher and their revenue model could not support such higher price. CCI chairperson informed PTI that CCI will take into account TRAI's proposal to slash spectrum floor price.

CCI believes that the recent proposal of TRAI to slash spectrum price acknowledges that the base prices were in reality higher and because of higher base price mobile operators abandoned bid. Therefore, as per CCI chairperson, it is important to analyse the TRAI’s proposal to know the actual reason of non-bidding.

3.             Competition Commission probe against Google gets extension

CCI has given additional time to DG to complete probe against Google for alleged abuse of dominance in the market of Internet search engine. As per the allegations, Google was discriminating in the order in which search result comes. Therefore, DG office wants to investigate as to what is the software, which Google uses and what is the algorithmic search.

 

4.             CCI to probe market abuse charges against JP Associates

CCI has ordered DG to start investigation against Jaiprakash Associates (“JP”) for alleged abuse of dominant market position in sale of flat in its housing projects. The DG has been asked to submit the report within two months.

The order for investigation was given on the basis of a complaint filed by an individual buyer, who had booked a residential unit in one of JP’s project. 

The complainant alleged that even after two years from the date of booking, the possession has not been given to buyer and JP has been raising illegal and unreasonable demand for money. Further, it was also alleged that buyers are being threatened with cancellation of allotment in case they fail to pay demand on time.

5.             Competition Commission to probe abuse of dominance by ITPO

CCI has ordered DG to start investigation against India Trade Promotion Organisation (“ITPO”) in alleged case of abuse of dominance.

ITPO is the nodal agency of government to promote external trade and approve holding of international trade fairs at Pragati Maidan. ITPO also organises trade fairs and shows in India and abroad. The order for investigation was given on the basis of a complaint filed by Indian Exhibition Industry Association against ITPO and Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

It was alleged that ITPO has abused its dominant position by of imposing unreasonable conditions for approving trade fairs and shows in Pragati Maidan. ITPO has denied access to other exhibitors by altering guidelines and by delaying their confirmation. It is further alleged that ITPO makes it mandatory for exhibitors to take foyer area and engage its empanelled housekeeping agency.

    

***************************************************  

DISCLAIMER

This competition law alert has been prepared by Sarthak Advocates and Solicitors. It is meant to be merely an informative summary and should not be treated as a substitute for considered legal advice. We welcome your comments and suggestions. For any comments, suggestions or further clarifications, please contact us at: 

Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors
A-35, Sector - 2, Noida- 201 301,
Uttar Pradesh
Boardline: +91- 120-4309050
Fax: +91- 120-4249060
Email: knowledge@sarthaklaw.com