The complaint filed collectively by 22 individuals had alleged that the company was misleading the public by collecting money from them by issuing policy/bonds with a promise to pay them the amount on maturity with agreed returns or to allot them plots of land.
However, the firm failed to pay the money along with assured returns to the informants on maturity of their bond/ policy.
The watchdog noted that as per the allegations, the company cheated and defrauded the informants.
The Commission concluded that "no case of contravention of any of the provisions of either Section 3 or 4 of the Act is made out against any of the company in the instant matter".
While Section 3 of the Competition Act pertains to anti- competitive practices, Section 4 relates to abuse of dominant position.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
