“Any imposition, or the act after 20th May, 2009 could be validly inquired into by the CCI, as the language of section 4 of the Act is not retrospective, but prospective. Therefore, any tainted imposition after that date could be a subject matter of the inquiry, but it cannot be said that the entering into the agreement in the year 2006-07, as the case may be was an imposition after the Act. The continuation of the agreement after 20th May, 2009 by itself would not attract the mischief of the Competition Act, unless there was some act in pursuance of those clauses, which were not contemplated in the agreement and would, therefore, amount to an imposition of condition”. It was also held that, “…the buyers/ allottees complained of imposition of unfair and discriminatory conditions by the action of the Appellant (DLF) against themselves and this imposition was stated to be after 20th May, 2009. If that is so, then the CCI certainly has the duty and jurisdiction to take into account such impositions. Therefore, even if we do not find any justification on the part of CCI to look into and consider the ABAs, which were dated way back in 2006/2007, we do feel that the complaints about the breach of section 4 of the Act could be and were rightly entertained by the CCI, particularly of those impositions, which were post 20th May, 2009”. (emphasis supplied)
