Sections 2 (1) (2), 3 (3) (A), 30 and 37 The dominant position, the misuse of the Inquiry Committee, which was constituted, submitted its inquiry report, stating that the Company Much of the market is, and enjoyed. Economic strength in the 1300cc segment of the car market. Which enabled it to treat its competitors and consumers independently. Thus making him a dominant player in the relevant car market, the buyer of the company's products, under the circumstances, was in a weak bargaining order \ Temporary booking order that the company issued to its potential buyers, The sole right was to (i) change the price. (ii) design / specification; (iii) delivery schedule without notice to the buyer. (iv) the final right to interpret the terms of the agreement. And (iv) deciding a dispute between a buyer and company under such terms constitutes a significant imbalance in the discretion of the buyer's rights and obligations under the contract. There were injustice. After violating Section 3 (3) (a) of the Competition Act, 2010, the Company revised and amended the draft provisional booking order. And such a correction, putting the user on the floor of the equation, was initially a complete and absolute discretion for the company to accept or reject the cancellation request by the employer. And the Company had the right to alter some or all of the terms and conditions of the \ Temporary Booking Order of, and also to have the right to translate, the clause in the Agreement to the Buyer accepting the increased cost, or lower benefits. Can be used to force, that kind of clause was unfair
Related judgments — Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 2015
