BR100 Increased By (0.01%)
BR30 Increased By (0.53%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.28%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.29%)
AGHA 6.35 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.47%)
BECO 4.39 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.81%)
BML 62.50 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.08%)
BOP 31.47 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.77%)
CNERGY 11.70 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.95%)
CSIL 5.92 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (3.5%)
FCCL 61.60 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.1%)
FFL 14.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.53%)
FNEL 1.23 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 6.33 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.12%)
KOSM 5.90 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (6.12%)
LOTCHEM 24.79 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.45%)
MLCF 103.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.14%)
NBP 173.05 Decreased By ▼ -2.23 (-1.27%)
NCPL 51.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.92 (-1.74%)
NPL 54.19 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (0.13%)
OGDC 315.50 Increased By ▲ 2.11 (0.67%)
PACE 9.26 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.65%)
PAEL 35.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-0.81%)
PIBTL 13.65 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (1.34%)
PPL 226.60 Increased By ▲ 4.79 (2.16%)
PRL 80.30 Increased By ▲ 1.22 (1.54%)
PTC 46.89 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.09%)
SSGC 23.90 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.13%)
TBL 9.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.11%)
TELE 7.65 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (3.52%)
TPL 24.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-2.39%)
TPLP 13.04 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (4.24%)
TREET 26.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-0.76%)
TRG 53.38 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.11%)

ISLAMABAD: In a recent development, the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by Eden Builders (Pvt) Ltd, upholding the decision of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) regarding misleading advertising claims about their housing project.

In 2018, the CCP imposed a penalty of PKR 2.5 million on Eden Builders for deceptive marketing campaigns related to their ‘Eden Life Islamabad’ project, violating Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010.

The CCP determined that Eden Builders’ claims were misleading. Specifically, their advertisement featured an illegible disclaimer about additional development charges not included in the quoted price, which was held misleading and tantamount to an omission of material price related information, thus violating Section 10 of the Competition Act.

The allusion in the advertisement of approval by CDA was also held to be a false and misleading claim, as there was no such approval.

Eden Builders filed an appeal against the CCP’s order before CAT. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld CCP’s order regarding Eden Builders’ violations of Section 10 of the Act.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.