Judgment

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—This appeal by special leave is preferred against the order dated 4.9.2000 in U.T.P.E. No. 206 of 1998 passed by the MRTP Commission by which the interim relief sought for by the appellants was rejected with certain observations.

2. In the application/complaint filed under Section 36A of the Monopolies and ­Restrictive Trade Practices Act (for short ‘Act’), the main relief sought for was to restrain the respondent from cancelling the allotment of the apartments in D.L.F. Beverly Park, Gurgaon for non payment of the extra amount demanded from the appellants by the letter dated 2.6.1997 etc. The immediate provocation for filing the complaint seems to be the letter issued by the respondent-Company on 18.9.1998 calling upon the appellants to pay the escalated charges by 10th October, 1998 failing which, the respondent threatened to cancel the allotment without further notice. One of the other reliefs sought for was to direct the respondent to handover possession of the apartment forthwith. The last prayer was to inquire into the unfair trade practices adopted by the respondent and to direct the respondent to desist from such action in future.

3. Initially the appellants filed a miscellaneous application under Section 12A of the Act seeking stay of demand of extra charges and to restrain the respondent from cancelling the allotment of the apartments for non-payment of the extra amount demanded. This application was rejected on 23.4.1999. The Commission observed that the propriety or otherwise of demanding extra charges will have to be decided in the main enquiry and that there was no prima facie ground to grant interim relief, especially, having regard to the fact that the applicants were protected against cancellation of allotment by virtue of the undertaking given by the respondent in this behalf.

4. Another miscellaneous application was filed sometime later purportedly under Section 12A of the Act to handover the possession of the flat. It was contended therein that in spite of depositing an extra amount over and above the instalment payable as per the agreement, the respondent had refused to handover the possession. This application having been rejected by the impugned order, the SLP was filed. Though Section 55 of the Act provides for an appeal to this Court against an order made by the Commission under Section 12A on one of the grounds specified in Section 100 CPC, the appellants, for reasons undisclosed, have chosen to by-pass that remedy and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

5. The Commission observed that the case was ripe for final disposal and no immediate irreparable loss will be caused if the interim relief prayed for was not granted, especially having regard to the fact that the interests of the applicants was sufficiently protected by the earlier order by placing a restraint on the cancellation of allotment. The Tribunal referred to the interim order of this Court in certain other matters concerning some other parties who filed similar complaints before the Commission. That order was passed in C.A.No. 6502-6520 of 1998. In that case, while issuing notice, interim order was passed by this Court that the possession shall be handed over pursuant to the clarificatory order passed by the Commission on payment of 75 of the extra charges demanded and the remaining 25 to be deposited with the Registry of the Court. Subsequently, the said appeals were disposed of by passing an order based on the consent of the parties that the respondent herein (appellant in C.A.No. 6502-6520 of 1998) could withdraw the amounts deposited without prejudice to the respective contentions urged before the Commission. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.9.2000 discloses that the appellants were not prepared to conform to the conditions imposed in the interim order of this Court in the civil appeals referred to supra on the ground that the said case was distinguishable.