ORDER

1. THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION (FOR SHORT "THE COMMISSION") IN RTPES NOS. 135 AND 130 OF 1994 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 10(A)(I) READ WITH SECTION 37 OF THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1969 (FOR SHORT "THE ACT") ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION 12-A OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE COMMISSION WHILE DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DIRECTED THAT THE RESPONDENT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT DUE DURING THE PERIOD OF STAY GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION.

THE FACTS ARE TAKEN FROM CA NO. 4656 OF 1998

2. THE RESPONDENT PURCHASED BOOKLET NO. 65240 (BEING A PROPOSAL/INVITATION) ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FORM FOR REGISTRATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE UNDER THE MEDIUM INCOME GROUP B. THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE HOUSE WAS TO BE RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY. THE APPELLANTS ALLOTTED HOUSE NO. 17E/746 SITUATED IN CHOPASANI, JODHPUR, SINCE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE WAS TO BE FIXED ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT, AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF RUPEES THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND ALREADY PAID BY THE RESPONDENT, THE APPELLANTS VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 30-4-1993 DEMANDED A FINAL CONSIDERATION OF RUPEES 2,25,000 (RUPEES TWO LAKHS TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND ONLY). THIS PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS FAILING WHICH THE ALLOTMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. UNDER THE SCHEME, ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT/INSTALMENT, THE ALLOTTEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST WHICH WAS STATED TO BE 20%.

3. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE APPELLANTS, THE RESPONDENT FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 10(A)(I) READ WITH SECTION 37 OF THE ACT ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION 12-A OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSION VIDE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15-9-1993 RESTRAINED THE APPELLANTS FROM CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENT. THE COMMISSION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24-6-1998 WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FINDING THAT NO RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BY DEMANDING THE ENHANCED MONEY HAD BEEN INDULGED IN, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. HOWEVER, WHILE DOING SO, IT WAS OBSERVED:

"HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE PASSED INTERIM ORDERS IN THESE CASES ON 15-9-1993 THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESTRAINED FROM CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENTS OF THE HOUSES OF THE COMPLAINANTS OR FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE CANCELLATION ORDER, IF ALREADY PASSED, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL NOT ASK FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE COMPLAINANTS FROM 1-9-1993 TO 30-6-1998. IF THE COMPLAINANTS MAKE THE PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER DATED 30-4-1993 OF THE RESPONDENTS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL NOT CHARGE ANY PENAL INTEREST FROM THE COMPLAINANTS. THUS, THE COMPLAINANTS SHALL PAY THE BALANCE AMOUNT WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM 1-7-1998 AND THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF THE BALANCE PAYMENT WILL COMMENCE FROM 1-9-1998."

4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE RESTRAINT PUT ON THE APPELLANTS THAT THEY WOULD NOT ASK FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE COMPLAINANTS FROM 1-9-1993 TO 30-6-1998 I.E. THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE STAY GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION WAS IN OPERATION, HAVE COME UP IN THESE APPEALS.

5. THIS COURT IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS HAS REPEATEDLY EMPHASISED THAT IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL MAXIM "ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT" WHICH MEANS THAT AN ACT OF COURT SHALL PREJUDICE NO MAN, HAS HELD THAT THE CLAIMANTS/ALLOTTEES WHO HAVE OBTAINED STAY WILL NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING WAIVER OF CLAIM OF INTEREST OVER THE ARREARS WHICH REMAIN UNPAID BECAUSE OF THE STAY GRANTED BY THE COURT. IN GURSHARAN SINGH V. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE1 THIS COURT OBSERVED IN PARA 13 AS FOLLOWS: (SCC P. 466)

"13. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL MAXIM ACTUS CURIAE NEMINEM GRAVABIT WHICH MEANS THAT AN ACT OF COURT SHALL PREJUDICE NO MAN, NDMC IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A CLAIM FOR INTEREST OVER THE ARREARS WHICH HAVE REMAINED UNPAID FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS BECAUSE OF THE INTERIM ORDERS PASSED BY THIS COURT."

6. IN STATE OF M.P. V. M. V. VYAVSAYA & CO.2 THIS COURT IN PARAS 15 AND 19 OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: (SCC PP. 162