SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.
SAURABH PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. - Respondent
Civil Appeals No. 7960 of 2004 with Nos. 5179 of 2006 and 5180 of 20063
Decided on November 24, 2006
Advocates appeared
Anil B. Divan, O.O. Dua, Senior Advocates (Ambrish Agarwal, Nagesh, Sudhir Nandrajog, Ravinder Narain, Ms Sushma Sharma, Subrat Deb, Sanjeev Dahiya, Ms Nupur Singh, Rajan Narain, Vijay Kumar, Ms Madhuri Narang and Vishwajit Singh, Advocates) for the appearing parties;
Saurabh Prakash, Appellant in person.
Held: 9. The power of the Commission to award compensation, therefore, is restricted to a case where loss or damage had been caused as a result of monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice. It has no jurisdiction where damage is claimed for mere breach of contract. It was not a case where a notice of inquiry had been directed. If there had been no inquiry, the petitioner has to file a suit wherein the relevant particulars are required to be stated as to how loss or damage occurred owing to one or the other trade practices referred to therein. The power of the Commission is not in addition to the power of the civil court. An application under Section 12-B of the Act would not lie where a complaint is confined to a breach of contract. Purchases on the part of Respondent must necessarily relate to one or the other trade practices contemplated under subsection (1) of Section 12-B of the Act. (Para 9)
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Judgment
S.B. SINHA, J. - Leave granted in the SLPs.
2. E,xtent of jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short "the Commission") is the question involved in these appeals, although they arose under different fact situations.
3. We would notice the facts involved in both the appeals separately.
4. In civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 26795 of 2004, Sunil Gulati, the respondent herein entered into an agreement with Respondent 1 (DLF) b for purchasing a flat in a building known as Windsor Court, DLF City, Gurgaon and made payment of a sum equivalent to 10% of the agreed price as earnest money at the first instance. The balance payment was to be made in instalments. Clause 17 of the agreement entitled the allottee to cancel the allotment at any time and take refund of the amount paid by him without interest, but the earnest money was liable to be forfeited in the following c terms:
"17. In case the allotment is got cancelled by the allottee himself, he shall be entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him, after deducting the earnest money, but without payment of any interest on the balance amount, paid by him."
Clause 8 of the said agreement reads as under:
"8. That the time of payment of instalments as stated in schedule of payments (Annexure II) and applicable stamp duty, registration fee, maintenance charges and other charges payable under this agreement as and when demanded is the essence of this agreement. It shall be incumbent on the apartment allottee to comply with the terms of payment and/or other terms and conditions of sale, failing which he shall forfeit to the Company the entire amount of earnest money and the agreement of sale shall stand cancelled and the apartment allottee shall have no right, title, interest or claim of whatsoever nature on the said premises. The Company shall thereafter be free to resell and deal with the said premises in any manner, whatsoever, at its sole discretion. The amount(s), if any, paid over and above the earnest money shall however be refunded to the apartment allottee by the Company without any interest or any compensation of whatsoever nature."
5. The respondent paid some instalments but allegedly was unable to pay the same from the month of June 1996. One of his cheques bounced which fact was intimated to him by the appellant by a letter dated 7 - 1 - 1998.
6. He entered into an apartment buyers agreement on 8 - 4 - 1996. At his request a 2Y:z - year payment plan was converted into a 7 - year payment plan in May 1996. The respondent did not pay the instalments in due time wherefor allegedly reminders were sent.
7. A demand letter was also sent to him. The respondent on or about 3 - 8 - 1998 showed his inability to make any payment and informed the appellant that he was in desperate need of funds so as to enable him to make a new beginning in India and requested the appellant to promptly make payment of the amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. A reminder was sent by him on 10 - 9 - 1998. On 3 - 11 - 1998, he suggested that he may be allotted some other smaller property. The said letter reads as under:
"The Chairman .
DLF Universal Limited New Delhi
Dear Sir,
Re: SO 8 - B, Windsor Court
I am writing this letter with the hope that due regard and consideration will be extended to me by your goodselves.
I was working in Bangkok and due to the Asian fallout I have lost my job and I am back home trying to settle my family and myself. I have been paying my instalments against the abovestated property, but now due to my present circumstances, I will not be able to pay any further instalments. Till date I have already paid a sum of Rs 24,96,685 towards the said property.
Since I do not have a house, my immediate need is to settle down my family. I have been talking to your sales people and they have suggested to me to look for some other smaller property where I could swap the amount paid against the new property. On getting a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.