Back
2008(2) Supreme 836
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From MRTP Commission)
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Anr. — Petitioner
versus
Arvind Sonekar — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 5514 of 2001
Decided on : 10-04-2008
(2006) 4 SCC 74 – Relied upon.
(b) Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 10 – Respondent not accepting the terms of the 1993 offer letter – Entire amount paid by him refunded which he accepted without any demur or protest – The said letter not culminating into an allotment – Cannot be termed as concluded contract. (Para 7)
(c) Legitimate Expectation – Noida authorities not acted either unjustly or in an unfair manner by charging the rate of Rs. 3600/- per sq. mtrs. – Therefore the doctrine of Legitimate Expectation held not at all applicable to the facts of the case. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
1. In 1993, applications for registration for allotment of plots to institutions including Nursing Homes and Hospitals were invited by a general scheme by the Noida Authorities. In the scheme itself, it was specifically mentioned that the rate shall be the one as prevailing at the time of allotment.
2. Pursuant to such advertisement the respondent submitted an application for allotment along with the registration money. By a letter dated 21st of December, 1993 issued by the Noida authorities to the respondent, the respondent was required to deposit certain amount within seven days so that steps could be taken to make the allotment. However, the respondent made no payment. The proposal was not cleared and accordingly the entire amount deposited as registration money with the Noida authorities was refunded to the respondent which was accepted by him.
3. On 20th of April, 1996, on the basis of a request made by the respondent in his letter dated 29th of January, 1996, a fresh allotment letter was issued and in this allotment letter, it was specifically made clear that the allotment rate would be Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr.
4. The respondent deposited 20% of the allotment money of Rs.3,61,800/- by a pay order.
5. After the affidavit was filed by the respondent, on 17th of August, 1996, a lease deed was executed by the Noida authorities in favour of the respondent.
6. After executing the lease deed, accepting the rate of the land at Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr. and depositing the consideration money at the aforesaid rate with the Noida authorities, a petition was filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent against the Noida authorities praying for instituting an enquiry and thereafter passing the cease and desist order and demanding the excess amount paid by him.
7. The MRTP Commission by the impugned order held that the action of the Noida authorities directing the respondent to pay at the rate prevailing in the year 1996 was discriminatory. Therefore, it was held that this action of the Noida authorities was a “restrictive trade practice” within the meaning of Section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act.
Findings of the Court :
Noida authorities have not acted in an unfair or unjust manner.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J. —
1. This appeal by way of special leave is filed against an order dated 27th of March, 2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (in short ‘the MRTP Commission’) in Restrictive Trade Practices Enquiry No.82/97 by which the MRTP Commission has directed the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Noida Authorities’) to refund to the respondent the excess amount charged from him for allotment of a plot within 6 months from the date of the order passed by the MRTP Commission. Feeling aggrieved, the Noida Authorites have come up by way of a special leave petition, which on grant of leave was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In 1993, applications for registration for allotment of plots to institutions including Nursing Homes and Hospitals were invited by a general scheme by the Noida Authorities. In the scheme itself, it was specifically mentioned that the rate shall be the one as prevailing at the time of allotment. The registration money to be deposited along with the application in case of a Nursing Home was Rs.1,00,000/-. Pursuant to such advertisement for allotment of plots by the Noida authorities, the respondent submitted an application for allotment along with the registration money. By a letter dated 21st of December, 1993 issued by the Noida authorities to the respondent, the respondent was required to deposit certain amount within seven days so that steps could be taken to make the allotment. However, the respondent made no payment pursuant to the letter dated 21st of December, 1993. The Town Planning Department of the Noida authorities, while scrutinizing the proposed site did not clear the same and accordingly, by a letter dated 13th of January, 1995, the entire amount deposited as registration money with the Noida authorities was refunded. It is an admitted position that the refund was accepted by the respondent by encashing the account payee cheque without any reservation.
3. On 20th of April, 1996, on the basis of a request made by the respondent in his letter dated 29th of January, 1996, a fresh allotment letter was issued and in this allotment letter, it was specifically made clear that the allotment rate would be Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr. From this letter, it would also be clear that the allotment money was required to be deposited within sixty days and the balance 80% in sixteen equal half yearly installments together with interest. The respondent by his letter dated 6th of June, 1996 deposited 20% of the allotment money of Rs.3,61,800/- by a pay order. This deposit confirmed that the rate of allotment was Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr., i.e. the rate offered by the Noida authorities stood accepted. On 16th of August, 1996, the respondent submitted an affidavit before the Noida authorities stating, inter alia, as under:
(i) That the allotment of Nursing Home Plot No.243, Block A, Sector 31 has been made in favour of the respondent for Rs.18,09,000/- only. Out of the said amount, 20% had been deposited and the respondent had to deposit the balance 80% in sixteen half yearly installments.
(ii) Omitted (because not required in this case).
(iii) That the respondent had read and understood all the terms and conditions of allotment and the respondent shall comply with the terms and conditions of allotment.
A plain reading of this undertaking filed by way of an affidavit before the Noida authorities would indicate that the respondent had accepted the terms and conditions of the offer letter, including the condition regarding the rate at which the allotment was to be made.
4. After the affidavit was filed by the respondent, on 17th of August, 1996, a lease deed was executed by the Noida authorities in favour of the respondent. This lease deed also contained the terms and conditions of allotment, more particularly the rate of the land, i.e. Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr. After executing the lease deed, accepting the rate of the land at Rs.36
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
