Back
2008(3) Supreme 688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Ghaziabad Development Authority —Appellant
Versus
Ved Prakash Aggarwal —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 794 of 2001
Decided on 14.05.08
(ii) MRTP Act,1969- Section 36-”Unfair trade practice- Allotment of certain land by Appellant GDA in its Govindpuram Scheme to Respondent-Cancellation of allotment- On complaint filed by Respondent MRTP Commission held that cancellation of respondent’s allotment when other allottees had been given plots in same circumstances amounted to an “unfair trade practice” and directed GDA to deliver possession of a plot of 90 sq. mtrs. to the complainant/respondent in Govindpuram Scheme or any adjacent scheme at a price prevalent in the year 1988-Appeal—Held that MRTP Commission was clearly in error in directing the GDA to handover possession to Respondent- Under the Act, there are provisions for inquiries that can be instituted by MRTP Commission while Section 36D read with Section 12A and 12B lay down the powers of the MRTP Commission in dealing with instances of Unfair trade practices- None of the provisions indicate that the MRTP Commission has the authority to do what it did in this case- MRTP Commission has the power to impose damages or give compensation to respondent as a mode of redressal for harm caused by the unfair trade practices, but it certainly cannot assume powers of civil court - Since action of MRTP commission instantly virtually amounted to grant of specific performance-Held appropriate to remand appeal to MRTP Commission for decision afresh on the compensation, in accordance with law. (Para 7)
Facts of the Case:
Appellant GDAherein in the instant case in its Govindpuram Scheme alloted certain land to Respondent. A Complaint was filed by Respondent alleging that GDA had first allotted certain land to him and after many years, cancelled allotment arbitrarily. MRTP Commission held that land was indeed allotted to the respondent and cancellation of respondent’s allotment when other allottees had been given plots in same circumstances amounted to an “unfair trade practice” under Section 36 of the MRTP Act.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of MRTP Commission.
Findings of the Court:
In light of materials on record held difficult to conceive that respondent was unsuccessful in draw of lots as alleged by the GDA, which was excuse given by them for not giving possession of the plot to Respondent.
Admittedly GDA had already issued a reservation/allocation letter to Respondent and it was also a finding of MRTP Commission that respondent had paid full amount of Rs.58000/.This showed that respondent was successful in draw of lots because otherwise, where was need for GDA to issue reservation/allocation letter to Respondent which also required him to make necessary payments. In this view of the matter, finding of MRTP Commission that act of GDA amounted to an unfair trade practice was affirmed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Tarun Chatterjee, J.—
1. This appeal at the instance of Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short “the GDA”) is filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd of August, 2000 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short `the MRTP Commission’) in R.T.P.E. No.82 of 1998 by which the MRTP Commission had directed the GDA to deliver possession of a plot of 90 sq. mtrs. to the complainant/respondent in Govindpuram Scheme or any adjacent scheme at a price prevalent in the year 1988.
2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the allotment of certain land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Scheme. In the complaint filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent, it was alleged that the GDA had first allotted certain land to him and after many years, cancelled the allotment arbitrarily. The respondent also claimed the refund of the invested amount. Challenging the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and also for refund of the invested money, a proceeding was initiated at the instance of the respondent before the MRTP Commission alleging that the cancellation of the allotment by the GDA was not only arbitrary but also indicative of its monopolistic hold on the land and therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade practice under the MRTP Act. The GDA entered appearance and denied the allegations made in the complaint, inter alia, alleging that no specific allotment order was made by the GDA and, therefore, cancellation of the same did not arise at all. It was further stated by the GDA in their written objection to the complaint that the long delay was attributable to the fact that the scheme was tied up in litigation for many years and when that litigation was over, the draw prescribed for allotment of land was held. Since the respondent had failed in this draw, the allotment of the land could not be made and therefore, the refund was offered. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the available records, the MRTP Commission held that the land was indeed allotted to the respondent and the cancellation of the respondent’s allotment when other allottees had been given the plots in the same circumstances amounted to an “unfair trade practice” under Section 36 of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Commission also held that the respondent had suffered pecuniary losses and damages. Based on these findings, the MRTP Commission directed the GDA to allot 90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the respondent in Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was not available, to hand over the possession of vacant plot of the same size to the respondent in other schemes nearby the Govindpuram Scheme at the previously decided price. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the GDA has come up in appeal in this Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order of the MRTP Commission as well as the other available records, two questions crop up before us for decision of this appeal: -
(i) Whether any unfair trade practice was resorted to by the GDA;
(ii) Whether the MRTP Commission had the jurisdiction to direct the GDA to allot an alternative plot of land to the respondent at the previously fixed price under the MRTP Act.
4. Before we go into these questions, we may, at this stage, narrate certain other facts also, which would be required for decision in this appeal. In October 1988, the GDA had floated a housing scheme the particulars of which are reproduced as under.
“Col.3.40 This scheme relates to pay plan which says that the plots/houses under these schemes are being constructed under lump sum plan (code 1), self financing plan (code 2) and hire purchase plan (code 3).
Col.3.43 The reservation amount, as mentioned in column 8 of table 1 is to be paid within 30 days from the date of reservation letter.
Col. 3.66 If payment fixed for such allotment of land is not made within three months after its due date along with penal interest, if any, the allotment shall be treat
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
