ORDER

1. Despite service none appears on behalf of the respondent even on, second call.

2. It appears that the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (the MRTP Commission) in this case has proceeded on the basis that the appellant had not filed any answer to the notice and an order was passed holding the appellant together with Respondent 2 liable to refund an amount of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to Respondent. The earlier part of the order of the Commission itself records that the appellant had in fact filed a reply to the notice.

3. In the circumstances the appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the MRTP Commission. However, the question of law is left open.

In CA No. ... of 2005 arising out of SLP (C) No. 19562 of 2004

4. Leave granted.

5. The appellant is admittedly a dealer for selling Peugeot cars manufactured by Respondent 2 Company in India. Respondent 1 had submitted an application along with a cheque of Rs. 25,000 in the name of Respondent 2 for purchase of a car. The delivery of the car was not made by Respondent 2. Respondent 1 sought cancellation of the booking and also refund of the amou