IMPORTANT POINTS
Signature of vendee on sale/conveyance deed is not mandatory.
Forfeiture of certain amount by builder, if he does not suffer any financial loss, is bad in law.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant Sudha Gupta, who appears in­person in the present appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 read with Section 55 of the repealed Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 impugns order dated 8th March, 2013 passed by the Competition Appellate Tribunal (“Appellate Tribunal” for short) in Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No. 117 of 1996.

2 M/s DLF Universal Ltd., sometimes also described as M/s DLF Ltd., is the first respondent and has contested the appeal. Kamlesh Bali and Manish Bali who were 2nd and 3rd respondents before the Appellate Tribunal and in this appeal as originally filed, were later deleted from the array of parties on an application filed by the appellant which was allowed vide the order in chamber on 8th March, 2016.

3. By the impugned order dated 8th March, 2013, the Appellate Tribunal has directed the first respondent to refund Rs.3,34,695/­ (Rupees three lakhs thirty­four thousand six hundred ninety­five) along with interest @ 9% per annum, inter alia, accepting the plea of the first respondent that they were entitled to forfeit Rs.1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­ five thousand one hundred five) from Rs.4,89,800/­ (Rupees four lakhs eighty­nine thousand eight hundred) paid by the appellant towards the price of the plot.

4. The appellant is aggrieved as the Appellate Tribunal has rejected her prayers for (a) possession and registration of the sale deed of Plot No.1225, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase IV, Gurgaon (“the plot” for short) on the payment of balance sale price and (b) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees one lakh) for pecuniary loss and immense mental agony suffered by her.

5. Prayer in the nature of specific performance was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Ved Prakash Aggarwal (2008) 7 SCC 686. In terms of this decision, prayer for specific performance, i.e. possession and registration of the sale deed cannot be granted under the repealed Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, with the Appellate Tribunal assuming the powers of a civil court.

6. We would now discuss the facts of the present case in brief. The appellant had paid Rs.1,00,800/­ (Rupees one lakh eight hundred) with the application for allotment of the plot on 3rd October, 1991 to the first respondent. Subsequently, the Plot Buyer’s Agreement dated 7th January, 1992 was executed for the plot admeasuring 298.98 sq. meters at the rate of Rs.2093/­ per sq. meter. As per the agreement, the appellant was also liable to pay External Development Charges of Rs.46,464/­ (Rupees forty-six thousand four hundred sixty-four) at the rate of Rs.155.40 per sq. meter., Rs.71,516/­ (Rupees seventy-one thousand five hundred sixteen) towards Preferential Location Charges, Contingency Deposit of Rs.7,176/­ (Rupees seven thousand one hundred seventy-six), Interest Free Refundable Service & Maintenance Security of Rs.18,000/­ (Rupees eighteen thousand) in addition to the interest of Rs.14,195/­ (Rupees fourteen thousand one hundred ninety-five) under the two years and six months instalment plan opted by her. The total amount, therefore, payable by the appellant was Rs.8,83,916.14/­ (Rupees eight lakhs eighty­three thousand nine hundred sixteen and fourteen paisa).

7. As per the appellant, the total amount payable was Rs.8,11,600/­ (Rupees eight lakhs eleven­thousand six hundred). The appellant had disputed the liability to pay Rs.71,516/­ (Rupees seventy­one thousand five hundred sixteen) on account of Preferential Location Charges, though the mandate to make this payment was specified in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement.

8. Appellant had paid Rs.4,89,800/­ (Rupees four lakhs eighty­nine thousand eight hundred) in all, with first payment of Rs.1,00,800/­ (Rupees one lakh eight hundred) on 3rd December, 1991 when she had made an application for all