The power under Section 13(2) of the Act is intended to ensure that the order is in conformity with the Act and the trade practice condemned by the order is truly a restrictive trade practice.

Mr. Justice C.M. Nayar, Chairman—The Applicant/complainant Ms. Namrata Chawla, through her legal Guardian Shri M.L. Chawla, has filed an application under the provisions (without citation of specific sections/regulations) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] asking for recall and review of the order dated 17th May, 2001 whereby the Commission has directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 82,050.94 to the applicant/complainant in four instalments.To be precise and exact, the order reads as under :

“The learned Counsel for the respondent has offered a proposal for compromise. The amount which is agreed to be payable to the applicant/complainant by the respondent is Rs. 82,050.94. It is, however, stated on behalf of the respondent that the amount may be permitted to be paid by eight monthly instalments. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amount shall be paid to the applicant by four instalments of Rs. 20,510/- each. The post-dated cheques for the amounts dated 5.6.2001, 6.7.2001, 6.8.2001 and 6.9.2001 respectively shall be made in the name of the applicant and handed over to her within two weeks from today. The present compensation application is disposed of.

In view of above, R.T.P.E. No. 63/89 and U.P.T.E. No. 44/89 are also disposed of.”

2. The above order was passed in application/complaint in C.A. No. 22/93; R.T.P.E. No. 63/89 and U.T.P.E. No. 44/89.

3. In order to appreciate the facts in right perspective (not stated in the order), it is necessary to state them in brief :

4. The applicant/complainant took office-cum-shop space No. RJT-30B in the basement comprising an area of 104/82 sq. feet at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq. feet in Rajindera Tower, Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. The total deposit as per the allotment agreement was at Rs. 41,928/-. The applicant/complainant deposited the booking amount of Rs. 8,385/- on 1.10.1982. This was as per the schedule given in the allotment agreement dated 22.9.1982 entered into between the parties. The possession of the office-cum-shop space in question was promised to be given by June, 1984 (Annexure-I). The applicant/complainant paid a sum of Rs. 37,735/- out of the total price of Rs. 41,928/-. The applicant/complainant however found that the carpet area of the shop in question was 59.34 sq. feet as against the promised area of 122.54 sq. feet. As the construction was delayed and the possession of the shop was not handed over within the period of two years, it was alleged that the respondent had made false promises to the applicant/complainant and others in terms of Section 36-A(1)(v)(ix) of the Act. For imposition of unjustified cost in respect of maintenance charges, sinking fund, security deposit, house tax etc., the case was stated to be covered within the provisions of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act. For loss and harassment suffered at the end of the respondent, the applicant demanded suitable compensation in addition to the directions for cease and desist order to be issued against the respondent.

5. Both the parties were heard at length and to render speedy justice as well to avoid further inconvenience and harassment to the applicant/complainant, the respondent was persuaded to settle the case.

6. The respondent agreed to settle the matter and pursuant thereto the Commision vide its order dated 17th May, 2001, directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 82,050.94 to the applicant/complainant. The said order was passed under Regulation 71 of the M.R.T.P.C. Regulations, 1991. The said order was passed in the presence of Mr. R.S. Chawla (brother of Mr. M.L. Chawla) authorised representative of the applicant/complainant.

7. Subsequently, on an application filed by the applicant/complainant, the order dated 17.5.2001 was reviewed and the respondent was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 82,050.94 to the applicant/complainant within a period of one week. The respondent paid the said a