B.B. PATEL & ORS versus DLF UNIVERSAL LTD

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 25-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 51
51
B.B. PATEL & ORS.
v.
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2009)
JANUARY 25, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R. GAVAI AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – ss.12-
B, 36-A, 36-B(a), (d), 36-D and 36-E r/w ss.2(i) and 2(o) – Held:
s.12-B of the MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant
compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a
consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade
practice – In the present case, there has been no misrepresentation
made by the respondent amounting to an unfair trade practice for
the delay in handing over possession of the apartments – There
was no misrepresentation made by the respondent and, therefore,
the allegation of unfair trade practice is rejected – Thus, as
appellants have failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of
the respondent, they are not entitled to any compensation – Further,
it is settled law that final relief granted by this Court need not be
the natural consequences of the ratio decidendi of its judgment –
Thus, though, the order of MRTP Commission dismissing the
complaint filed by the appellants u/ss.36-A, 36-B(a), (d), 36-D and
36-E r/wss.2(i) and 2(o), MRTP Act has been upheld, in the interest
of justice, the respondent is directedto handover possession of the
flats to the appellants on payment of Rs.25,00,000/- for each flat
by the appellants – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(r).
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(r) – Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Held: s.2(r) of the Consumer
Protection Act defines unfair trade practice, which is exactly the
same as the definition of unfair trade practice in MRTP Act – In
case a consumer satisfies the consumer forum that the goods
complained against, suffer from any defect or there is deficiency in
service, the opposite party can be directed to remove the defect or
replace the goods free from defect – The appropriate forum can
direct removal of deficiency in service and direct the opposite party
to discontinue the unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Contract – Time when not essence of contract – Held: In the
present case, though there is a clause in the Apartment Buyer
Agreement (ABA) mentioning that the possession was to be handed
over within a period of two and half to three years from the date of
ABA, it cannot be said that time was made the essence of the contract
as a reasonable extension of time for delivery was permissible as
per clause 16 – Thus, there was no intention on the part of the
appellants to insist on time being the essence of contract as they
did not terminate the ABA due to delay in handing over possession
of the apartments which they could have in accordance with clause
18 of the ABA – Allegation in the complaint is that the respondent
committed unfair trade practice by seeking to recover large sums of
money from the buyers without handing over possession of the flats
– In the garb of delay in handing over possession of the property,
the appellants are seeking possession of a property, the cost of
which is more than 10 times the price at which it was offered, without
even paying the balance basic sale price–Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Act, 1969.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The MRTP Act, 1969 was meant to ensure that
the operation of the economic system does not result in the
concentration of economic power to the common detriment, for
the control of monopolies, for the prohibition of monopolistic and
restrictive trade practices and for other connected matters. The
Act was made pursuant to the recommendations made by the
Monopolies Enquiry Commission which submitted its report on
31.10.1965. Initially, there was no provision relating to unfair
trade practices in the MRTP Act. By Section 30 of Act 30 of 1984,
Sections 36A, 36B, 36D and 36E were inserted in the MRTP
Act. Unfair trade practice as defined in Section 36A of the MRTP
Act is a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the
sale, use or supply of any good or for the provision of any services
adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including
other practices mentioned therein. The manner in which the
inquiry may be conducted by theCommission into unfair trade
practices is dealt with by Section 36B of the MRTP Act. Section
36D of the MRTP Act provides for the powers which ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.