DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus P.R. SAMANTA

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 21-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 8 S.C.R. 776 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
P.R. SAMANTA 
. (Civil Appeal No. 3 OF 2003) 
JULY21, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 -
c s. 55-Appeal under - Scheme for allocation of self financing 
society flats - Rejection of allotment offer by respondent-
allottee - Refund of registration amount alongwith 7% interest 
in terms of the offer document - However, respondent 
claiming interest@ 15% pa in place of 7% pa - Respondent's 
D case that interest paid on registration amount was less than 
the rate at which the applicants are to be charged in case of 
delay/default-Award of interest@ 12% pa on the registration 
amount as also Rs.5,0001- towards litigation charges by 
Commission - Correctness of- Held: Order passed by the 
E Commission is against law and unjustified - Commission 
erred in compensating the respondent with a higher rate of 
interest - In absence of relevant pleadings and evidence it 
cannot be presumed that appellant resorted to any unfair 
trade practice or increased its price unreasonably or made 
F 
unreasonable earnings by investing the registration amount 
in accounts bearing higher interest - Relevant provision in 
the Brochure of the scheme by itself does not appear to be 
unreasonable in allowing interest@ 7% p.a. - Order passed 
by the Commission set aside. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Commission erred in interfering with 
the contractual rate of interest in absence of any finding 
H 
776 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. P.R. SAMANTA 777 
against the actions and orders of the appellant. The A 
judgment and order under appeal indicates no material 
for coming to the impugned finding that payment of 
interest on the registration amount should not be less 
than one charged from the applicants when they commit 
a default. A default clause is introduced to deter any delay B 
or default and hence, such penalty is by its very nature 
a deterrent one. That by .itself offers a reasonable 
justification for the appellant to charge a higher rate of 
interest in the case of delay/default. So far as interest on 
the registration amount is concerned, it stands on a C 
different footing. In absence of relevant pleadings and 
evidence it cannot be presumed that the appellant has 
resorted to any unfair trade practice as defined under 
Section 36A or has increased its price unreasonably or· D 
made unreasonable earnings by investing the 
registration amount in accounts bearing higher interest. 
The relevant provision in the Brochure of the 1985 
scheme by itself does not appear to be unreasonable in 
allowing interest @ 7% p.a. Thus, the order of the E 
Commission awarding interest at the rate of 12% per 
annum on the registration amount and also award of 
Rs.5000/- towards litigation charges is against law and 
unjustified, thus, set aside. [Paras 10, 11] [781-G-H; 782-
A-C, F-G] 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3 of 
2003. 
·From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2002 of the 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices, Commission, G 
New Delhi in Compensation Application No. 367of1997. 
Manika Tripathy Pandey for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. This statutory appeal under 
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices 
Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed 
against judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, 
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in 
B Compensation Application No.367/97 preferred by the sole 
respondent. 
2. In view of controversy arising for determination being 
very limited and confined to reasonableness of rate of interest 
C payable on refund of registration amount, it is not necessary 
to delve deeper into the facts. Suffice to note that the appellant 
Delhi Development Authority is a statutory body constituted 
under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It is entrusted with 
the planned development of Delhi and claims to function on a 
D No Profit No Loss basis in the matter of providing subsidized 
housing to different in_come groups. The appellant invited 
applications from eligible members of the general public during 
the period May 1985 to August 1985 in a scheme described 
as Sixth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1985. · 
E The 

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