LexDLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR. versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 406 .. A DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR. V. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (INVESTIGATION AND REGISTRATION) AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5680 of 2006) B MAY 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - c s. 13A, 138 - Order of Commission - Not challenged by the appellant - On appeal, held: Interference not called for as the order of Commission attained finality The appellant no.1 is a colonizer. The licences were granted to it for the construction of a colony. In terms of D licences granted, the appellant no.1 was required to con- struct in the colony, schools, hospitals, community cen- tres and other community buildings. Appellant alloted a site measuring 0.20 acres to the complainant on consid- eration of Rs.4 lakhs and also entered into a lease agree- E ment dated 1.12.1992 for constructing and providing edu- cational facilities by the lessee. Subsequently, an alter- nate plot measuring .35 acres was offered to complain- ant for an additional payment. This alternate plot was how- ever not handed over to him on the plea that State Gov- F ernment was not recognizing the fourth party rights. The complainant-second respondent filed complaint which was entertained by the Commission in purported exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 2(o) (i) and Sec- tion 36A of the MRTP Act. The said complaint was referred G to the first respondent - DG for investigation and on re- ceipt of the PIR submitted by the first respondent - DG, .., notice was issued to the appellants by the Commission on 27.03.1998. Before the Commission, appellants stated that they were willing to hand over the possession of the H 406 DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ANR v. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL 407 (INVESTIGATION & REGISTRATION) &ANR site/plot to complainant in terms of the agreement dated A 1.12.1992. On 16.01.2004, the appellants informed the Commission that they would execute a fresh lease deed in favour of the complainant-second respondent provided the commercial terms as contained in the first lease deed dated 1.12.1992 would not be ordered to be modified or B altered or deviated and the appellants would indicate the amount of lease rent which would be paid by the com- plainant-second respondent within one week and there- after the appellants shall sign the modified lease deed and the possession of the site/plot would be handed over to c the complainant-second respondent. Accordingly an or- der dated 16.01.2004, was passed in terms of submission of appellant. The order dated 16.01.2004 was not chal- lenged by the appellant. The complainant-second respon- dent filed miscellaneous application seeking incorpora- 0 _.. tion of some proposed clauses in the new lease deed. The appellants submitted their comments to the proposed amendments suggested in the draft lease deed to be ex- ecuted by the parties. The Commission directed the ap-- pellants to modify the draft lease deed and furnish the final lease deed to the complainant- second respondent E within two weeks and hand over the possession of the plot for the purpose it was leased out to him within two weeks of the execution of the draft lease deed by the com- plainant - second respondent. Hence the present appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the enactments of MRTP Act is designated to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic power to the common G detriment and to prohibit such monopolistic and restric- tive trade practices as are prejudicial to public interest. The definition of s.2(o) clearly goes to show that it is ex- haustive and not an inclusive one. The decision whether trade practice is restrictive or not has to be arrived at by H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A applying the rule of reason and not on the doctrine that any restriction as to area or price will per se be a restric- tive trade practice. [Paras 17, 18] [423-C,F,G] 2. It is the admitted case that the appellants have not B challenged the order of the Commission dated 16.01.2004 by which the parties were directed that the commercial terms as contained in the earlier lease deed dated 01.12.1992 shall not be modified and altered and shall re- main the same in framing of the new lease deed which c shall be executed betwe~n the parties. [Para 25] [427 -F,G] DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.