LexDR. MANJEET KAUR MONGA (DEAD) THR. HER LEGAL HEIRS KARAN VIR SINGH MONGA versus K. L. SUNEJA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 453 DR. MANJEET KAUR MONGA (DEAD) THR. HER A LEGAL HEIRS KARAN VIR SINGH MONGA v. K. L. SUNEJA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5032-5033 of 2016) JULYIS,2017 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Compensation: B Complaint against builder - Before Competition Appellate C Tribunal alleging that cancellation of house allotment by the builder was arbitrary, illegal and capricious - Seeking possession of the flat - Tribunal awarded compensation by invoking s.12-B of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act directing to pay the entire amount deposited by the complaint (Rs.4,53,8501-) with D compound interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of cancellation i.e. 30.4.2005 - On appeal, held: The amount @ 15% compound interest on the amount deposited was the compensation amount awarded u/s. 12B - The pay order (dated 30.4.2005) of the amount which the builder sent to the complainant with the cancellation order (which was not received by the E complainant) was re-credited to the account of the builder only on 22.6.2016 - Matter remitted to the Tribunal with the direction that the Bank would be impleaded as party; that builder shall pay compensation @ 15% compound interest; and that the Tribunal io determine whether compensation was required to be paid ajfer 30.4.2005 and that whether the Bank was liable to pay any interest to the builder - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - s.12B. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD: 1. The amount referred to as compensation under G Section 128 of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, is the amount @ 15% compound interest on the amount already deposited, as ordered by the Tribunal. Merely, because a liquidated amount is not stipulated or determined by the H 453 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A Tribunal, it cannot be said that it is not the compensation. Once the interest, as ordered by the Tribunal, is calculated that will be the amount of compensation referred to under Section 12B of theAct. [Para 5) [459-DI 2.1 When the builder company had taken the pay order B from the Citibank on 30.04.2005, the amount of Rs.4,53,750/- c'overed by the pay order had actually been deducted from their current account. But at the same time, the amount had not been paid/received by the payee. The account holder cancelled the pay order and requested for re-credit of the amount and, C accordingly, the Citibank has re-credited the amount to the account only on 22.06.2016. Plea of the account holder company (builder) was that for the period the money was with the Bank, the account holder is entitled to interest and that can be the compensation if at all that can be paid to the appellant for the D period after the cancellation of the allotment. [Para 6) [459-F-G] 2.2 In terms of the principles of restitution under Section 144 C.P.C. and on the general principle of restitution, the builder cannot be put to unmerited injustice and the appellant should not take undue advantage. [Para 6] [459-H, 460-A] E Citibank N.A. v. Hiten P. Dalal and Others (2016) 1 SCC 411 : [2015] 9 SCR 583 - referred to. 2.3 The plea of Citibank is that the money from the current account of the builder has been deducted on 30.04.2005 and it has not been paid to the payee. But, at the same time, it F cannot be said that the money was enjoyed by the Bank, since being a pay order, at any moment the instrument is presented, the Bank was bound to honour the same and, therefore, only for the lapse on the part of either the payee or the account holder for encashing or cancelling the instrument, the Bank cannot be G saddled with any interest. [Para 7] [460-B-C] H 2.4 These aspects have not been canvassed and gone into by the Tribunal because the Citibank was not before the Tribunal. Therefore, the matters are remitted to the Competition Appellate Tribunal. [Paras 8, 10) [460-D, G-H) DR. MANJEET KAUR MONGA (DEAD) v. K. L. SUNEJA 455 & ORS. Case Law Reference A [2015] 9 SCR 583 referred to Para6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5032-5033 of2016. B From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2015 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi in Unfair Trade Practice Enquiry No.90 of2005 and Compensation Application No. 39 of2009 WITH C. A. Nos. 9225-9226 and 9223-9224 of 2017. Debesh Panda, Milind Kumar, Ms. Suruchi Suri, Avinash Kumar, Nikilesh Ram
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.