LexGHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus VED PRAKASH AGGARWAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--- -- 12oosras-:-c.R~6t6 A GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY \/. VED PRAKASH AGGARWAL (Civil Appeal No. 794 Of 2001) B MAY 14,2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - s.36 - Unfair trade practice - Complainant's case that land c allotted to trim by Ghaziabad Development Authority under the Scheme and after many years cancelled arbitrarily_- Com- plaint alleging unfair trade practice against GOA - Allowed by MRTP Commission and GOA directed to allot alternate plot to complainant at the price fixed - Held: Complainant was D successful in draw of lots, thus, act of GOA amounted to unfair trade practice - However, MRTP Commission has no Juris- diction to direct GOA to hand over possession of vacant plot to complainant - It cannot assume powers of Civil Court - It has power to impose damages or compensation - Thus, mat- E fer remitted back to MRTP Commission for a fresh decision on compensation. In 1988, the Ghaziabad Development Authority floated the housing Scheme for allotment of certain land in its Govindpuram Scheme. It is the respondent's case F that GOA allotted land and cancelled the same after many years. Respondent filed complaint before MRTP Commis- sion against the GOA alleging unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. GOA contended that the respondent was not allotted any G land and as such there was no question of cancellation and the refund was offered. MRTP Commission held that land was allotted to the respondent by letter dated 'y ; 10.02.1989 and cancellation of respondent's allotment when other allottees had been given plots in the same H 676 GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORUTTY v. VED 677 PRAKASH AGGARWAL circumstances amounted to unfair trade practice under A s.36 of the MRTP Act. It directed the GOA to allot an alter- native plot of land to the respondent at the previously fixed price under the MRTP Act. Hence the present ap- peal. Allowing the appeal, and remanding the matter to 8 -; MRTP Commission the Court HELD: 1.1 It is difficult to conceive that the respon- dent was unsuccessful in the draw of lots as alleged by the GOA, which is the excuse given by them for not giv- c ing the possession of the plot to the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the GOA had already issued a reserva- tion/allocation letter to the respondent and it is also a find- ing of the MRTP Commission that the respondent had paid the full amount of Rs.58000/-. This shows that the respon- 0 ~ dent was successful in the draw of lots because other- wise, where was the need for the GOA to issue the reser- vation/allocation letter to the respondent which also re- quired him to make the necessary payments. In this view of the matter, the finding of the MRTP Commission that the act of the GOA amounted to an unfair trade practice is E affirmed. [Para 6] [682-F-H, 683-A] 1.2. The MRTP Commission was clearly in error in directing the GOA to handover possession to the respon- • dent. Under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices F Commission, there are provisions for inquiries that can be instituted by the MRTP Commission while s.360 read with s. 12A and 128 lay down the powers of the MRTP Commission in dealing with instances of Unfair trade prac- tices. None of the provisions seem to indicate that "the G MRTP Commission has the authority to do what it did in -+ the instant case. The MRTP Commission has the power to impose damages or give compensation to the respon- dent as a mode of redressal for harm caused by the un- fair trade practices, but it certainly cannot assume the H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. ~ A powers of the civil court because the action of the MRTP Commission in this case virtually amounts to grant of specific performance. [Para 7] [683-B-D] 1.3.ln view of the foregoing reasons, it is appropriate to remand this appeal to the MRTP Commission for deci- B sion afresh on the compensation, which may be given to the respondent in accordance with law along with refund of the amount deposited by the respondent with the GOA with simple interest. [Para 8] [683-E,F] C CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 794 D E of 2001 From the Order dated 3.8.2000 of the Monopolies & Re- strictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in R.U.T.P.E. No. 82 of 1998 Vijay Hansaria, Reena Singh and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellant.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.