LexM/S. A.B.N.A. AND ORS. versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. U.P.S.I.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012) 4 S.C.R. 280 M/S. A.B.N.A. AND ORS. v. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MIS. U.P.S.l.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR & ANR. (SLP (C) Nos. 16116-16117 of 2010) MAY 08, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - C s. 13(2) - Allotment of plot- Possession not given - Allottee's complaint to MRTP Commission - During pendency of complaint, interim application seeking physical possession of the plot - Commission by order dated 13.9.2007 passing direction to handover possession to the a//ottee - Review o application by the opposite party - The Commission recalled the order dated 13. 9. 2007 whereby it had directed to handover the possession - Review application filed by the allottee dismissed - In SLP, plea of the allottee that the order dated 13.9.2007 could not have been recalled being a consent order E and that review application was barred by limitation - Held: There is no infirmity in the order of the Commission whereby it recalled the direction to handover possession to allottee on the ground that the direction could be considered at the stage of final adjudication - The order dated 13.9.2007 was not a F consent order- The order dated 13.9.2007 being an interim order could have been modified or revoked - Commission has power u/s. 13 (2) to amend or revoke any order at any time hence it is not barred by limitation - Petition dismissed. Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash G Aggarwal (2008) 7SCC 686: 2008 (8) SCR 676; Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 340: 1955 SCR 117 - referred to. H 280 A.B.N.A. AND ORS. v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. 281 U.P.S.l.D.C. LIMITED, KANPUR Case Law Reference: 2008 (8) SCR 676 1955 SCR 117 Referred to. Referred to. Para 4 Para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 16116-16117 of 2010. From the Judgment & Order dated 04.03.2009 of the M.R.T.P.C. New Delhi, in RA-16 of 2007 and order dated 05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in RA-06 of 2009, in UTPE-119 of 2000. Petitioner-In-Person. Aarti Upadhyay, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered A B c D A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. These are petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal against the order dated 04.03.2009 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, (for short 'the MRTP Commission') in Review Application No.16 of 2007 and the order dated E 05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Review Application No.06 of 2009. 2. The facts very briefly are that the respondents published an advertisement in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi inviting applications from entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial land in Greater NOIDA on payment of 10% of the cost of allotted land. In response to the advertisement, the petitioners applied F for a plot and on 05.03.1994 a plot of 800 square metres in Site-C was allotted. The petitioners paid 10% of the cost of the G plot on 23.03.1994. However, physical possession of the plot was not given to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not paid all the dues for the plot. The petitioners then filed a complaint UTPE No.119 of 2000 before the MRTP Commission and after notice to the respondents the complaint H 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A was heard from time to time. While the complaint was pending, petitioners filed I.A. No.18 of 2004 before the MRTP Commission to take possession of the allotted plot. On 13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission passed an order directing that the respondent shall handover possession of the allotted B plot within next two weeks to the complainant and as regards the balance amount, if any due, the respondents shall submit a detailed chart giving the dates on which the subsequent installments were due and the amount payable on each due date. By the order dated 13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission c also directed the petitioners to furnish a fresh SSI certificate to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed on 01.11.2007 for further directions. Instead of handing over possession of the allotted plot to the petitioners, the respondents filed Review Application No.16 of 2007 on 0 18.12.2007 and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 the MRTP Commission allowed the Review Application and recalled the order dated 13.09.2007 insofar as it di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.