MANJUL SRIVASTAVA versus GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 903 · Decided: 29-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 903 
-f 
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA 
A 
v. 
GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1758-1759 of 2002) 
AUGUST 29, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
·--· 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 -
Unfair trade practice - Allotment of plot - Reservation Jetter 
that plot reserved in name of applicant - Deposit of entire c 
amount by applicant within the stipulated period - However, 
order of cancellation of reservation of plot in favour of applicant 
after ninf;J years and entire amount to be refunded with 5% 
interest by the Development Authority- Challenge to, alleging 
unfair trade practice and direction sought to allot another plot D 
or in alternative 20% interest on deposited amount with 
compensation -
Dismissed by MRTP Commission -
.-;. 
Justification of - Held: Justified - Amount for reservation of 
plot would not lead to inference of registration by itself 
guaranteeing allotment of specific plot to applicant - Reading 
E 
clauses of the Brochure as also Reservation Letter clearly 
shows that plot was reserved for applicant subject to holding 
of lottery for specific plots for allotment - Applicant was 
unsuccessful in draw of lots, thus, would not acquire any legal 
right to such plot- It would only be entitled to refund of amount 
deposited - On facts, Authority directed to refund the amount F 
f ...... 
deposited with 18 % interest and not 5% interest . 
The appellant applied for allotment of residential plot 
in Ghaziabad Development Area under the Housing 
Scheme of the year 1988. It deposited the registration G 
fees. The GDA issued reservation letter to the appellant 
-<I 
reserving plot category D in her name. It was stipulated 
.• 
that the possession of the plot would be given in 1991 
and draw for specific plot number would be held 
903 
H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R 
A separately. In pursuance to the letter, appellant deposited + 
the entire balance amount within the stipulated period. 
After nine years, the appellant was informed by registered 
)-
letter that she was not allotted a plot and would be 
refunded the deposited· amount with 5% interest. 
B Appellant filed application before MRTP Commission 
alleging that the cancellation of allotment by GOA was 
arbitrary, unfair and illegal, thus, amounted to 'unfair trade 
...,..._ 
practice' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade 
}
Practices Act, 1969. It sought direction to the respondent-
c GOA to allot another plot or in the alternative pay 20% 
interest on the deposited amount for the entire period as 
also compensation. Appellant filed another application 
'· 
that after reservation of the plot, a draw was to be held 
only for allotting the specific plot to such persons and 
D the same was not held. During pendency of the 
application, GOA issued cheque to the appellant for the 
entire amount with 5% interest. Appellant received the 
,,,__ 
cheque under protest but subsequently returned the 
+-
entire amount by drawing another cheque in favour of 
E GOA. The Commission rejected the application holding 
that the appellant not being "allottee" from the result of 
the draw was not entitled to any plot thus, charge of "unfair 
trade practice" against the GOA could not be established; 
and .that under clause 9 of the brochure, the appellant 
was only entitled to the refund of the deposited amount 
F with 5 % interest. Aggrieved appellant filed Review 
application which was dismissed. Hence the present 
+- ,· 
appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 The Commission was justified in rejecting 
the claim of the appellant. The plot in question was a 
+-
category of plot (Category D) which was only reserved 
.. 
for the appellant but from the Clauses of the Brochure, it 
would be clear that the final allotment was to be made as 
H regards specific plots only after the lottery related to such 
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA v. GOVT OF U.P. & ORS. 
905 
....... 
allotment was made. In the draw of lottery the appellant A 
was unsuccessful as her name did not figure in the same. 
The 'plot reserved' and a 'plot allotted' are different aspects 
altogether. Clause 9.10 of the Brochure of the GOA related 
to the distribution of plots which clearly stipulates that 
the candidates who were not allotted any plot, would b~ B 
entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited with 
the GOA and also the reserved amount with interest at 
the rate of 5%, if such amount was kept with the GOA

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