PRASHANT KUMAR SHARI versus GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 03-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
PRASHANT KUMAR SHARI 
v. 
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
APRIL 3, 2000 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: 
Section 36-A-Unfair Trade Practice-Plot of land-Allotment of-
Allottee failed to pay timely instalments in respect of a plot of land-Allottee did 
not deny his liability to pay balance amount with interest-Development Au-
thority therefore, demanded amount with penal interest handing over posses-
sion of plot-Validity of-Held: Development Authority's demandjustified-
No case of unfair trade practice made out against Development Authority-
Allottee 's complaint rightly dismissed-Urban Development. 
Allotment of plot of land-Delay in delivery of possession-Balance 
amount-Interest on-Held: If the Development Autliority is responsible for 
the delay, the allottee cannot be burdened with the interest on the balance 
amount. 
The. respondent-Authority allotted a plot of land to the appellant 
after he had paid the registration and reservation amounts. Subsequently, 
the appellant paid the first and second instalments. Five instalments be-
came due thereafter. The respondent-Authority, by a letter dated 28.2.1995, 
called upon the appellant to pay the balance amount together with other 
charges latest by 30.5.1885. It was also stated in the said latter that if 
payment was not made within the due date penal interest would be charged. 
The appellant himself, through his letter, admitted the delay in pay-
ments and requested not to cancel the allotment and also indicated his 
willingness to pay the entire amount outstanding against him. However, 
G 
the appellant paid only a part of the balance amount due. The respondent-
Authority, therefore, did not not hand over possession of the plot and 
demanded penal interest as per its letter dated 28.2.1995. 
Being aggrieved the appellant filed a complaint of unfair trade prac-
tice before the MRTP Commission under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and 36-D 
H 
of the. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The MRTP 
896 
P.K. SHAHI v. G.D.A. [SETHI, J.] 
Commission dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal. 
897 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the respondent-
Authority was responsible for the delay in delivery of possession of the 
plot and, therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay penal interest for 
the period prior to 30.5.1995. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is true that if the Authority is found to be responsible 
for the delay in delivery of possession of the plot in terms of the agreement 
arrived at or according to the assurance given in the brochure, the allottee 
cannot be burdened with the interest on the balance amount not paid by 
him. However, it has to be found on facts as to whether the Authority or 
the allottee was responsible for the alleged delay. [900-F-G] 
2. Having failed to perform his part of the contract, the appellant 
cannot be permitted to urge that he is not liable to pay the balance 
amount along with interest as according to him the respondent-Authority 
had failed to deliver possession as per the terms of the brochure. The 
Authority was not expected to deliver possession in the absence of pay-
ment of the agreed amount. Having failed to perform his part of the 
agreement, the appellant cannot be permitted to urge, at this stage, that 
he was not liable to pay the interest as agreed to by him at the time of 
accepting the allotment of the plot in his favour. By the letter dated 
28.2.1995 the appellant was given further opportunity to make the pay-
ment of the balance amount along with other charges mentioned therein 
by a specified date, failing which interest was to be charged from him. The 
letter did not envisage that such interest was to be charged from a date 
subsequent to 30.5.1995 and not prior to it. The mention of the date was 
only to intimate the appellant of the concession given to him and upon his 
failure to avail ·of the benefit by the specified date, he was liab!e to pay the 
interest as agreed upon. [901-F-H; 902-A-BJ 
Bihar State Housing Board v. La/it Ram, [1997] 10 SCC 339, held 
inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.99 of the M.R.T.P. Commis-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
sioner, New Delhi in U.T.P.E. No. 92 of 1997. 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik, Reetesh Singh, Ms. Richa Kachhwaha a

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