RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD versus SMT. PARVATI DEVI ETC.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 03-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD 
.:... ·~ 
v. 
SMT. PARVATI DEVI ETC. 
MAY3, 2000. 
-:-
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND ~.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: 
:( r· 
Section 36-A(l)(i) & (vi)-Unfair Trade Practices-Indulgence of-. 
c 
Housing Board-Delay in construction & Allotment of Houses-Demand for 
excess cost-Commission holding the Board guilty of unfair trade practice-
Order passed without considering the terms & conditions of agreement and 
without any evidence on record-Validity of-Held, while deciding such a 
complaint it is obligatory on the Commission to find out whether the Board has 
>-
adopted any unfair method or deceptive practice for the purpose of promoting 
D 
sale, use or supply of any goods or services-The order passed without such 
finding is unsustainable and quashed-Matter remitted back to the Commission 
for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 
S. 2(o)(ii)-Restrictive Trade Practice-What amounts to-Held, an act 
E 
which has no effect of preventing, distorting or restricting competition, is not 
" 
restrictive trade practice. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Unfair trade practice "-Meaning of-In the context of Section 36-A of 
the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. 
F 
"Restrictive trade practice"-Meaning and ingredients of-In the con-
text of Section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 
1969. 
Appellant-Board was engaged in constricting houses under various 
G 
schemes. Respondent-buyers tiled complaint before Monopolies and Re-
strictive Trade Practices Commission alleging that there was delay in 
construction of houses, demand for additional cost of construction and 
~ 
possession not handed over even after allotment. The Commission passed 
an order holding that the appellarlt-Board had indulged in Restrictive 
H 
Trade Practices under Section 2( o )(ii) of the Monopolies and Restrictive 
934 
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD v. PARVATI DEVI 
935 
_, .,;_ 
Trade Practices Act, 1969 and unfair trade practice under S. 36-A(l)(i) & 
A 
(vi) of the Act. Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf of the appellant-Board, it was contended that the Com-
mission without considering the terms & conditions agreed between the 
parties and without any evidence on record, gave a finding that the Board 
B 
was engaged in unfair trade practices which was illegal and liable to be set 
aside; that the act of the Board apparently cannot be termed as a restric-
-
)i 
tive trade practice as it had no effect of preventing, distorting of restricting 
../ 
competition in any manner as provided under Section 2(o)(ii) of the Act • 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1.1. The order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive 
Trade Practices Commission holding that the appellant-Board has en-
-
--\ 
gaged in unfair trade practices under Section 36-A(l)(i) & (vi) of the 
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is unsustainable and 
quashed. [944-G) 
D 
1.2. While considering an allegation of unfair trade practice under S. 
36-A(l)(i) & (vi), the Commission is required to find out whether a par-
ticular act can be condemned as an unfair trade practice; whether repre-
~ 
sentation contained a false statement and was misleading and what was the 
effect of such a representation made to the common man. The Commission 
E 
bas to find out whether the representation complained of, contains the 
~ 
element of misleading the buyer and whether buyers are mislead or they 
are informed in advance that there is likelihood of delay in delivering the 
possession of constructed building and also increase in the cost. For this 
purpose, terms and conditions of the agreement are required to be exam-
F 
ined by the Commission. Not only this, the Commission is required to 
consider whether the Board has adopted unfair method or deceptive prac~ 
tice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for 
the provision of any services. Unless there is finding on this issue appellant 
Board cannot be penalised for unfair trade practice. In the instant case, 
G 
the Commission has not considered the necessary evidence and has ac-
.; 
cepted the plea of the respondent in arriving at the conclusion that the 
appellant Board has indulged in unfair trade practice. [943-C-F; 944-F) 
Nirma Industries l.Jd. v. Director General of Investigation & Registra-
tion, [1997] 5 sec 279, relied on. 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2.1. The order passed by the Commi

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