LexSAURABH PRAKASH versus DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' .. - SAURABH PRAKASH v. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. NOVEMBER 24, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: Sections 12-B 36-A. A B Unfair trade practice-Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices C Commission-Extent of jurisdiction-Distinction between security and earnest money-Purchaser entered into an agreement with the developer for purchasing a flat and paid earnest money-Purchaser also paid some instalments but showed his inability to make further payments-Purchaser made a request for refund of the entire amount already paid-Purchaser also D suggested that he might be allotted some other smaller property with a condition that the earnest money would not be forfeited but adjusted in this new property as it was a case of swapping-As the developer did not accede to his request, the purchaser filed an application before the Commission under S. 12-B-The Commission held the developer guilty of unfair trade practice under S.36-A and directed the developer to refund the entire amount E together with interest-Correctness of-Held: The power of the Commission to award compensation is restricted to a case where loss or damage had been caused as a result of monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice- lt has no jurisdiction where damage is claimed for mere breach of contract- A distinction exists between security and earnest money-The developer was F entitled to deduct the amount of earnest money. A purchaser entered into an agreement with the respondent-developer for purchasing a flat and made payment of a certain sum as earnest money at the first instance. The balance payment was to be made in instalments. Clause 17 of the agreement entitled the allottee to cancel the allotment at any time G and take refund of the amount paid by him without interest, but the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. The purchaser paid some instalments but allegedly was unable to pay the same for the subsequent months. Reminders were sent as the purchaser did not pay the instalment in due time but the 625 H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A purchaser showed his inability to make any payment and made a request for refund of the amount already paid. The purchaser also suggested that he might be allotted some other smaller property with a condition that the earnest money would not be forfeited but adjusted in this new property as it was a case of swapping. B The purchaser filed an application before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as the respondent-developer did not accede to his request. The Commission held the respondent-developer guilty of unfair trade practice under Section 36-A of the Act and directed the C respondent to refund the entire amount together with interest. Hence the appeal · On behalf of the respondent-developer, it was contended that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no case of indulgence in unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice was made D out; that the purchaser did not prove as to how he suffered any damage by reason of any action on the part of the respondent-developer; and that in any event, in terms of Clause 17 of the agreement, refund could be directed to be made only after deduction of the earnest money. E F Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: i. The power of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to award compensation is restricted to a case where loss or da~age had been caused as a result of monopolistic or restrictive or unfair trade practice. It has no jurisdiction where damage is claimed for mere breach of contract. [637-D, E) 2. It was not a case where a notice ofinquiry had been directed. If there had been no inquiry, the petitioner has to file a suit wherein, th~ relevant particulars are required to be stated as to how loss or damage oc~urred owing to one or the other trade practices ref~rred to therein. The power of the G Com'!lission is not in addition to the power of the civil court. An application under Section 12-B of the Monopolies and Restrictive.Trade Practices Act, 1969 would not lie where a. complaint is confined to a brea~h of contract. Purchases must necessarily relate to one or the other trade practices contemplated under Section 12-B (1) of the Act. [637-E, F) H Colgate Pal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.