GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusVED PRAKASH AGGARWAL

                 --- -- 12oosras-:-c.R~6t6

A           GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                 \/.
                  VED PRAKASH AGGARWAL
                  (Civil Appeal No. 794 Of 2001)
                           MAY 14,2008
B
    [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

        Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 -
  s.36 - Unfair trade practice - Complainant's case that land
c allotted to trim by Ghaziabad Development Authority under
  the Scheme and after many years cancelled arbitrarily_- Com-
  plaint alleging unfair trade practice against GOA - Allowed by
  MRTP Commission and GOA directed to allot alternate plot
  to complainant at the price fixed - Held: Complainant was
  successful in draw of lots, thus, act of GOA amounted to unfair
D
  trade practice - However, MRTP Commission has no Juris-
  diction to direct GOA to hand over possession of vacant plot
  to complainant - It cannot assume powers of Civil Court - It
  has power to impose damages or compensation - Thus, mat-
  fer remitted back to MRTP Commission for a fresh decision
E on compensation.

        In 1988, the Ghaziabad Development Authority
  floated the housing Scheme for allotment of certain land
  in its Govindpuram Scheme. It is the respondent's case
F that GOA allotted land and cancelled the same after many
  years. Respondent filed complaint before MRTP Commis-
  sion against the GOA alleging unfair trade practice under
  the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
  GOA contended that the respondent was not allotted any
  land and as such there was no question of cancellation
G
  and the refund was offered. MRTP Commission held that
  land was allotted to the respondent by letter dated               'y
                                                                         ;
  10.02.1989 and cancellation of respondent's allotment
  when other allottees had been given plots in the same
H                               676
       GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORUTTY v. VED 677
                  PRAKASH AGGARWAL

  circumstances amounted to unfair trade practice under A
  s.36 of the MRTP Act. It directed the GOA to allot an alter-
  native plot of land to the respondent at the previously
  fixed price under the MRTP Act. Hence the present ap-
  peal.
        Allowing the appeal, and remanding the matter to 8
-; MRTP Commission the Court
        HELD: 1.1 It is difficult to conceive that the respon-
  dent was unsuccessful in the draw of lots as alleged by
  the GOA, which is the excuse given by them for not giv- c
  ing the possession of the plot to the respondent. It is an
  admitted fact that the GOA had already issued a reserva-
  tion/allocation letter to the respondent and it is also a find-
  ing of the MRTP Commission that the respondent had paid
  the full amount of Rs.58000/-. This shows that the respon-
                                                                  0
~ dent was successful in the draw of lots because other-
  wise, where was the need for the GOA to issue the reser-
  vation/allocation letter to the respondent which also re-
  quired him to make the necessary payments. In this view
  of the matter, the finding of the MRTP Commission that
  the act of the GOA amounted to an unfair trade practice is E
  affirmed. [Para 6] [682-F-H, 683-A]
         1.2. The MRTP Commission was clearly in error in
   directing the GOA to handover possession to the respon-
 • dent. Under the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices F
   Commission, there are provisions for inquiries that can
   be instituted by the MRTP Commission while s.360 read
   with s. 12A and 128 lay down the powers of the MRTP
   Commission in dealing with instances of Unfair trade prac-
   tices. None of the provisions seem to indicate that "the G
   MRTP Commission has the authority to do what it did in
-+ the instant case. The MRTP Commission has the power
   to impose damages or give compensation to the respon-
   dent as a mode of redressal for harm caused by the un-
   fair trade practices, but it certainly cannot assume the H
    678       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 8 S.C.R.

                                                                       ~
A powers of the civil court because the action of the MRTP
    Commission in this case virtually amounts to grant of
    specific performance. [Para 7] [683-B-D]

       1.3.ln view of the foregoing reasons, it is appropriate
  to remand this appeal to the MRTP Commission for deci-
B sion afresh on the compensation, which may be given to
  the respondent in accordance with law along with refund
  of the amount deposited by the respondent with the GOA
  with simple interest. [Para 8] [683-E,F]

C        CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 794
    of 2001

           From the Order dated 3.8.2000 of the Monopolies & Re-
    strictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in R.U.T.P.E.
    No. 82 of 1998
D
          Vijay Hansaria, Reena Singh and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia
    for the Appellant.

          Gaurav Jain and Abha Jain for the R.espondents.

          T.he Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
          TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. This appeal at the instance
    of Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short "the GOA") is filed
    against the judgment and order dated 3rd of August, 2000 passed
    by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commis-
F   sion, New Delhi (in short 'the MRTP Commission') in R.T.P.E.       •
    No.82 of 1998 by which the MRTP Commission had directed
    the GOA to deliver possession of a plot of 90 sq. mtrs. to the
    complainant/respondent in Govindpuram Scheme or any adja-
    cent scheme at a price prevalent in the year 1988.
G        2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the allotment of
   certain land by the GDAin its Govindpuram Scheme. In the com-           """
   plaint filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent, it
   was alleged that the GOA had first allotted certain land to him
   and after many years, cancelled the allotment arbitrarily. The
H. respondent also claimed the refund of the invested amount.
             GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VED                  679
             PRAKASH AGGARWAL [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
.._
       Challenging the cancellation of allotment as arbitrary and also      A
       for refund of the invested money, a proceeding was initiated at
       the instance of the respondent before the MRTP Commission
       alleging that the cancellation of the allotment by the GOA was
       not only arbitrary but also indicative of its monopolistic hold on
       the land and therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade practice      B
       under the MRTP Act. The. GOA entered appearance and de-
)I
       nied the allegations made in the complaint, inter alia, alleging
       that no specific allotment order was made by the GOA and,
       therefore, cancellation ·of the same did not arise at all. It was
       further stated by the GOA in their written objection to the com-     c
       plaint that the long delay was attributable to the fact that the
       scheme was tied up in litigation for many years and when that
       litigation was over, .the draw prescribed for allotment of land
       was held. Since the respondent had failed in this draw, the allot-
       ment of the land could not be made and therefore, the refund
'>(                                                                         0
       was offered. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the
       available records, the MRTP Commission held that the land was
       indeed allotted to the respondent and the cancellation of the
       respondent's allotment when other allottees had been given the
       plots in the same circumstances amounted to an "unfair trade
       practice" under Section 36 of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Com-            E
       mission also held that the respondent had suffered pecuniary
       losses and damages. Based on these findings, the MRTP Com-
       mission directed the GOA to allot 90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the re-
 ...   spondent in Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was not
       available, to hand over the possession of vacant plot of the same    F
       size to the respondent in other schemes nearby the Govindpuram
       Scheme at the previously decided price. Feeling aggrieved by
       this order, the GOA has come up in appeal in this Court.
             3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
                                                                            G
1
       after going through the order of the MRTP Commission as well
       as the other available records, two questions crop up before us
       for decision of this appeal: -
            (i) Whether any urJair trade practice was resorted to by
       the GOA;                                                             H
    680        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 8 S.C.R.

                                                                         ~
A         (ii) Whether the MRTP Commission had the jurisdiction to
    direct the GOA to allot an alternative plot of land to the respon-
    dent at the previously fixed price under the MRTP Act.
         4. Before we go into these questions, we may, at this stage,
    narrate certain other facts also, which would be required for
8   decision in this appeal. In October 1988, the GOA had floated a
    housing sc;:heme the particulars of which are reproduced as "
    under.
          "Col.3.40 - This scheme relates to pay plan which says
c         that the plots/houses under these schemes are being
          constructed under lump sum plan (code 1), self financing
          plan (code 2) and hire purchase plan (code 3).
          Col.3.43 The reservation amount, as mentioned in
          column 8 of table 1 is to be paid within 30 days from the
D         date of reservation letter
          Col. 3. 66 If payment fixed for such allotment of land 1s
          not made within three months after its due date along
          with penal interest, if any, the allotment shall be treated
          as cancelled without notice. The GDA reserves its right
E         to cancel for non-payment within the time specified in
          column 3. 66 without notice.
          Col.8 The allotment will be made by a manual
          computerized draw in the presence of applicants who
F         wish to be present as per the serial Nos. of the application.,_
          forms. Claim for any particular house by any applicant
          will not be acceptable. Dates of lottery for reservation
          and allotment shall be published in the newspaper Col.9
          speaks about unsuccessful applicants.
G         Col.9.10 Those applicants, who have not been allotted/
          reserved plots/houses, will be returned their registration ~           ,
          amount without interest if the period of deposit of such           '
          money with the GOA is less than one year.
          Col. 9. 20 If the period of deposit is more than. one year
H
           GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VED                     681
           PRAKASH AGGARWAL [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

          5% simple interest shall be paid for the entire period of A
          deposit. Co. 9. 30 For the purpose of calculation of period of
          deposit the month of deposit & refund shall not be counted.
          Any period after the date of start of refund of registration
          amount of unsuccessful applicants, shall not be counted
          for the purpose of calculation of 'period of deposit'."             B

           Keeping the columns, as noted herein above, in mind, let
     us now proceed with the other subsequent relevant documents.
     A letter dated 1Oth of February, 1989 iss.ued by the GOA to the
     respondent is one of the important documents that needs to be
     considered by us in disposing of this appeal. This letter indi-          C
     cates reservation of Plot E in Govindpuram Scheme and the
     estimated cost is shown as Rs.55, 800/-. The payment sched-
     ule as appearing from the same is as under: -
         The due date for payment is 1Oth of March, 1989 and the
                                                                              0
     amount due indicated in the said letter is Rs.50, 000/-.

-1         The conditions for taking account for non-payment is shown
     in the following manner -
          (i)    The grace period of one month shall be given for             E
                 payment of the above amount after the due date.
          (ii)   If the amounts payable to the GOA are not paid within
                 the prescribed time limit, penal interest at the rate of
                 18% per annum shall be payable along with the
                 payable amounts. If the payment is not made within           F
                 three months after its due date along with penal
                 interest, if any, the allotment shall be treated cancelled
                 without notice.
           The reservation of Plot E in Govindpuram Scheme so far
     as the respondent was concerned was subject to rules and regu-           G
     lations in Jorce, prescribed from time to time by the GOA or the
     State Government. It was also stated in the letter that the terms
     and conditions as stipulated in the brochure of above scheme
     hold good and the allor.ation was subjected to those conditions.
     Draw for specific plot number was to be held separately.                 H
    682        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 8 S.C.R.


A          5. Having considered the relevant materials, as noted here-
     inabove, let us now look at the findings of the MRTP Comm is~
     sion based on which it has passed the impugned order. The
    ·findings are as under: -
          1.   By a reservation letter dated 10.2.1989, the GOA
B              intimated the complainant regarding reservation/
               allocation of a plot in Plot E category in Govindpuram ·
               Plots Scheme in the name of the complainant and
               was allotted/reserved allottee code no. 539 700 0070
               for an approximate area of 90 sq. metres.
c
          2.   The compla:nant deposited Rs. 45000/-vide demand
               draft dated '10.4.1989 with the GOA within grace
               period and' the balance Rs. 5000 was paid vide
               dem~nd draft dated 7.1.1990 with '18 %penal interest·
               amounting to Rs. 750/- and therefore, the
0
               complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs. 58000/
               - b-y the end of January, 1990.
          3.   The order of the Allahabad High Court in Satya
               Prakash Vs. State of UP dated 24.4.1991 nowhere
E              mentioned that the area of the Govindpuran scheme
               had been reduced and therefore the reason given
               by the G,DA was not supported by this order of the
               Aflahabad High Court.
           6. We have examined the findings of the MRTP Commis-
F   sion in the light of the materials on record. Having done that, it
    is difficult to conceive that the respondent was unsuccessful in
    the draw of lots as alleged by the GDA, which is the excuse
    given by them for not giving the possession of the plot to the
    respondent It is an admitted fact that the GDA had already
G issued a reservation/allocation letter to the respondent and it is
  ··also a finding of the MRTP Commission that the respondent
    had paid the full amount of Rs.58000/-. This shows that the re-
    spondent was successful in the draw of lots because otherwise,
    where was the need for the GDA to issue the reservation/allo-
H cation letter to the respondent which also required him to make
                   GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. VED                683
                   PRAKASH AGGARWAL [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

            the necessary payments. In this view of the matter, we affirm the   A
....
~           finding of the MRTP Commission that the act of the GOA
__,
            amounted to an unfair trade practice.
                  7. Having decided issue no.1 in the manner indicated
            above, the other question that we need to decide is whether the
       .,   MRTP Commission had the jurisdiction to direct the GOA to B
            handover possession of a vacant plot of 90 sq. mtrs. to the re-


-
            spondent in the Govindpuram scheme or if not available, an
            alternative plot in some other scheme. So far as this question is
            concerned, we hold that the MRTP Commission was clearly in
            error in directing the GOA to handover possession to the re-        c
            spondent. Under the Act, there are provisions for inquiries that
            can be instituted by the MRTP Commission while Section 360
            read with Section 12A and 128 lay down the powers of the
            MRTP Commission in dealing with instances of Unfair trade
            practices. None of the provisions seem to indicate that the MRTP D
            Commission has the authority to do what it did in this case. The
            MRTP Commission has the power to impose damages or give
            compensation to the respondent as a mode of redressal. for
            harm caused by the unfair trade practices, but it certainly can-
            not assume the powers of the civil court because the action of E
            the MRTP commission in this case virtually amounts to grant of
            specific performance.
                  8. In this view of the matter and in view of the foregoing
            reasons, we consider it appropriate to remand this appeal to
            the MRTP Commission for decision afresh on the compensa-            F
            tion, which may be given to the respondent in accordance with
            law along with refund of the amount deposited by the respon-
            dent with the GOA with simple interest. The appeal is thus al-

"' •        lowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
            N.J.                                           Appeal allowed
                                                                                G