Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + AT Companies Law - 2013 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 343 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIUnfair trade practice - complainant's case that she had booked a plot of land in a scheme launched by the respondent namely 'DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-IV' and has paid the agreed price accordingly - liability to pay the interest @20% per annum for belated payment as arose by respondent - Held that:- This Commission has no jurisdiction to hand over the possession of plot in question to the complainant; that is the task of the Civil Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Ved Prakash Aggarwal [2008 (5) TMI 411 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the closest term has restrained to this Commission from assuming the power of the Civil Court. It is also clarified in the paragraph that this Court cannot grant any specific performance. The Commission has already recorded a specific statement made before the Court by the complainant, and quoted herein above, that she was not interested in any compensation, but was insisting upon the possession of the plot. This statement was made before the open Court on 15th July, 2011 before Hon'ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat who was the Chairman of this Commission.Therefore, in reality nothing would survive in this complaint, at least in so far as the possession is concerned. If this is not sufficient, in a reported judgment in Saurabh Prakash v. DLF Universal Ltd. [2006 (11) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] after taking stock of the provisions of this Act and after considering the definition of 'trade practice' in Section 2(u) and 'restrictive trade practice' in Section 2(o) (i) and (ii) and expression 'service' as also the definition of 'unfair trade practice' as defined in 36-A has quoted in paragraphs 34 and 35 stated that the power of the Commission to award compensation, therefore, is restricted to a case where loss or damage 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. From the bare reading of this, it is clear that the application under Section 12-B would not lie where a complaint is confined to a breach of contract. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case direct to the refund of amount, which was agreed by the DLF. However, since the matter remained pending all these years, refund @ 9% interest also confirmed.
|