Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Ved Prakash Aggarwal

2008 (5) TMI 411 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Whether any unfair trade practice was resorted to by the GDA? - Whether the MRTP Commission had the jurisdiction to direct the GDA to allot an alternative plot of land to the respondent at the previously fixed price under the MRTP Act? - Held that:- Appeal allowed by way of remand of this appeal to the MRTP Commission for decision 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 GD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

w of lots because otherwise, where was the need for the GDA to issue the reservation/allocation letter to the respondent which also required him to make the necessary payments. In this view of the matter, we affirm the finding of the MRTP Commission that the act of the GDA amounted to an unfair trade practice. - 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 cann .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e judgment and order dated 3-8-2000 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short the MRTP Commission ) in R.T.P.E. No. 82 of 1998 by which the MRTP Commission had directed the GDA to deliver possession of a plot of 90 sq. mtrs. to the complainant/respondent in Govindpuram Scheme or any adjacent scheme at a price prevalent in the year 1988. 2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the allotment of certain land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Scheme. In t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as not only arbitrary but also indicative of its monopolistic hold on the land and therefore, it amounted to an unfair trade practice under the MRTP Act. The GDA entered appearance and denied the allegations made in the complaint, inter alia, alleging that no specific allotment order was made by the GDA and, therefore, cancellation of the same did not arise at all. It was further stated by the GDA in their written objection to the complaint that the long delay was attributable to the fact that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the plots in the same circumstances amounted to an unfair trade practice under section 36 of the MRTP Act. The MRTP Commission also held that the respondent had suffered pecuniary losses and damages. Based on these findings, the MRTP Commission directed the GDA to allot 90 sq. mtrs. of plot to the respondent in Govindpuram Scheme and in case the plot was not available, to hand over the possession of vacant plot of the same size to the respondent in other schemes nearby the Govindpuram Scheme at .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondent 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 decision in this appeal. In October 1988, the GDA had floated a housing scheme the particulars of which are reproduced as under. Col. 3.40 This scheme relates to pay plan which says that the plots/houses under these schemes are being constructed under lump sum plan (code 1), self financing plan (code 2) and hire pu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e by a manual computerized draw in the presence of applicants who 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. 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ein above, in mind, let us now proceed with the other subsequent relevant documents. A letter dated 10th of February, 1989 issued by the GDA to the respondent is one of the important documents that needs to be considered by us in disposing of this appeal. This letter indicates reservation of Plot E in Govindpuram Scheme and the estimated cost is shown as Rs. 55,800. The payment schedule as appearing from the same is as under :- The due date for payment is 10-3-1989 and the amount due indicated i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ny, the allotment shall be treated cancelled without notice. The reservation of Plot E in Govindpuram Scheme sofaras the respondent was concerned was subject to rules and regulations in force, prescribed from time to time by the GDA 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 allocation was subjected to those conditions. Draw for specific plot number was to be held separately. 5. Having co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nant deposited Rs. 45,000 vide demand draft dated 10-4-1989 with the GDA within grace period and the balance Rs. 5,000 was paid vide demand draft dated 7-1-1990 with 18 per cent penal interest amounting to Rs. 750 and therefore, the complainant had deposited a total sum of Rs. 58,000 by the end of January, 1990. 3.The order of the Allahabad High Court in Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. dated 24-4-1991 nowhere mentioned that the area of the Govindpuram scheme had been reduced and therefore the rea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dent and it is also a finding of the MRTP Commission that the respondent had paid the full amount of Rs. 58,000. This shows that the respondent was successful in the draw of lots because otherwise, where was the need for the GDA to issue the reservation/allocation letter to the respondent which also required him to make the necessary payments. In this view of the matter, we affirm the finding of the MRTP Commission that the act of the GDA amounted to an unfair trade practice. 7. Having decided i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.