TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J. - These two appeals at the instance of Mrs. Manjul Srivastava (appellant) have been filed against the orders dated 9-5-2001 and 7-12-2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi ( the Commission ) in C.A. No. 154 of 1998 and R.A. No. 37 of 2001, which also arose out of C.A. No. 154 of 1998, whereby the Commission had held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short the GDA ) had not resorted to any "unfair trade practice" inasmuch as the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw for allotment of a plot in Govindpuram area of District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, she could not be termed as an "allottee" of the residential plot in that area. 2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, as emerged from the complaint filed by the appellant before the Commission, may be narrated in a nutshell as under: The dispute in these appeals pertains to allotment of a certain plot of land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Housing Scheme of the year 1988. The appellant applied for allotment of a residential plot pursuant to an advertisement of the GDA after depositing registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, GDA prayed for dismissal of the application of the appellant. On 30-3-1998, a supplementary application was filed by the appellant by which the appellant had brought to the notice of the Commission that after the reservation of the plot, a draw was to be held only for allotting the specific plot, namely corner plot, road facing, park facing, etc. and that no draw was to be held for allotment for those persons for whom a plot had already been reserved. 5. During the pendency of the application before the Commission, the GDA had issued a cheque for Rs. 97,944 to the appellant towards the amount deposited by her along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. The appellant received the said cheque under protest, but subsequently returned the entire amount by drawing another cheque for the like amount in favour of the GDA. 6. The Commission, by its Order dated 9-5-2001, rejected the application filed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the appellant not being an "allottee" from the result of the draw held, she was not entitled to any plot, as claimed, and, therefore, the charge of "unfair trade practice" against the GDA/respondent could not be establishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plot had already been reserved in the name of the appellant and the draw, if any, was only restricted in allotment of specific plot numbers. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the GDA, having indulged in an "unfair trade practice", the Orders of the Commission deserved to be set aside. 10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant were hotly contested by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the GDA. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/GDA contended that since the appellant was not successful in the draw of lots and, therefore, the GDA was, within its jurisdiction, not to allot any plot to the appellant. It was further contended that the GDA had already refunded the amount of Rs. 97,944 to the appellant towards the amount deposited by the appellant along with interest at the rate of 5 per cent and that amount was accepted by the appellant, therefore, it was no longer open to the appellant to challenge the Order of Cancellation after having accepted the amount. Although, the said amount of Rs. 97,944 was returned to the GDA subsequently, it was further argued that since the letter of the GDA dated 10-2-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such allotment was made. It is beyond dispute that in the draw of lottery, the appellant was unsuccessful as her name did not figure in the same. It could not be disputed that plot reserved and a plot allotted are different aspects altogether. A reading of the Clauses, as indicated above, would clearly show that a plot was reserved for her subject to the final allotment after the lottery related to such allotment was made. It would be evident that clause 9.10 of the Brochure of the GDA related to the distribution of plots which clearly stipulates that the candidates who were not allotted any plot, would be entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited with the GDA and also the reserved amount with interest at the rate of 5 per cent, if such amount was kept with the GDA for less than one year. Clause 9.50 deals with refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicant which would start after one month of the draw. This Clause clearly indicates that the refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicant shall start after one month of the draw which would clearly show that an applicant who is unsuccessful in the draw of lots would only be entitled to the refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , which by no means, would lead to the inference of registration by itself guaranteeing the allotment of a specific plot to the appellant. In this connection, a decision of this Court in Saurabh Prakash v. DLF Universal Ltd. [2007] 1 SCC 228 was cited at the Bar. In our view, the said decision of this Court is not applicable to the present case. In any view of the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court also expressed that the said decision shall not be treated to be a precedent. 14. Before the Commission, the GDA, on affidavit, asserted that no plot was available for allotment to the appellant in the Govindpuram Housing Scheme and, therefore, it would be practically impossible to allot any plot, which is not available with GDA for allotment, even if it is held that allotment of plot was made by GDA in favour of the appellant. A decision of this Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India [2007] 74 SCL 198 (SC) may be referred as it was also cited at the Bar. In that decision it has been clearly held that the amount of interest to be awarded for refund of any amount deposited by the candidate would depend upon the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
