2001 (3) TMI 963 - SC - Companies Law

Unfair Trade Practice - Held that - Appeal dismissed. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The appellants could not have, on the basis of the changed Policy on 15-7-1996, refused to complete the formalities so far as the 1st respondent is concerned. In the case of 1st respondent there had already been an allotment. Thus, the process of allotment had been completed. In this view of the matter the Commission was right in issuing the directions that it did. As the allotment was completed the 1st respondent could not be asked to pay any rate higher than the one of which he had been allotted the plot. We see no reason to interfere.

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
2. Compliance with government directions regarding plot allotment.
3. Correctness of the allotment made to the first respondent.
4. Compensation for the first respondent.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order dated 24-12-1998 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The Commission directed the appellant to provide a plot measuring not less than 500 sq. mts. to the first respondent at a specified rate and compensate by paying interest on the excess earnest money. The appellant argued that they were bound to comply with government directions issued on 15-7-1996, requiring plots to be sold through open auction. However, the Court found no infirmity in the Commission's order as the allotment process had been completed for the first respondent.

2. The government directions issued on 15-7-1996 mandated plots in certain zones to be sold through open auction. The appellant contended that this necessitated refunding the application money to the first respondent and putting the plot up for auction. The Court held that since the allotment process for the first respondent had been finalized before the policy change, the appellant was obligated to fulfill the allotment as agreed upon, rejecting the appellant's argument for a fresh auction.

3. The first respondent had applied for an industrial plot and was initially offered a plot which he accepted. Subsequently, due to government directions, the allotment was canceled, and the first respondent's earnest money was returned. The Commission found that the allotted plot was smaller than initially stated. The Court upheld the Commission's order directing the appellant to provide a plot not less than 500 sq. mts. to the first respondent at the agreed rate, emphasizing that the allotment process had been completed for the first respondent.

4. The Commission's order also included compensation for the first respondent in the form of interest on the excess earnest money paid. The Court upheld this compensation, affirming that the first respondent should not be asked to pay a higher rate than initially agreed upon for the allotted plot. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Commission's directions were appropriate in the given circumstances, and no interference was warranted.

This comprehensive analysis addresses the validity of the Commission's order, compliance with government directions, correctness of the allotment, and compensation for the first respondent, providing a detailed overview of the judgment's key aspects.

← Previous Next →