2008 (4) TMI 499 - SC - Companies Law

Order by the MRTP Commission directing the appellants to refund to the respondent the excess amount charged from him for allotment of a plot within 6 months from the date of the order passed by the MRTP Commission Held that - Appeal allowed. Unable to sustain the order of the MRTP Commission, which was clearly in error in granting relief to the respondent. There is no dispute that the respondent had in fact filed an affidavit clearly accepting the amount shown as the price of the plot in question and he had also given an undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is, therefore, not open to the respondent to claim the rate prevailing in the year 1993. Accordingly, the impugned order of the MRTP Commission is set aside and the petition filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondent stands rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the 1993 offer letter constituted a concluded contract.
2. Whether the Noida Authorities' action of charging different rates constituted a "restrictive trade practice."
3. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to the case.
4. Whether there was discrimination against the respondent in comparison to another allottee, Dr. Bhardwaj.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the 1993 offer letter constituted a concluded contract:
The respondent argued that the 1993 offer letter from the Noida Authorities, which proposed a plot at Rs. 2,750 per sq. mtr., was a concluded contract. However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent did not accept the offer by making the required payment. The Noida Authorities refunded the registration money, which the respondent accepted without objection. Thus, the Court held that the 1993 offer letter did not culminate into a concluded contract.

2. Whether the Noida Authorities' action of charging different rates constituted a "restrictive trade practice":
The MRTP Commission had ruled that the Noida Authorities' action of charging the respondent Rs. 3,600 per sq. mtr. in 1996, while another allottee was charged the 1993 rate, was discriminatory and constituted a "restrictive trade practice" under section 2(o)(ii) of the MRTP Act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the scheme itself specified that the rate would be the prevailing market rate at the time of allotment, which in this case was 1996. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Noida Authorities' actions were consistent with the terms of the scheme and did not constitute a restrictive trade practice.

3. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applies to the case:
The MRTP Commission had applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation, suggesting that the respondent expected the Noida Authorities to implement the public policy fairly and justly. However, the Supreme Court found that the Noida Authorities had acted within the terms of the scheme by charging the prevailing market rate at the time of allotment. The Court concluded that the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not applicable in this case as the Noida Authorities did not act unjustly or unfairly.

4. Whether there was discrimination against the respondent in comparison to another allottee, Dr. Bhardwaj:
The respondent claimed discrimination, citing that Dr. Bhardwaj was allotted a plot in 1997 at the 1993 rate. The Supreme Court found that Dr. Bhardwaj was charged the 1993 rate for the original plot size, but the prevailing rate for any excess area. The Court also noted that the respondent did not raise the issue of discrimination in evidence. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no discrimination against the respondent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the MRTP Commission's order, rejecting the respondent's petition. The Court held that the 1993 offer letter did not constitute a concluded contract, the Noida Authorities' actions did not amount to a restrictive trade practice, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was not applicable, and there was no discrimination against the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →