2008 (5) TMI 411 - SC - Companies Law

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 GDA with simple interest. It is difficult to conceive that the respondent was unsuccessful in the draw of lots as alleged by the GDA, which is the excuse given by them for not giving the possession of the plot to the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the GDA had already issued a reservation/allocation letter to the respondent and it is also a finding of the MRTP Commission that the respondent had paid the full amount of ₹ 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. 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 cannot assume the powers of the civil Court because the action of the MRTP Commission in this case virtually amounts to grant of specific performance.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of unfair trade practice by the GDA
2. Jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission to direct alternative plot allotment

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute over land allotment by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) in its Govindpuram Scheme. The respondent alleged that the GDA arbitrarily cancelled his allotment and sought a refund. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission found in favor of the respondent, stating that the cancellation of the allotment was unfair and ordered the GDA to allot a plot or provide an alternative at the 1988 price. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that the respondent had paid the full amount and was successful in the draw, indicating the GDA's unfair trade practice.

2. The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission to direct the GDA to hand over possession of a plot to the respondent. It was held that while the MRTP Commission can impose damages or compensation for unfair trade practices, it does not have the authority to direct specific performance like allotting a plot. Therefore, the Court remanded the case to the MRTP Commission to decide on compensation and refund with simple interest, allowing the appeal in part and emphasizing that the MRTP Commission's actions exceeded its powers.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of unfair trade practice by the GDA but remanded the case to the MRTP Commission for appropriate redressal, highlighting the limitations of the Commission's powers in directing specific performance.