2017 (4) TMI 1653 - SC - Indian Laws

Unfair trade practice - Jurisdiction of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to entertain the complaint regarding the alleged arbitrary increase in the cost of an immovable property by the Ghaziabad Development Authority under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - HELD THAT - It will be noticed that unfair trade practice will fall under this Section only when goods or the provision of any services are involved. In particular, the unfair trade practice alleged and found in favour of the complainant is under Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) under which a person falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. It is gound that the alleged arbitrary up-ping of the amount to be paid towards the house, which is an immovable property, cannot possibly be said to be a false representation by the Ghaziabad Development Authority that services are of a particular standard, quality or grade. This is for two reasons. First and the foremost, there is no false representation by the Authority, inasmuch as what was communicated to the complainant was only an estimated cost of the house in question. That estimate was revised later owing to several factors. This itself would show that there is no false representation within Section 36A(1)(ii) of the Act. Secondly, what was given was allotment of a house which is an immovable property, and not services of any kind. Conclusion - The transactions involving immovable property do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission as defined under Section 36A of the Act, which pertains to goods and services. The impugned order must be set aside as it is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission - Appeal allowed.

2025 (1) TMI 516 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (the "Commission") had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the alleged arbitrary increase in the cost of an immovable property by the Ghaziabad Development Authority under Section 36A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the "Act").
Whether the increase in the cost of the house amounted to an "unfair trade practice" as defined under Section 36A of the Act.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 36A of the Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 36A of the Act defines "unfair trade practice" and specifies the conditions under which a trade practice can be considered unfair. The section focuses on practices related to goods and services.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted that for a practice to fall under Section 36A, it must involve "goods" or "the provision of any services." The Court emphasized that the provision is not applicable to transactions involving immovable property.
Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the transaction in question involved the allotment of a house, which is an immovable property, rather than goods or services.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the definition of "unfair trade practice" and concluded that the transaction did not fall within the scope of Section 36A since it involved immovable property.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considered the argument that the increased cost constituted a false representation of services but found that the initial cost was an estimate subject to revision, which did not amount to a false representation.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Commission acted outside its jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint, as the transaction did not involve goods or services as defined under the Act.

Issue 2: Alleged Unfair Trade Practice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Act defines unfair trade practices, including false representations concerning the standard, quality, or grade of services.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the increase in the estimated cost of the house did not constitute a false representation of services because the original communication was an estimate, not a guaranteed cost.
Key evidence and findings: The Court found that the Ghaziabad Development Authority communicated an estimated cost, which was later revised due to various factors, and this did not amount to a false representation.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the provisions of Section 36A and determined that the increase in cost was not an unfair trade practice since it did not involve false representation of services.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the argument that the cost increase was arbitrary and constituted an unfair trade practice, emphasizing that the cost was an estimate subject to change.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that there was no unfair trade practice as defined under the Act, and the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "We find that the alleged arbitrary up-ping of the amount to be paid towards the house, which is an immovable property, cannot possibly be said to be a false representation by the Ghaziabad Development Authority that services are of a particular standard, quality or grade."
Core principles established: The judgment establishes the principle that transactions involving immovable property do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission as defined under Section 36A of the Act, which pertains to goods and services.
Final determinations on each issue: The Court determined that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commission's order.

← Previous Next →