Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (5) TMI 876

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ompetition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Review Application No.06 of 2009. 2. The facts very briefly are that the respondents published an advertisement in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi inviting applications from entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial land in Greater NOIDA on payment of 10% of the cost of allotted land. In response to the advertisement, the petitioners applied for a plot and on 05.03.1994 a plot of 800 square metres in Site-C was allotted. The petitioners paid 10% of the cost of the plot on 23.03.1994. However, physical possession of the plot was not given to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not paid all the dues for the plot. The petitioners then filed a complaint UTPE No.119 of 2000 before t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioners, submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission directing the respondents to handover physical possession of the allotted plot to the petitioners was a consent order as it was passed on the consent of the two advocates appearing for the respondents, namely, Mr. Shakti Singh Dhakray and Mr. D.K. Sharma. He submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission being a consent order, the same could not have been reviewed by the MRTP Commission and on this ground the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the order dated 13.09.2007 in Review Application No.16 of 2007 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that Review Application No.16 of 2007 was filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er to direct handing over possession of the plot to the complainant and it is only the Civil Court which could while granting a decree of specific enforcement of the contract direct the defendants to handover possession to the plaintiffs. He submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the MRTP Commission directing handing over possession of the plot to the complainant is thus without jurisdiction. He submitted that this Court in Kiran Singh and Others vs. Chaman Paswan and others (AIR 1954 SC 340) has held that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged in collateral proceedings. In reply to the submission on behalf of the petitioners that Review Application No. 16 of 2007 was filed beyond 30 days and belatedly .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s delivered to the complainant within next two weeks. The SSI certificate earlier submitted by the complainant was provisional and has already expired. Therefore, an issuance of that certificate by the concerned authority will not stand in the way of their issuing a fresh SSI certificate. The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Greater NOIDA is directed to issue the SSI certificate at the earliest after compliance of the necessary formalities. A copy of the order be given "dasti" to the complainant. List on 1st November, 2007 for further directions. Sd./- (Hon'ble J. Sri O.P. Dwivedi, Chairman) & (Sri D.C. Gupta, Member)" On a reading of the order of the order dated 13.09.2007, we do not find that the directions in the sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts to handover physical possession of the plot to the petitioners if it thought that such a direction could only be considered at the time of finally deciding the complaint. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the direction to handover physical possession of the allotted plot to the petitioner saying that this direction can be considered at the stage of final adjudication of the complaint. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 04.03.2009, however, we find that although the respondents cited the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal (supra) and contended before the MRTP Commission that the MRTP Commission had no authority to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates