Competition Law : Non-delivery of possession of plot allotted to complainant and demand of additional price amounts to unfair trade practice; complainant entitled to refund of excess amount and interest from date of deposit till date of actual refund
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 490 (CAT - New Delhi)
COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Praveen Kumar Mendiratta
v.
Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority
JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI, CHAIRMAN
UTPE NO.26 OF 2007
CA NO. 81 OF 2007
DECEMBER 11, 2014
Section 36A of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Unfair trade practice - Definition of - In response to an advertisement issued by respondent-builders, complainant had applied for a residential plot - After about four months, a plot was allotted to complainant but possession thereof was not given to him on pretext of pending litigation - While complainant was waiting for delivery of possession, respondent demanded additional payment in lieu of enhanced compensation allegedly paid to land owners - Whether respondents were guilty of unfair trade practice inasmuch as they had made false promise about availability of vacant plots and not only they failed to give possession of plots allotted to complainant, but also demanded additional price from him despite the fact that no award had been passed in respect of acquired land - Held, yes - Whether thus complainant was entitled to refund of excess amount and interest from date of deposit till date of actual refund - Held, yes[Paras 37 & 38]
■■■
[2015] 53 taxmann.com 490 (CAT - New Delhi)
COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Praveen Kumar Mendiratta
v.
Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority
JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI, CHAIRMAN
UTPE NO.26 OF 2007
CA NO. 81 OF 2007
DECEMBER 11, 2014
Section 36A of the Monopolies And Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Unfair trade practice - Definition of - In response to an advertisement issued by respondent-builders, complainant had applied for a residential plot - After about four months, a plot was allotted to complainant but possession thereof was not given to him on pretext of pending litigation - While complainant was waiting for delivery of possession, respondent demanded additional payment in lieu of enhanced compensation allegedly paid to land owners - Whether respondents were guilty of unfair trade practice inasmuch as they had made false promise about availability of vacant plots and not only they failed to give possession of plots allotted to complainant, but also demanded additional price from him despite the fact that no award had been passed in respect of acquired land - Held, yes - Whether thus complainant was entitled to refund of excess amount and interest from date of deposit till date of actual refund - Held, yes[Paras 37 & 38]
No comments:
Post a Comment