Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sudha Gupta, filed an appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 read with Section 55 of the repealed Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, against an order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal dated 8th March 2013. The dispute arose from a Plot Buyer's Agreement dated 7th January 1992 for a plot in DLF Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon. The appellant paid Rs.4,89,800 out of the total payable amount but defaulted on instalments. Despite the respondent's indulgence, the allotment was cancelled on 2nd June 1993, and Rs.1,55,105 was forfeited as earnest money under Clause 10 of the agreement, with a refund cheque of Rs.3,34,695 issued. The appellant later conceded to the transfer of the plot to third parties but demanded full refund. The Appellate Tribunal directed refund of Rs.3,34,695 with 9% interest but rejected claims for specific performance and compensation. The Supreme Court examined the facts, including the appellant's defaults and the respondent's efforts to refund, and upheld the Tribunal's order, finding no merit in the appeal for specific performance or additional compensation. The Court noted that the appellant had accepted the cancellation and sought refund, and the forfeiture was justified. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Competition Law - Unfair Trade Practice - Specific Performance - Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 read with Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - The appellant sought possession and registration of sale deed for a plot, which was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal relying on Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Ved Prakash Aggarwal (2008) 7 SCC 686, holding that specific performance cannot be granted under the MRTP Act as the Tribunal does not have the powers of a civil court. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the remedy under the MRTP Act is limited to compensation and refund, not specific performance (Paras 5, 12). B) Contract Law - Forfeiture of Earnest Money - Clause 10 of Plot Buyer's Agreement - The respondent forfeited Rs.1,55,105 as earnest money due to the appellant's default in payment. The Supreme Court examined the facts and found that the appellant had repeatedly defaulted and the respondent had shown indulgence. The Court held that the forfeiture was justified as per the terms of the agreement and the appellant's conduct (Paras 8-9, 12). C) Competition Law - Refund with Interest - Section 12B of the MRTP Act - The Appellate Tribunal directed refund of Rs.3,34,695 with 9% interest per annum, which was the balance amount after deducting earnest money. The Supreme Court upheld this order, noting that the appellant had accepted the cancellation and sought refund, and the respondent had made efforts to refund the amount (Paras 3, 10, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to specific performance of the plot agreement and compensation under the MRTP Act, and whether the forfeiture of earnest money by the respondent was justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Competition Appellate Tribunal dated 8th March 2013, which directed refund of Rs.3,34,695 with 9% interest per annum and rejected claims for specific performance and compensation. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance not available under MRTP Act
- Forfeiture of earnest money permissible under contract
- Refund with interest for balance amount
