AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE applicant has moved this application under Section 13B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) for dealing the respondent with an action in contempt for breach of the order passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 as clarified by the order passed on 6th March, 1998. THE respondents have filed their reply and have tried to justify their action. According to them, they have not committed any contempt and, if it is found that they are guilty of contempt, they have tendered they unconditional apology.
IT may be quite proper to look at certain facts in order to appreciate the controversy involved in this contempt proceeding. The appellant has filed a complaint against respondent No. 4 herein charging it with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices qua allotment, construction and possession of built up fails to members of the complainant. According to the complainant, its members have applied for MIG flats at Indirapuram qua the Brochure issued by the respondents calling for registration on all India basis from 1st June, 1999 to 25th June, 1991 under Scheme Code-615. IT appears that total 896 MIG flats were to be constructed. Out of 896 flats, 160 flats situated in blocks Nos. 25 to 29 and 225 flats have been allowed to EIL employees in bulk. In other cases, even after paying full or nearly full amount towards the price of flats, only a few applicants have got allotment. Members of the applicant/complainant have still not got allotment. The applicant/complainant is a society of said applicants as its members and it has, therefore, approached this Commission under Section 10(a)(i) and Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act charging respondent No. 4 in this contempt application with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive and/or unfair trade practices within their respective meanings contained therein. The applicant/complainant also moved an application under Section 12A thereof for an interim relief directing respondent No. 4 in this contempt application not to transfer flats allotted to members of the applicant/complainant or not to create any third party interest in the said flats during the pendency of the proceeding before this Commission. By an order passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 respondent No. 4 in this contempt application was restrained from auctioning the flats already booked by members of the applicant/complainant. IT appears that respondent No. 4 in this contempt application moved an application for modification/clarification of the order passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997. Thereupon by its order on 6th March, 1998 this Commission clarified its earlier order. By that order the flats allotted to 38 members of the applicant/complainant were to be kept away from auction and respondent No. 4 in this contempt application was permitted to sell other flats not specifically allotted and to reserve flats for certain other members of the applicant/complainant society which were not specifically allotted in the scheme in any block. IT appears that respondent No. 4 in this contempt application invited tender for sale of certain blocks containing MIG flats. The advertisement in that regard appears to have been published in the Hindustan Times daily of 30th May, 1999. IT appears that the tender of respondent No. 5 in this contempt application has been accepted for a sum of Rs. 3,64,40,000/-. These blocks are stated to be in Module 2 Abhay Khand IV at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. Respondent No. 4 in this contempt application received Rs. 10,00,000/- from respondent No. 5 in that regard. According to the applicant/complainant, by transferring Module 2 in favour of respondent No. 5 in this contempt application, respondent No. 4 in this contempt application have violated the order passed on 24th December, 1997 as clarified by the order passed by this Commission on 6th March, 1998. The applicant/complainant has thereupon moved this application under Section 13B of the MRTP Act for dealing with the respondents in an action in contempt for breach of the order passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 as clarified by its further order on 6th March, 1998. By the order passed by this Commission on 11th August, 1999, a Show Cause Notice came to be issued to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in this contempt application calling upon them to show cause why an action in contempt should not be taken against them and why they should not be dealt with in contempt in terms of the contempt application for breach of the orders passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 and 6th March, 1998. In response thereto, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their respective replies and have tried to justify their action. They have inter alia contended that they have flouted no order of this Commission and, if it is found that the orders of this Commission have come to be flouted, they have tendered their unconditional apology. It does become clear from the material on record that the order passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 as clarified by the order passed on 6th March, 1998 has come to be violated by the respondents. The respondents have already sold by inviting bids flats situated in Module-2 in its entirety which Module consisted of certain blocks in which flats allotted to certain members of the applicant were situated. The respondents could not have done so in the teeth of the aforesaid orders passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 and 6th March, 1998.
The respondents have however tried to justify their action in paragraphs 4 and 5 of their reply. According to them, the entire scheme comprised of 896 flats in 28 blocks. According to them, they could construct and complete 448 flats out of the public funds. In order to complete the scheme, a policy decision was taken to sell off the remaining 14 blocks. According to them, it was thought of accommodating all allottees in the completed 448 flats in 14 blocks so that the other 14 blocks were available for sale by public auction. According to them, if this policy decision was not taken, the other 14 blocks could not have been sold by auction as some flats therein were not available as allotted to some members of the applicant in this case. In fact, according to them, the respondents have not cancelled nor have they intended to cancel the allotment of any of the allottees including members of the applicant in this case. We think that the policy decision in that regard appears to be quite reasonable and the circumstances, as transpiring from the reply of the respondents, would justify such policy decision. However, it would not be open to the respondents to implement such policy decision without approaching this Commission for modification of the aforesaid orders passed on 24th December, 1997 and 6th March, 1998. If they had approached this Commission for the purpose, we do not think that this Commission could have refused to allow the respondents to implement such policy decision on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. By not seeking permission from this Commission, the respondents can be said to have flouted the aforesaid orders passed on 24th December, 1997 and 6th March, 1998.
EACH of the three respondents has later on filed his separate unconditional apology for unwittingly flouting the aforesaid orders passed by this Commission on 24th December, 1997 and 6th March, 1998 through misunderstanding of the spirits thereof. We think that the respondents have acted in the best interests of respondent No. 4 and, since they have tendered their unconditional apology in that regard, we think that we should accept their apology. We should like to point out at this stage that, at the time of hearing also, learned Advocate Mr. Kulshrestha for the respondents did tender his unconditional apology on behalf of the respondents in this case. In that view of the matter also, we think that we should accept the apologies the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Since respondent No. 4 is a corporate entity and it has to work through human agency and it has in fact acted through respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, we do not think that we should take any action in contempt against respondent No. 4. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that, though the respondents are found guilty of contempt of this Commission, since their act was not absolutely wilful and since they have tendered their unconditional apologies in that regard, we do not think that we should punish them for contempt. In the result, this contempt application stands disposed of as indicated hereinabove however with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. C.A. disposed of.