KAMLA MIRCHANDANI vs DEEPAK BHALLA

AN application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) has been filed by the applicant, Smt. Kamla Mirchandani charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices and complaining therein that she paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards consideration of three plots purchased by her from the respondent No. 1, M/s. Paradise Promoters. It has been further stated that 50% of the amount was paid through cheques and the balance 50% in cash, at the time of registration. The grievance of the applicant is that neither the plots were registered in her name nor the refund of the amount paid to the respondents has been made to her. In her aforesaid application, she has prayed for refund of the amount with interest @ 18% as compensation.

A notice in respect of the applicant''s aforesaid compensation application was issued to the respondents and in reply thereto, while denying the charge of adoption of unfair trade practices, it has been stated that the applicant purchased two plots in Anand Lok, developed and promoted by the respondents and the plots were still available at the site and sale deed was also executed in favour of the applicant and her daughter, Ms. Kavita Mirchandani. It has been further stated that only a sum of Rs. 66,000/- was paid by the petitioner as cost of the said two plots and proper receipts were issued to her. It has also been mentioned that in February, 1996, pursuant to a compromise between the parties, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was refunded to her through two cross cheques and, therefore, no claim was to be preferred by her against the respondents. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed : (i) Whether the respondent is or has been indulging in the unfair restrictive trade practices ? (ii) If answer to the foregoing issue is in the affirmative then what is the damage to be paid to the applicant ?

While the applicant herself appeared as a witness and was cross-examined, Shri Jagdish Chander Dua appeared on behalf of the respondents and was cross-examined. During her cross-examination, the applicant admitted that there was a compromise between the parties and in terms thereof, an amount Rs. 50,000/- was paid; and both she and her daughter received Rs. 25,000/- each. The respondents'' witness Shri Jagdish Chander Dua also repeated that there was a compromise and as a result thereof, in the two affidavits of the applicant and her daughter. Ms. Kavita Mirchandani, they agreed to surrender the plots to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- which was paid to them through Cheque Nos. 116224 and 116225 respectively, drawn on the Union Bank of India.

IT is not disputed that the applicant purchased two plots No. 5A and No. 10 in Anand Lok Complex, Greater Noida promoted and developed by the respondents. IT also transpires that a sum of Rs. 66,000/- was paid to the respondents as consideration for these plots and for which proper receipts were issued by the respondents. IT is also not in dispute that the parties had negotiated a settlement by virtue of which the applicant and her daughter surrendered the two plots measuring 90 sq. yards each and, the respondents, in lieu thereof, paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each through cheques to the applicant as well as her daughter. The applicant, however, has contended that she also paid some amount in cash to the respondents, but she has not adduced any evidence in support of her above contention. Her other contention that her and her daughter''s signatures on the two affidavits were forged is also not supported by any evidence as during her cross-examination she has herself admitted that there was a compromise between her and the respondents and the compromise was reduced to writing. IT appears that the parties arrived at a mutually agreed settlement during the pendency of the proceeding and as pointed out above, it is not denied by even the applicant that such a settlement was arrived at and she and her daughter surrendered the two plots and accepted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each through cheques, no case of unfair trade practice by and on behalf of the respondents can be said to have been made out. Therefore, the issue whether the respondents have indulged in unfair/restrictive trade practices is answered in the negative and, accordingly, there is no question of payment of any compensation to the applicant. The compensation application filed by the applicant is accordingly, rejected, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. C.A. dismissed.