RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. KRISHNA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against a common order passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short "the Commission") in RTPEs Nos. 135 and 130 of 1994 filed by the respondent under sec. 10(a)(i) read with sec. 37 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for short "the Act") along with an application for temporary injunction under sec. 12-A of the Act wherein the Commission while dismissing the complaints filed by the respondent directed that the respondent shall not be liable to pay interest on the amount due during the period of stay granted by the Commission.

(2.) The respondent purchased Booklet No. 65240 (being a proposal/invitation) along with an application form for registration for the purchase of a house under the medium income Group 'B'. The estimated cost of the house was to be rupees fifty thousand only. The appellants allotted House No. 17E/746 situated in Chopasani, Jodhpur, since the consideration of the house was to be fixed on the date of allotment, after adjustment of rupees thirty-five thousand already paid by the respondent, the appellants vide their letter dated 30.4.1993 demanded a final consideration of rupees 2,25,000 (Rupees two lakhs twenty-five thousand only). This payment was to be made within three months failing which the allotment was liable to be cancelled. Under the Scheme, on the delayed payment of any amount/instalment, the allottee was liable to pay interest which was stated to be 20%.

(3.) Aggrieved against the demand raised by the appellants, the respondent filed a complaint under sec. 10(a)(i) read with sec. 37 of the Act along with an application for temporary injunction under sec. 12A of the Act. The Commission vide interim order dated 15.9.1993 restrained the appellants from cancelling the allotment. The Commission vide its order dated 24.6.1998 while arriving at the finding that no restrictive trade practices by demanding the enhanced money had been indulged in, dismissed the complaint. However, while doing so, it was observed: