KAMLA MIRCHANDANI Vs. DEEPAK BHALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application under Sec.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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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