RADHIKA KAPUR Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/complainants have approached this Commission under Sec.36b (a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices falling within the purview of Sec.36a thereof. The applicants/ complainants have also made an interim relief application under Sec.12athereof for certain interim reliefs inter alia restraining the respondent from cancelling the allotment of the Apartments bearing Nos.305-B, 405-A and 405-B (the disputed apartments for convenience) in DLF Beverley Park, Gurgaon for non-payment of the extra amount sought from the applicants / complainants by its letter of 2nd June, 1997.

(2.) It would be quite proper to look at certain facts in order to appreciate rival submissions urged before us. The applicants/complainants appear to have booked apartments in Beverley Park, the construction of which was undertaken by the respondent. They have been allotted the disputed apartments. It appears that the respondent has demanded some more money from the applicants towards the escalated cost of the disputed apartments. Thereupon the applicants/complainants have approached this Commission under Sec.36b (a) of the MRTP Act charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sec.36 A thereof. As aforesaid, the applicants/complainants have also taken out an application under Sec.12a thereof for claiming certain interim reliefs.

(3.) The respondent has filed its reply to the interim application and has resisted it on several grounds. In the course of hearing on behalf of the respondent, a statement was made to the effect that the respondent shall not cancel the allotment of the disputed apartments made in favour of the applicants/complainants till the hearing and disposal of this interim relief application. Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Narain for the respondent informs us that the aforesaid statement by way of undertaking on behalf of the respondent will continue till the main matter is heard and finally disposed of subject to reservation of the liberty in favour of the respondent to move this Commission for release of the respondent from such undertaking if the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia against the order 6f stay of cancellation of allotment is decided in its favour. In view of this undertaking, it is not necessary to grant any relief as to stay of cancellation of allotment of the disputed apartments. If any breach is made of the aforesaid undertaking, it is obvious that the respondent will have to face the music.