KHAJAN SINGH Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has approached this Commission under Sec.13 (2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) for review of the order passed by this Commission on 9th October, 1998 summarily rejecting the complaint as not maintainable at the stage of its preliminary hearing. Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Narain for the respondent has resisted this application at the time of hearing without filing any formal reply thereto.

(2.) The main ground on which the complaint of the applicant came to be summarily rejecting as not maintainable at the stage of its preliminary hearing was on interpretation of Sec.2 (1) (d) read with Sec.2 (1) (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the C. P. Act for brief ). It was held by this Commission at that stage that, being a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act for brief), it would not be a person within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (m) and as such not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (d) of the C. P. Act.

(3.) It is not possible for this Commission to distinguish the binding ruling of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. V/s. The Director General (Investigation and Registration) reported in (1988) 64 Company Cases at P.884, on the ground that the word "consumer" has been defined in the Explanation to Sec.38 of the MRTP Act. At this stage it would be quite proper to look at the binding dictum of law pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani and Ors. V/s. Municipal Committee, Malkapur, 1970 AIR(SC) 1002, to the effect that a binding ruling cannot be distinguished on the ground that it is sub silentio or that a particular provision of law has not been considered by the Court in question. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for us to agree with the submission urged before us by learned Advocate Mr. Samy for the applicant that, since the word "consumer" has been defined in the Explanation to Sec.38 of the MRTP Act, we need not follow the binding ruling of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ballarpur Industries (supra ).