RENU DAGA Vs. G D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has approached this Commission under Sec.10 (a) and Sec.36b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) charging the respondents with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive and unfair trade practices within their respective meanings contained in Sec.2 (o) and Sec.36a thereof. He has also taken out an application under Sec.12a thereof for an interim relief of stay of the impugned Demand Notice of 28th October, 1998.

(2.) It would be quite proper to look at certain facts giving rise to the present proceeding. The applicant/complainant appears inter alia to have booked one servant quarter and a garage admeasuring about 9.5 sq. mtrs. and 20.19 sq. mtrs. respectively approximately costing Rs.55,000/- and Rs.1,15,000/- respectively as an allottee of Kaushambi Apartments, the project undertaken by and on behalf of the respondents. It appears that the booking was done sometime in 1993 and the applicant/complainant paid Rs.1,70,000/- by means of a Demand Draft on 20th February, 1993. It appears that the applicant/ complainant tendered one affidavit to the respondents on 4th June, 1997 that he would pay according to the valuation done by the respondents. It appears that thereafter possession of the garage and the servant quarter was given to him on 7th July, 1997. It appears that the respondents sent one Demand Notice on 28th October, 1998 claiming Rs.11,719/- and Rs.18,857/- towards the difference in the final costing for the servant quarter and the garage respectively. The applicant/complainant has, therefore, approached this Commission charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in restrictive and / or unfair trade practice qua the final costing of the servant quarter and the garage in question. He has also taken out an interim relief application under Sec.12a of the MRTP Act for stay of the demand notice of 28th October, 1998.

(3.) The respondents have filed their reply both to the complaint and the interim relief application and have resisted them on several grounds. They have contended that the demand made-from the applicant/complainant on the final costing of the servant quarter and the garage in question is quite legal and valid.