NDLI: B.b. Patel & Ors Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	36-D and 36-E r/w ss.2(i) and 2(o) 36-B(a) (d) 1969 – ss.12- B 36-A Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – ss.12- B, 36-A, 36-B(a), (d), 36-D and 36-E r/w ss.2(i) and 2(o) – Held: s.12-B of the MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice – In the present case, there has been no misrepresentation made by the respondent amounting to an unfair trade practice for the delay in handing over possession of the apartments – There was no misrepresentation made by the respondent and, therefore, the allegation of unfair trade practice is rejected – Thus, as appellants have failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, they are not entitled to any compensation – Further, it is settled law that final relief granted by this Court need not be the natural consequences of the ratio decidendi of its judgment – Thus, though, the order of MRTP Commission dismissing the complaint filed by the appellants u/ss.36-A, 36-B(a), (d), 36-D and 36-E r/w ss.2(i) and 2(o), MRTP Act has been upheld, in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to handover possession of the flats to the appellants on payment of Rs.25,00,000/- for each flat by the appellants – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(r). Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(r) – Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Held: s.2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act defines unfair trade practice, which is exactly the same as the definition of unfair trade practice in MRTP Act – In case a consumer satisfies the consumer forum that the goods complained against, suffer from any defect or there is deficiency in service, the opposite party can be directed to remove the defect or replace the goods free from defect – The appropriate forum can direct removal of deficiency in service and direct the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice.Contract – Time when not essence of contract – Held: In the present case, though there is a clause in the Apartment Buyer Agreement (ABA) mentioning that the possession was to be handed over within a period of two and half to three years from the date of ABA, it cannot be said that time was made the essence of the contract as a reasonable extension of time for delivery was permissible as per clause 16 – Thus, there was no intention on the part of the appellants to insist on time being the essence of contract as they did not terminate the ABA due to delay in handing over possession of the apartments which they could have in accordance with clause 18 of the ABA – Allegation in the complaint is that the respondent committed unfair trade practice by seeking to recover large sums of money from the buyers without handing over possession of the flats – In the garb of delay in handing over possession of the property, the appellants are seeking possession of a property, the cost of which is more than 10 times the price at which it was offered, without even paying the balance basic sale price–Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 91
Petitioner	B.b. Patel & Ors
Respondent	Dlf Universal Ltd
SCR	[2022] 8 S.C.R. 51
Judgement Date	2022-01-25
Case Number	1106

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

B.b. Patel & Ors Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

Please Log-in to view this content

Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs. Ekta Seth & Anr.

Saurabh Prakash Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd.

R.d. Goyal and Anr. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay Vs. The Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi & Ors.

Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi Etc.

Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. The Registrar of The Restrictive Trade Agreement, New Delhi

Dlf Universal Ltd. and Anr. Vs. The Director General (investigation and Registration) and Anr.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Director General (i & R) & Anr.

Nirma Industries Ltd. Vs. Director General of Investigation and Registration

B.b. Patel & Ors Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

B.b. Patel & Ors Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs. Ekta Seth & Anr.

Saurabh Prakash Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd.

R.d. Goyal and Anr. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay Vs. The Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi & Ors.

Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi Etc.

Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. The Registrar of The Restrictive Trade Agreement, New Delhi

Dlf Universal Ltd. and Anr. Vs. The Director General (investigation and Registration) and Anr.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Director General (i & R) & Anr.

Nirma Industries Ltd. Vs. Director General of Investigation and Registration

B.b. Patel & Ors Vs. Dlf Universal Ltd