//
you're reading...
legal issues

“13(2) Any order made by the Commission may be amended or revoked at any time in the manner in which it was made.” The language of sub-section (2) of Section 13 makes it clear that the MRTP Commission may amend or revoke any order in the manner in which it was made “at any time”. The expression “at any time” would mean that no limitation has been prescribed by the legislature for the MRTP Commission to amend or revoke an order passed by it. Hence, the argument on behalf of the petitioners that the MRTP Commission could not have entertained the Review Application for recalling the order dated 13.09.2007 beyond the period of 30 days has no foundation in law. Moreover, the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission on its plain reading was only an interim order and the MRTP Commission could modify or revoke the interim order directing the respondents to handover physical possession of the plot to the petitioners if it thought that such a direction could only be considered at the time of finally deciding the complaint. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the direction to handover physical possession of the allotted plot to the petitioner saying that this direction can be considered at the stage of final adjudication of the complaint.

Reportable

The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m ...

The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m from the main building outside the perimeter wall (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 16116-16117 OF 2010

M/s A.B.N.A. and Ors. … Petitioners

Versus

The Managing Director,
M/s. U.P.S.I.D.C. Limited, Kanpur
& Anr. … Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These are petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution for leave
to appeal against the order dated 04.03.2009 of the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, (for short ‘the MRTP
Commission’) in Review Application No.16 of 2007 and the order dated
05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Review
Application No.06 of 2009.

2. The facts very briefly are that the respondents published an
advertisement in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi inviting applications from
entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial land in Greater NOIDA on payment
of 10% of the cost of allotted land. In response to the advertisement, the
petitioners applied for a plot and on 05.03.1994 a plot of 800 square
metres in Site-C was allotted. The petitioners paid 10% of the cost of the
plot on 23.03.1994. However, physical possession of the plot was not given
to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not paid all the
dues for the plot. The petitioners then filed a complaint UTPE No.119 of
2000 before the MRTP Commission and after notice to the respondents the
complaint was heard from time to time. While the complaint was pending,
petitioners filed I.A. No.18 of 2004 before the MRTP Commission to take
possession of the allotted plot. On 13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission passed
an order directing that the respondent shall handover possession of the
allotted plot within next two weeks to the complainant and as regards the
balance amount, if any due, the respondents shall submit a detailed chart
giving the dates on which the subsequent installments were due and the
amount payable on each due date. By the order dated 13.09.2007, the MRTP
Commission also directed the petitioners to furnish a fresh SSI certificate
to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed on 01.11.2007 for
further directions. Instead of handing over possession of the allotted
plot to the petitioners, the respondents filed Review Application No.16 of
2007 on 18.12.2007 and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 the MRTP
Commission allowed the Review Application and recalled the order dated
13.09.2007 insofar as it directed the respondents to handover possession of
the plot to the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Review
Application No.06 of 2009 before the Competition Appellate Tribunal and by
the impugned order dated 05.01.2010, the Competition Appellate Tribunal
dismissed the Review Application of the petitioners.

3. The petitioner No.3, who appeared in-person and argued on behalf of
the petitioners, submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP
Commission directing the respondents to handover physical possession of the
allotted plot to the petitioners was a consent order as it was passed on
the consent of the two advocates appearing for the respondents, namely, Mr.
Shakti Singh Dhakray and Mr. D.K. Sharma. He submitted that the order
dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission being a consent order, the same
could not have been reviewed by the MRTP Commission and on this ground the
impugned order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the order
dated 13.09.2007 in Review Application No.16 of 2007 is illegal and is
liable to be set aside. He further submitted that Review Application No.16
of 2007 was filed before the MRTP Commission by the respondents on
18.12.2007 more than thirty days period prescribed for filing of the Review
Application. He submitted that by the time Review Application No.16 of
2007 was filed, the petitioners had filed contempt petition for violation
of the order dated 18.12.2007 as well as a petition for executing the order
dated 18.12.2007 before the MRTP Commission. He submitted that the MRTP
Commission should not have entertained the Review Application after such
long delay. He finally submitted that the stand taken by the respondents
in Review Application No.16 of 2007 was that the MRTP Commission had no
jurisdiction to direct the respondents to handover possession of the plot
to the petitioners but there are decisions of this Court which make it
clear that the MRTP Commission has the power to even direct handing over
possession to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission was an
interim order and the MRTP Commission has rightly held in the
impugned order dated 04.03.2009 that it could not have directed the
respondents by an interim order to handover possession of the plot
to the petitioners as this was the final relief claimed by the
petitioners in the complaint before the MRTP Commission. Relying
on the decision of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v.
Ved Prakash Aggarwal [(2008) 7 SCC 686], he submitted that the MRTP
Commission has no power to direct handing over possession of the
plot to the complainant and it is only the Civil Court which could
while granting a decree of specific enforcement of the contract
direct the defendants to handover possession to the plaintiffs. He
submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the MRTP
Commission directing handing over possession of the plot to the
complainant is thus without jurisdiction. He submitted that this
Court in Kiran Singh and Others vs. Chaman Paswan and others (AIR
1954 SC 340) has held that an order without jurisdiction is a
nullity and can be challenged in collateral proceedings. In reply
to the submission on behalf of the petitioners that Review
Application No. 16 of 2007 was filed beyond 30 days and belatedly,
he submitted that under Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act, the MRTP
Commission has the power to revoke any order passed by it “at any
time”.

5. For deciding the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners
that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission was a
consent order, we must look at the order dated 13.09.2007 of the
MRTP Commission, which is quoted hereinbelow:

“We have heard the arguments for some time of the parties. The
parties are at issue regarding the balance amount payable by the
complainant to the respondent towards balance installments or interest
thereon. The other controversy is regarding the formalities namely
certificate of SSI Registration and a NOC from Pollution Control
Department of the State. Earlier the complainant had submitted a
provisional SSI certificate which is already expired.

Complainant now undertakes to furnish the fresh SSI certificate to the
respondent positively within one month. Respondent shall handover the
possession within next two weeks thereafter to the complainant. As
regards the balance amount if any due, the respondents shall submit a
detailed chart giving the dates at which the subsequent installments
were due and amount payable on each due date.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that
the complainant should hand over these documents to Mr. Dinesh Jain,
Legal Adviser of UPSIDC at Surajpur Office with intimation to the
counsel for the respondent who will ensure that the possession is
delivered to the complainant within next two weeks.

The SSI certificate earlier submitted by the complainant was
provisional and has already expired. Therefore, an issuance of that
certificate by the concerned authority will not stand in the way of
their issuing a fresh SSI certificate. The General Manager, District
Industry Centre, Greater NOIDA is directed to issue the SSI
certificate at the earliest after compliance of the necessary
formalities. A copy of the order be given “dasti” to the complainant.

List on 1st November, 2007 for further directions.

Sd./- (Hon’ble J. Sri O.P. Dwivedi, Chairman) & (Sri D.C. Gupta,
Member)”

On a reading of the order of the order dated 13.09.2007, we do not find
that the directions in the said order to the respondents to handover the
possession of the plot to the petitioners was based on the consent of the
learned Advocates appearing for the respondents and this is what has been
held by the MRTP Commission also in the impugned order dated 04.03.2009.
Thus, the contention of the petitioners that the order dated 13.09.207 of
the MRTP Commission was a consent order is misconceived.

6. It is not disputed by the petitioners that Review Application No.
16 of 2007 was entertained by the MRTP Commission under sub-section
(2) of Section 13 of the MRTP Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 13
of the MRTP Act is quoted hereinbelow:

“13(2) Any order made by the Commission may be amended or revoked
at any time in the manner in which it was made.”

The language of sub-section (2) of Section 13 makes it clear that the MRTP
Commission may amend or revoke any order in the manner in which it was made
“at any time”. The expression “at any time” would mean that no limitation
has been prescribed by the legislature for the MRTP Commission to amend or
revoke an order passed by it. Hence, the argument on behalf of the
petitioners that the MRTP Commission could not have entertained the Review
Application for recalling the order dated 13.09.2007 beyond the period of
30 days has no foundation in law. Moreover, the order dated 13.09.2007 of
the MRTP Commission on its plain reading was only an interim order and the
MRTP Commission could modify or revoke the interim order directing the
respondents to handover physical possession of the plot to the petitioners
if it thought that such a direction could only be considered at the time of
finally deciding the complaint. We therefore do not find any infirmity in
the order dated 04.03.2009 of the MRTP Commission recalling the direction
to handover physical possession of the allotted plot to the petitioner
saying that this direction can be considered at the stage of final
adjudication of the complaint.

7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 04.03.2009, however, we
find that although the respondents cited the judgment of this Court
in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal (supra)
and contended before the MRTP Commission that the MRTP Commission
had no authority to order handing over of possession and that the
jurisdiction was only with the Civil Court to order specific
performance of the contract, the MRTP Commission has observed that
this contention cannot be dealt with while passing the interim
order and can only be decided at the time of final adjudication of
the complaint. Hence, we are not called upon to decide the
question whether the MRTP Commission has power to direct handing
over the possession of the plot to the complainant and this
question can be decided by the MRTP Commission at the stage of
final adjudication of the complaint.

8. In the result, we do not find any merit in these Special Leave
Petitions and accordingly we decline to grant special leave to the
petitioners to appeal against the order dated 04.03.2009 of the
MRTP Commission and the order dated 05.01.2010 of the Competition
Appellate Tribunal. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed with
no order as to costs.

.……………………….J.
(A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.
(Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi,
May 08, 2012.

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,951 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: