Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the appellants against the MRTP Commission's order rejecting their request for interim relief concerning the allotment of apartments in D.L.F. Beverly Park, Gurgaon. The appellants sought to restrain the respondent from cancelling their allotment due to non-payment of escalated charges and demanded immediate possession of the apartments. The complaint was initiated following a letter from the respondent demanding payment of extra charges, threatening cancellation of allotment. The MRTP Commission had previously rejected the appellants' applications for interim relief, stating that the propriety of the extra charges would be determined in the main enquiry. The appellants bypassed the appeal process available under Section 55 of the Act and approached the Supreme Court under Article 136. The court noted that the Commission found no prima facie grounds for granting interim relief and that the appellants were protected against cancellation by an earlier order. The court also highlighted that the appellants had not made a valid offer for payment of extra charges before the Commission. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Commission's assessment that no irreparable damage would occur from denying possession before the enquiry concluded. The court directed that the enquiry by the MRTP Commission should proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices - Interim Relief - Denial of Possession - Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Section 12A - The MRTP Commission denied interim relief for possession of apartments, stating no irreparable loss would occur and the case was ripe for final disposal. The court upheld the Commission's decision, finding no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the denial of relief (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the MRTP Commission erred in denying interim relief for possession of apartments pending enquiry.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and the interim application, upholding the MRTP Commission's order. The court found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the Commission's decision to deny interim relief and directed the Commission to expedite the enquiry.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act
- jurisdiction of MRTP Commission
- Article 136 of the Constitution
- mandatory injunction
