SAURABH PRAKASH Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-90
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 24,2006

SAURABH PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

Y BHASKARA RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2007-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
DURAI ENTERPRISES VS. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS [LAWS(APH)-2011-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
S R S INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD VS. GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-2010-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
JALAL NASAR VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-236] [REFERRED TO]
S MUTHUKRISHNAN VS. COMMISSIONER HR AND CE DEPARTMENT NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-426] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVA ENTERPRISES VS. NTPC SAIL POWER CO PVT LTD [LAWS(CHH)-2012-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA VS. GOVT OF U P [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
V K ASHOKAN VS. ASST EXCISE COMMNR [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. UTTAR PRADESH INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. JAMES KUTTY P.C. [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
Pratap Chandra Parida VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2012-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
DLF LTD VS. BHAGWANTI NARULA [LAWS(NCD)-2015-1-129] [REFERRED TO]
BATAKISHORE MISRA VS. M.D., O.B.C.C. LTD. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
PUMA REALTORS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-342] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPA BHARGAVA VS. MAHESH BHARGAVA [LAWS(SC)-2008-12-156] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH MEHTA VS. CUSTODIA APPOINTED UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT [LAWS(SC)-2007-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAM STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-348] [REFERRED TO]
DENEL (PROPRIETARY LIMITED) SOUTH AFRICA VS. LORD GORDON [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-305] [REFERRED TO]
G.K.GRANITES VS. TATA HITACHI CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
DLF NEW GURGAON HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(NCD)-2014-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. M/S. EMAAR MGF. LAND LTD. ECE HOUSE, 28, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI [LAWS(NCD)-2016-5-197] [REFERRED TO]
ADARSH FOOD PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2018-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
VARDHMAN PROPERTIES LTD. VS. MAYANK VATS [LAWS(NCD)-2020-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVARDHAN SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PVT. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT AGRI BIOTECH LTD. VS. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PVT. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-105] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted in the SLPs.
(2.)EXTENT of jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (for short "the Commission") is the question involved in these appeals, although they arose under different fact situations.
We would notice the fact involved in both the appeals separately.

In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 26795 of 2004, Sunil Gulati, Respondent herein entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 1 (DLF) for purchasing a flat in a building known as Windsor Court, DLF City, Gurgaon and made payment of a sum equivalent to 10% of the agreed price as earnest money at the first instance. The balance payment was to be made in instalments. Clause 17 of the Agreement entitled the allottee to cancel the allotment at any time and take refund of the amount paid by him without interest, but the earnest money was liable to be forfeited in the following terms:

"17. In case the allotment is got cancelled by the Allottee himself, he shall be entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him, after deducting the earnest money, but without payment of any interest on the balance amount, paid by him."

(3.)CLAUSE 8 of the said Agreement reads as under:
"8. That the time of payment of installments as stated in schedule of payments (Annexure II) and applicable stamp duty, registration fee, maintenance charges and other charges payable under this agreement as and when demanded is the essence of this Agreement. It shall be incumbent on the Apartment Allottee to comply with the terms of payment and/ or other terms and conditions of sale, failing which he shall forfeit to the Company the entire amount of earnest money and the Agreement of sale shall stand cancelled and the Apartment Allottee shall have no right, title, interest or claim of whatsoever nature on the said premises. The company shall thereafter be free to resell and deal with the said premises in any manner, whatsoever, at its sole discretion. The amount(s), if any paid over and above the earnest money shall however be refunded to the Apartment Allottee by the Company without any interest or any compensation of whatsoever nature."

Respondent paid some instalments but allegedly was unable to pay the same from the month of June, 1996. One of his cheques bounced which fact was intimated to him by Appellant by a letter dated 7th January, 1998.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.