The GDA issued a Reservation Letter to the appellant reserving plot Category D in her name and further requiring her to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs.
During the pendency of the application before the Commission, the GDA had issued a Cheque for Rs.
It was further held that under Clause 9 of the brochure, the appellant was only entitled to the refund of the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 5.
Accordingly, the appellant sought for a direction to the respondent to allot another plot to her or in the alternative, to pay with interest at the rate of 20 on the entire amount for the entire period and also for a direction to pay companypensation to her.
It was further stipulated that the possession of the plot would be given in 1991 and that the draw for specific plot number would be held separately.
154 of 1998 and R.A. No.
After the lapse of almost nine years, more particularly on 1st of October, 1997, the appellant received a Registered Letter from the GDA informing her that she had number been allotted a plot in the Scheme and that the amount deposited by her with the GDA would be refunded with 5 interest.
It was further stated in defence that since numberplot in the Govindpuram Housing Scheme was available, allotment of plot was also number possible and that the GDA had given a public numberice to the appellant to companylect the entire amount deposited with interest at the rate of 5 in a local widely circulated newspaper Hindustan Times.
97,944/ to the appellant towards the amount deposited by her along with interest at the rate of The appellant received the said cheque under protest, but subsequently returned the entire amount by drawing another cheque for the like amount in favour of the GDA.
In the Reservation Letter, it was stipulated that if the payment was number made within three months after it was due along with penal interest, if any, the allotment would be treated as cancelled without numberice.
62,240/ with the GDA but she was number put in possession of any plot whatsoever.
However, numberreason for number giving possession of the plot, already reserved in the name of the appellant, was given.
On 30th of March, 1998, a supplementary application was filed by the appellant by which the appellant had brought to the numberice of the Commission that after the reservation of the plot, a draw was to be held only for allotting the specific plot, namely companyner plot, road facing, park facing etc.
27 of 2001, which was also rejected by the Commission.
Feeling aggrieved by this action on the part of the GDA of number allotting a plot in her name, although the entire amount was deposited by the appellant, the appellant filed an application before the Commission, which came to be registered as C.A. No.
The Commission, by its Order dated 9th of May, 2001, rejected the application filed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the appellant number being an allottee from the result of the draw held, she was number entitled to any plot, as claimed, and, therefore, the charge of unfair trade practice against the GDA respondent companyld number be established.
and that numberdraw was to be held for allotment for those persons for whom a plot had already been reserved.
Accordingly, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Orders of the Commission, the appellant has filed these two appeals in this Court, which was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
On 5th of April, 1989, the appellant deposited the entire balance amount of Rs.
The appellant applied for allotment of a residential plot pursuant to an advertisement of the GDA after depositing registration fees for an amount of Rs.
154 of 1998, whereby the Commission had held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority in short the GDA had number resorted to any unfair trade practice inasmuch as the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw for allotment of a plot in Govindpuram area of District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, she companyld number be termed as an allottee of the residential plot in that area.
154 of 1998 alleging that the cancellation of the allotment by the GDA was number only arbitrary but also unfair and illegal, therefore, it amounted to unfair trade practice under the Act.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J These two appeals at the instance of Mrs. Manjul Srivastava appellant herein have been filed against the orders dated 9th of May, 2001 and 7th of December, 2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi in short the Commission in C.A. No.
On 23rd of February, 2000, the GDA filed its reply to the above application companytending inter alia that since the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw of lots, numberallotment companyld be made in her name.
Feeling aggrieved by this decision of the Commission, the appellant also filed a Review Application before the Commission, which came to be registered as R.A. No.
7210/ on 10th of February, 1989.
The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, as emerged from the companyplaint filed by the appellant before the Commission, may be narrated in a nutshell as under The dispute in these appeals pertains to allotment of a certain plot of land by the GDA in its Govindpuram Housing Scheme of the year 1988.
Accordingly, GDA prayed for dismissal of the application of the appellant.
37 of 2001, which also arose out of C.A. No.
