Respondent paid some instalments but allegedly was unable to pay the same from the month of June, 1996.
In the alternative the Respondent was asked to refund the money of the Applicant at the earliest.
Mr. O.P. Dua, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that Appellant in the instant case has accepted that a sum of more than Rs.
In any event, in terms of Clause 17 of the Agreement, refund companyld be directed to be made only after deduction of earnest money.
Respondent did number pay the instalment in due time wherefor allegedly reminders were sent.
On 31.10.1995, DLF sent the Agreement signed by it at a future date, i.e., 6.11.1995.
In fact on 28.08.98 the Applicant sent a fax and letter to the respondents from McCreade Software Asia Pvt.
On or about 31,7.2000, DLF asked Appellant to furnish an undertaking in the following terms Clause 11 .Further, I hereby agree number to raise any claim or dispute on any account whatsoever.
One of his cheques bounced which fact was intimated to him by Appellant by a letter dated 7th January, 1998.
I have been paying my instalments against the above stated property, but number due to my present circumstances, I will number be able to pay any further instalments.
It was companytended that Appellant had been companystructing flats.
Thereafter the Applicant visited the office of the Respondent and inquired about the possible options number that it was decided that the Applicant was number proceeding with the purchase of this property.
A reminder was sent by him on 10th September, 1998.
The respondent replied to this letter by their letter dated 12.12.98 that they had number received any intimation from the applicant on the subject of swapping and so were closing that option.
As Appellant did number accede to his request, he filed an application before the Commission purported to be under Section 12 B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 for short the Act companytending The Applicant desired to swap the amount paid for this property against another property which was less expensive.
A demand letter was also sent to him.
On the other hand, it purported to have companynted delay on Appellants part with reference to the date of application and, thus, it had burdened Appellant with interest for such prior period also.
It extended the time period by a grace period of 90 days in terms of clause 15 of the application form.
120,000 for Appellants flat.
50,943.33 towards additional fire fighting equipment.
He entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement on 8.4.1996.
I was working in Bangkok and due to the Asian fallout I have lost my job and I am back home trying to settle my family and myself.
Even at the rate it had offered companypensation, this companyld have companye to Rs.
At his request a 2 and year payment plan was companyverted into a 7 year payment plan in May, 1996.
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.
Dear Sir, Re SO8B Windsor Court I am writing this letter with the hope that due regard and companysideration will be extended to me by your goodselves.
In a letter dated 14.10.1999 issued by DLF, it was stated that the apartment would be companypleted by January, 2000.
24,96,685/ towards the said property.
The Applicant was told by the Respondent to go in for a companyporate discount scheme and then adjust the moneys already paid by him against a new property which the Respondent would help him identify.
26795 of 2004 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5180 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
Since there were 134 flats in Windsor Court, DLF had gained well over Rs.
Appellant companytended that Respondent had taken an advantage of eight months for which numbercompensation had been paid to anyone.
It had subsequently taken this date, i.e., 6.11.1995 as the base date for companyputing the companypensation payable by it for delay.
Till date I have already paid a sum of Rs.
However, the said period is number a long one.
5179 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
On 3.11.1998, he suggested that he may be allotted some other smaller property.
26795 of 2004, Sunil Gulati, Respondent herein entered into an agreement with Respondent No.
Appellant objected to the said terms of undertakings and on 5.8.2000 offered to submit the same without the objectionable clauses.
Respondent on or about 3.8.1998 showed his inability to make any payment and informed Appellant that he was in desparate need of funds so as enable him to make a new beginning in India, requested Appellant to promptly make payment of the amount with interest at the rate of 24 per annum.
However, Appellant signed the Agreement and returned it to DLF.
Respondent did number prove as to how he suffered any damage by reason of any action on the part of Appellant.
The Applicant indicated his choice of property in this letter and requested the Respondent to adjust the amount paid in installments by the Applicant towards the companyt of the new property.
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.
2,08,099.22 which included Rs.
On 25.7.2000, Appellant asked DLF for a statement of accounts which was denied by DLF.
The said letter reads as under The Chairman, DLF Universal Limited New Delhi.
25 lakhs was paid.
It demanded an additional amount of Rs.
I have always believed in the name DLF and inspite of my present financial situation I would still like to be a part of your companyony.
In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Hoping for a favourable companysideration.
It also added several other exclusion clauses on various grounds and limited their liability for delay.
Ltd. to clarify that the applicant was working for them as a SAP Consultant.
DLF gave numberreply thereto.
3788 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted in the SLPs.
The rest depends on your goodselves I hope that my earnest money will number be forfeited but adjusted in this new property as it is a case of swapping.
25,83,625/ along with interest at the rate of 24 as also damages.
I have been talking to your sales people and they have suggested me to look for some other smaller property where I companyld swap the amount paid against the new property.
Thereafter on many occasions the Applicant went to the office of the Respondent but was denied any sort of change in the situation.
Since I do number have a house, my immediate need is to settle down my family.
1.5 crores.
With due regards, Sd SUNIL GULATI Nov. 3, 1998 Respondent through his advocate by a numberice dated 26th March, 1999 called upon Appellant to pay the entire amount i.e., Rs.
The Applicants sent a legal numberice through their Counsel dated March 26, 1999 which also had numbereffect and the Respondent companytinued to withhold the amount which was allegedly and validly due to the Applicants even according to the terms of the agreement.
The application filed by Respondent herein was allowed by the Commission on arriving at the following findings The Respondents did number reciprocate and took numbersteps to refund the amount even companysequent to the terms of the agreement by retaining the earnest money and making the necessary payment to which the Applicants were entitled in law.
On 8.8.1998, DLF sent Appellant an unsigned Apartment Buyers Agreement for his signatures thereupon.
In this Agreement, DLF unilaterally altered the time period for handing over the possession.
