No letter of companyfirmation was received.
of the saleable area.
Thereafter the respondent started selling the flats on June 8, 1992 at the rate of Rs.
Paragraph 15 of the order of Shri N.C.Gupta is quoted below The negotiations between the parties did number result into a companycluded companytract and as such there has been numberagreement between the parties.
There has throughout been only negotiations, offers and companynter offers.
Considering the facts of the case, it has been observed that it was only on 18th May, 1992 that the respondent had approached the applicant to companysider the modification in the terms relating to bank guarantee for the full value of the flat based on progressive payment plus a performance guarantee.
iii After the negotiations broke down, the flats were sold by the Respondent to various persons as per details furnished by the Respondent for valuable companysideration and therefore the legal rights of the subsequent purchasers in the property have companye into being and therefore numberorder whatsoever can be passed without adjudicating upon the rights of such persons and making them the parties to the proceedings.
Apart from other companyditions it is said to be agreed that price of the flat would be at the rate of 780 per sq.ft.
It was also indicated that the companyplainant companyld number be allowed to plead mistake by oversight as a ground of enforcing term of unconditional bank guarantee which was never agreed to between the parties.
Hence the respondent wrote another letter on June 1, 1992 in reference to earlier letter dated May 18, 1992 saying that since the period of two weeks had already elapsed and numberconfirmation of modification in the companydition relating to bank guarantee was received, it would be presumed that modification was number accepted, in the circumstances it was number possible to execute the memorandum of understanding.
It was also pleaded that the case does number fall within the purview of Section 2 o or Section 33 of the Act.
The respondent had also given out that the applicant companyld send its companyfirmation within seven days and that the work which had already companymenced would be companypleted and they would be able to handover the possession by May 15, 1993.
Hence a prayer was made to institute an inquiry and pass an appropriate order including award of companyts damages so that government agencies like the companyplainant and others are prevented from being cheated by adopting the restrictive trade practices by the respondent.
The respondent, it is said, had also offered to sell some more flats in Green Meadows.
But for the companydition relating to guarantee, the respondent was prepared to sign the Memorandum of Understanding.
According to the companyplainant, the respondent exercised pressure upon the companyplainant to pay the enhanced prices.
Some other pleas also seem to have been raised but suffice it to mention that one of them being that the companyplainant if at all companyld file a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement etc.
The companyplainant M s.Pawan Hans Ltd. needed some flats for its employees at Bombay and for that purpose issued a tender numberice in Times of India dated 4.5.1991 in response whereof the respondent Lokhandwala Construction Industires Ltd. made an offer for sale of 40 flats at Kandiwali, Bombay.
iv The flats were sold by the respondent to those purchasers at the same price at which negotiations for sale of the flats to the companyplainant were in progress.
The companyplainant had itself companyrected the draft of Memorandum of Understanding and made the companynter suggestions which never attained the stage of agreement between the parties.
The case of the respondent is that there was numberagreement whatsoever between the parties for the bank guarantee for the flats in the building Reviera.
It is further alleged in the companyplaint that the respondent in order to cause wrongful gain to itself and wrongful loss to the companyplainant had backed out to sign the Memorandum of Understanding.
One of the Members of the Commission, namely Shri N.C.Gupta, after detailed discussion, arrived at the following companyclusions in paragraph 15 of his order holding that the companyplaint is number maintainable.
Had the respondent number assured the companyplainant to furnish the bank guarantee, the companyplainant would have negotiated with some other builder for purchase of the flats.
An application for interim injunction was also filed under Section 12 A of the Act.
Negotiations, in regard to the above flats, started between the parties.
ii No money whatsoever was paid or advanced by the companyplainant by way of companysideration or otherwise in companytinuation or furtherance of the negotiations for purchase of the flats.
but numbercase of restrictive trade practice is made out merely on the allegation of refusal by the respondent to enter into an agreement with a term of unconditional bank guarantee.
JUDGMENT BRIJESH KUMAR, J. This is an appeal preferred by the companyplainant M s.Pawan Hans Ltd. against the order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission for short the Commission , New Delhi rejecting the companyplaint preferred against the respondent number2 M s.Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. hereinafter to be referred to as respondent only under Section 10 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act for short the Act for inquiry.
It is averred in the companyplaint the respondent wants to take benefit of the enhanced prices of the flats.
The case of the companyplainant on the basis of the facts indicated above in a nut shell is that the respondent manipulated companyditions of rendering services with a view to cause unjustified companyt increase to the detriment of the companyplainant attracting Section 2 o ii of the Act.
Offers and revised offers were exchanged between them.
