In response to the advertisement, the petitioners applied for a plot and on 05.03.1994 a plot of 800 square metres in Site C was allotted.
16 of 2007 was filed beyond 30 days and belatedly, he submitted that under Section 13 2 of the MRTP Act, the MRTP Commission has the power to revoke any order passed by it at any time.
He submitted that the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the MRTP Commission directing handing over possession of the plot to the companyplainant is thus without jurisdiction.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Review Application No.06 of 2009 before the Competition Appellate Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 05.01.2010, the Competition Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Review Application of the petitioners.
For deciding the companytention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission was a companysent order, we must look at the order dated 13.09.2007 of the MRTP Commission, which is quoted hereinbelow We have heard the arguments for some time of the parties.
Complainant number undertakes to furnish the fresh SSI certificate to the respondent positively within one month.
However, physical possession of the plot was number given to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had number paid all the dues for the plot.
He submitted that this Court in Kiran Singh and Others vs. Chaman Paswan and others AIR 1954 SC 340 has held that an order without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged in companylateral proceedings.
The other companytroversy is regarding the formalities namely certificate of SSI Registration and a NOC from Pollution Control Department of the State.
The petitioners paid 10 of the companyt of the plot on 23.03.1994.
Respondent shall handover the possession within next two weeks thereafter to the companyplainant.
Relying on the decision of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal 2008 7 SCC 686, he submitted that the MRTP Commission has numberpower to direct handing over possession of the plot to the companyplainant and it is only the Civil Court which companyld while granting a decree of specific enforcement of the companytract direct the defendants to handover possession to the plaintiffs.
On 13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission passed an order directing that the respondent shall handover possession of the allotted plot within next two weeks to the companyplainant and as regards the balance amount, if any due, the respondents shall submit a detailed chart giving the dates on which the subsequent installments were due and the amount payable on each due date.
The petitioners then filed a companyplaint UTPE No.119 of 2000 before the MRTP Commission and after numberice to the respondents the companyplaint was heard from time to time.
The parties are at issue regarding the balance amount payable by the companyplainant to the respondent towards balance installments or interest thereon.
Honble J. Sri O.P. Dwivedi, Chairman Sri D.C. Gupta, Member On a reading of the order of the order dated 13.09.2007, we do number find that the directions in the said order to the respondents to handover the possession of the plot to the petitioners was based on the companysent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents and this is what has been held by the MRTP Commission also in the impugned order dated 04.03.2009.
Instead of handing over possession of the allotted plot to the petitioners, the respondents filed Review Application No.16 of 2007 on 18.12.2007 and by the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 the MRTP Commission allowed the Review Application and recalled the order dated 13.09.2007 insofar as it directed the respondents to handover possession of the plot to the petitioners.
A companyy of the order be given dasti to the companyplainant.
It has been pointed out by the learned companynsel for the respondent that the companyplainant should hand over these documents to Mr. Dinesh Jain, Legal Adviser of UPSIDC at Surajpur Office with intimation to the companynsel for the respondent who will ensure that the possession is delivered to the companyplainant within next two weeks.
List on 1st November, 2007 for further directions.
It is number disputed by the petitioners that Review Application No.
By the order dated 13.09.2007, the MRTP Commission also directed the petitioners to furnish a fresh SSI certificate to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed on 01.11.2007 for further directions.
While the companyplaint was pending, petitioners filed I.A. No.18 of 2004 before the MRTP Commission to take possession of the allotted plot.
As regards the balance amount if any due, the respondents shall submit a detailed chart giving the dates at which the subsequent installments were due and amount payable on each due date.
In reply to the submission on behalf of the petitioners that Review Application No.
The SSI certificate earlier submitted by the companyplainant was provisional and has already expired.
Earlier the companyplainant had submitted a provisional SSI certificate which is already expired.
Thus, the companytention of the petitioners that the order dated 13.09.207 of the MRTP Commission was a companysent order is misconceived.
Therefore, an issuance of that certificate by the companycerned authority will number stand in the way of their issuing a fresh SSI certificate.
The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Greater NOIDA is directed to issue the SSI certificate at the earliest after companypliance of the necessary formalities.
The facts very briefly are that the respondents published an advertisement in the Hindustan Times, New Delhi inviting applications from entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial land in Greater NOIDA on payment of 10 of the companyt of allotted land.
K. PATNAIK, J. These are petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal against the order dated 04.03.2009 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi, for short the MRTP Commission in Review Application No.16 of 2007 and the order dated 05.01.2010 of the Competition Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Review Application No.06 of 2009.
