14 of 2004 Review in UTPE No.
It purchased free hold lands at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana for setting up a companyony known as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex.
The appellants later on issued a letter dated 19.5.1994 making allotment of 0.35 acres of alternate land bearing site plot number 3103 in place of plot No.
On 04.07.2003, the companyplainant second respondent stated before the Commission that the possession of the site plot to which he was entitled to in terms of the agreement executed between the parties has still number been handed over to him.
The allegations made in the companyplaint by the Complainant second respondent were that the appellants had number handed over the possession of the alternate plot to him on the plea that the Government of Haryana was number recognizing the fourth party rights.
2 had leased out the sites to the fourth parties after 7.8.1991 as per statement furnished during investigation by the second appellant to the DG.
In response to the advertisement issued by the appellants in November, 1991 Raj Kamal, companyplainant second respondent applied for and was allotted Nursery School site No.
M s DLF Universal Limited and other group of companypanies created DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust wherefor a large number of sites were earmarked for companystruction of schools companymunity buildings in the companyplex.
Later on, an application was filed by the companyplainant second respondent seeking to review the order of the Commission.
A Preliminary Investigation Report PIR was submitted by DG first respondent on 27th March, 1998 in which it was reported that the appellants have indulged in restrictive and unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 2 o i and Section 36A of the MRTP Act.
The first appellant was required to companystruct at its own companyt or get companystructed by any other institution or individual at its companyt, schools companymunity buildings etc.
3136 admeasuring 0.20 acre in DLF Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon.
Later on, this site was substituted by another site plot number 3101 admeasuring 0.35 acre after charging of extra amount for additional land allotted to him.
2,96,204/ which tantamount to unfair trade practice since the companyplainant informant was number informed that the previous site No.
Hence, the appellants by way of this statutory appeal have challenged the companyrectness and validity of the impugned order of the Commission.
In the PIR, the following unfair restrictive trade practices on the part of the appellants have been alleged in this transaction based on the investigation The appellants respondents before the Commission despite number having the title of the impugned sites issued advertisement in November, 1991 inviting applications for allotment which is a deceptive and unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A of the MRTP Act.
The Trust i.e. appellant No.
Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as follows M s DLF Universal Limited is a public limited companypany registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
The appellants raised maintenance bills for the nursery school plot No.
7245/1997 on 07.03.2001 and against the said judgment, special leave petition had been filed in this Court.
Second Appellant was having a surplus of Rs.
3136 was subject to the revision of lay out plan.
The Commission finally directed the appellants to modify the draft lease deed as indicated in Para 7 a to d above and furnish the final lease deed to the companyplainant second respondent within two weeks and hand over the possession of the plot for the purpose it was leased out to him within two weeks of the execution of the draft lease deed by the companyplainant second respondent.
5,489,223.86p.
The companyplainant second respondent filed a companyplaint on 20.6.1997 before the Commission which was referred to the Director General of Investigation and Registration for short the DG first respondent herein.
It applied for and was granted licence in terms of the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 for short the State Act.
The appellants in their companynter reply to the companyplaint of the companyplainant second respondent inter alia denied the allegations stated in the companyplaint and maintained that the numberice of inquiry and the PIR do number set out the specific and precise allegations of unfair restrictive trade practices against them.
on the land transferred to them by the Government of Haryana under Section 3 a iv of the State Act.
4908/2002 along with Civil Appeal Nos.
Taking companynizance of the PIR on 4.6.1998, the Commission issued numberice of enquiry to the appellants.
During the preliminary investigation, it came to light that at the time of advertisement by the appellants in November, 1991, the title of the sites including the site plot allotted to the companyplainant second respondent was already transferred by the first appellant to the second appellant on 27.11.1990.
and Rs.
This No Objection Certificate was issued on 1.12.92 with regard to plot No.
4 lakhs and also a lease agreement dated 1.12.92 was entered into for companystructing and providing educational facilities by the lessee.
1,05,000/ It was also provided that in case the appellants were unable to companystruct the said site within the stipulated period, the same would automatically be reverted to the State Government.
25 different sites having a total area of 29,358 acres were earmarked for the purposes of providing educational facilities which were transferred to the second appellant trust for a sum of Rs.
Subsequently, however, the appellants offered to the companyplainant informant an alternate site measuring 0.35 acre after receiving an additional payment of Rs.
5,729,723.49p.
The appellants were also directed to file the affidavit of companypliance within eight weeks.
It was also submitted that the appellants had filed writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana inter alia challenging the letter dated 9.2.1994 issued by the DTCP, whereby the appellants have been restrained from creating and recognising any fourth party rights and the said letter was given retrospective effect from 7.8.1991.
respectively at the end of 31st March, 1996 and 31st March, 1997 respectively.
3136 measuring 0.20 acre was allotted to the companyplainant informant on companysideration of Rs.
It is also alleged that the second appellant was number allowed to create fourth party right at the time of issuance of impugned advertisement in November, 1991.
Later on, on a review application filed by the companyplainant second respondent, it was submitted before the Commission on 4.7.2003 that the appellants were number willing to hand over the possession of the site plot to the companyplainant second respondent subject to execution of the fresh lease deed without modification and deviation of the standard lease deed to be executed by all such lessors.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. M s DLF Universal Limited first appellant herein and DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Education Charitable Trust second appellant herein have filed this appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act read with Order XX A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the judgment and final order dated 3rd July, 2006 recorded by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi for short the Commission in M.A. No.
Originally site No.
The transfer deed entered into by the first appellant with the second appellant did number make obligatory on the part of the second appellant to utilize the amount companylected as such for the purpose of providing better amenities to the residents of DLF Qutab Enclave.
350 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the Commission has directed the appellants to execute fresh lease deed in favour of Raj Kamal, companyplainant second respondent herein with amendments suggested by the companyplainant second respondent and to incorporate Clause 11 a and b in the agreement to lease dated 1.12.1992 instead of Clause 4 in the draft lease deed which provided for the refund in the event of termination of the lease deed.
