SUDHA GUPTA vs. DLF LTD

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9646 OF 2013 Sudha Gupta                .…Appellant Versus DLF Ltd.              …..Respondent J U D G M E N T Sanjiv Khanna, J. 1. Appellant Sudha Gupta, who appears in­person in the present appeal under Section 53T of the Competition Act, 2002 read with Section 55 of the repealed Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 impugns order dated th 8   March,   2013   passed   by   the   Competition   Appellate Tribunal   (“Appellate   Tribunal”   for   short)   in   Unfair   Trade Practices Enquiry No. 117 of 1996.   2 M/s DLF Universal Ltd., sometimes also described as M/s DLF Ltd., is the first respondent and has contested the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2019.03.07 14:29:30 IST Reason: nd rd appeal.  Kamlesh Bali and Manish Bali who were 2  and 3 respondents   before   the   Appellate   Tribunal   and   in   this CA No.9646 of 2013 2 appeal as originally filed, were later deleted from the array of parties on an application filed by the appellant which was th allowed vide the order in chamber on 8  March, 2016. th 3. By   the   impugned   order   dated   8   March,   2013,   the Appellate   Tribunal   has   directed   the   first   respondent   to refund   Rs.3,34,695/­   (Rupees   three   lakhs   thirty­four thousand six hundred ninety­five) along with interest @ 9% per   annum,   inter   alia ,   accepting   the   plea   of   the   first respondent that they were entitled to forfeit Rs.1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­ five thousand one hundred five) from Rs.4,89,800/­   (Rupees   four   lakhs   eighty­nine   thousand eight hundred) paid by the appellant towards the price of the plot. 4. The appellant is aggrieved as the Appellate Tribunal has rejected her prayers for (a) possession and registration of the sale deed of Plot No.1225, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase IV, Gurgaon (“the plot” for short) on the payment of balance sale price and (b) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees one lakh) for pecuniary loss and immense mental agony suffered by her. CA No.9646 of 2013 3 5. Prayer   in   the   nature   of   specific   performance   was rejected   by   the   Appellate   Tribunal   relying   upon   the judgment   of   this   Court   in   Ghaziabad   Development Authority vs. Ved Prakash Aggarwal (2008) 7 SCC 686 . In terms of this decision, prayer for specific performance, i.e. possession and registration of the sale deed cannot be granted   under   the   repealed   Monopolies   and   Restrictive Trade Practices Act, with the Appellate Tribunal assuming the powers of a civil court. 6.     We would now discuss the facts of the present case in brief.   The appellant had paid Rs.1,00,800/­ (Rupees one lakh eight hundred) with the application for allotment of the rd plot   on   3   October,   1991   to   the   first   respondent. th Subsequently,   the   Plot   Buyer’s   Agreement   dated   7 January,   1992   was   executed   for   the   plot   admeasuring 298.98 sq. meters at the    rate of Rs.2093/­ per sq. meter. As per the agreement, the appellant was also liable to pay External   Development   Charges   of   Rs.46,464/­   (Rupees forty­six thousand four hundred sixty­four) at the rate of Rs.155.40 per sq. meter., Rs.71,516/­ (Rupees seventy­one thousand   five   hundred   sixteen)   towards   Preferential CA No.9646 of 2013 4 Location   Charges,   Contingency   Deposit   of   Rs.7,176/­ (Rupees seven thousand one hundred seventy­six), Interest Free   Refundable     Service   &   Maintenance   Security   of Rs.18,000/­ (Rupees eighteen thousand) in addition to the interest   of   Rs.14,195/­   (Rupees   fourteen   thousand   one­ hundred ninety­five) under the two years and six months instalment plan opted by her.  The total amount, therefore, payable   by   the   appellant   was   Rs.8,83,916.14/­   (Rupees eight lakhs eighty­three thousand nine hundred sixteen and fourteen paisa). 7. As per the appellant, the total amount payable was Rs.8,11,600/­   (Rupees   eight   lakhs   eleven­thousand   six hundred).   The appellant had disputed the liability to pay Rs.71,516/­   (Rupees   seventy­one   thousand   five   hundred sixteen) on account of Preferential Location Charges, though the mandate to make this payment was specified in the Plot Buyer’s Agreement. 8. Appellant had paid Rs.4,89,800/­ (Rupees four lakhs eighty­nine   thousand   eight   hundred)   in   all,   with   first payment of Rs.1,00,800/­ (Rupees one lakh eight hundred) rd on 3  December, 1991 when she had made an application CA No.9646 of 2013 5 for allotment of plot.  The balance payment of Rs.3,89,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs eighty­nine thousand) was as per the following details:

Subsequently,   the   appellant   had   defaulted   in   making payment of the instalments. The defaults were accepted by th the   appellant   in   her   communications   dated   17   August, th st 1992, 27   August, 1992 and 21   December, 1992.   Even th her   letter   dated   14   January,   1993   accepts   defaults   in payment.     The   allotment   was   cancelled   by   the   first th respondent vide its letter dated 25   August, 1992 which cancellation was recalled and the allotment was restored on payment of Rs.75,000/­ (Rupees seventy­five thousand) by th the first respondent on 4   September, 1992 by way of a bank draft.   The appellant, thereafter, had sent a cheque th dated 15  January, 1993 for Rs.66,279/­ (Rupees sixty­six thousand   two­hundred   seventy­   nine),   which   cheque   on representation had bounced.   The appellant had vide her CA No.9646 of 2013 6 th letter dated 14  January, 1993 taken a false plea that the plot   had   not   been   demarcated   and   the   cheque   of Rs.66,279/­   (Rupees   sixty­six   thousand   two­hundred seventy­nine) should not be presented.  Notwithstanding the th defaults,   the   first   respondent   vide   its   letter   dated   18 January 1993 as a special case had extended the time of th payment upto 30   January, 1993 subject to payment of interest.  This letter is elaborate and negates the assertions of the appellant and highlights her defaults.   In spite of indulgence shown, the appellant had defaulted and did not pay the overdue amounts. nd 9. The first respondent had by the letter dated 2  June 1993 cancelled the allotment.   The letter had also stated that the amount due and payable by the appellant including interest in January 1993 was Rs.1,28,796/­ (Rupees one lakh twenty­eight thousand seven­hundred ninety­six).  The letter had enclosed refund cheque of Rs.3,34,695/­ (Rupees three   lakhs   thirty­four   thousand   six­hundred   ninety­five) after deducting ‘earnest money’ of Rs.1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­five thousand one­hundred five) which was forfeited   in   terms   of   Clause   10   of   the   agreement.     The CA No.9646 of 2013 7 aforesaid letter with the cheque addressed to the appellant was received back unserved with the remark ‘unclaimed’. The   first respondent  had,   thereafter,  sent  the  said   letter th without   the   cheque,   under   certificate   of   posting   on   24 th June, 1993.   Another letter dated 29   June, 1993 along with   the   cheque   sent   as   Registered   A.D.   post   was   also received  back  with  the  remark ‘unclaimed’.   Yet another letter under certificate of posting was issued by the first th respondent on 19   July, 1993 informing that the refund cheque issued to her had returned back and the same could be collected from the office of the first respondent.  The first respondent   has   placed   on   record   these   and   other communications which were sent under the registered post as   well   as   certificate   of   posting   and   vide   telegrams   on nd nd different dates between 2  June, 1993 till 2  April, 1994. rd 10. The   appellant   had   thereupon   on   3   January,   1994 written a letter to the first respondent enclosing therewith a cheque   of   Rs.54,636/­   (Rupees   fifty­four   thousand   six­ hundred thirty­six) to which response was sent by the first th respondent on 5  January, 1994 stating that the allotment had   already   been   cancelled   due   to   non­payment   of   the CA No.9646 of 2013 8 outstanding   amount   and   the   earnest   money   had   been forfeited and the cheque of Rs.54,636/­ (Rupees fifty­four thousand six­hundred thirty­six) sent by her was returned. Subsequently, the appellant had prayed for withdrawal of cancellation of plot and restoration of the allotment.   By nd letter dated 22  June, 1994, the first respondent informed the appellant that they had already transferred the plot to another customer.  Thereupon, the appellant vide her letter th dated 27  June, 1994 conceded to the transfer of the plot but   had   protested   against   forfeiture   of   Rs.1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­five thousand one­hundred five)  and had   demanded  that the  entire payment  of  Rs.4,89,800/­ (Rupees   four   lakhs   eighty­nine   thousand   eight   hundred) along   with   interest   should   be   refunded.     The   claim   for ‘mesne profits’ in case the plot was transferred and re­sold to   another   person   was   also   made.     This   letter   by   the appellant indicates that she had withdrawn and given up her   claim   for   allotment   of   the   plot   and   had   pressed   for refund of the amount deposited with interest and ‘mesne profits’. CA No.9646 of 2013 9 11.     Pursuant to cancellation of the allotment by the first nd respondent vide its letter dated  2   June, 1993,  the first rd respondent   had   entered   into   an   agreement   dated   23 nd rd September, 1993 to sell the plot to the deleted 2   and 3 respondents.     The   appellant   had   raised   an   issue   and questioned   the   genuineness   and   authenticity   of   the application for allotment made by the deleted respondents pointing out the cuttings and corrections in the application form.     It   was   highlighted   that   initially   the   plot   number mentioned in the application was 1218 and not the plot in dispute, i.e. plot no.1225 and there were also a number of corrections   and   over­writings   including   the   correction   at serial no.8 in the box ‘for office use only’ and that the two dates i.e. 14.7.1993 and 20.7.1993 stand recorded in the box.     We   are   not   impressed   with   the   argument.   Deleted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had paid Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees one   lakh   fifty   thousand)   and   Rs.50,000/­(Rupees   fifty th thousand) as booking amount vide bank drafts dated 14 th July, 1993 and 19   July, 1993. The first respondent had nd rd explained   that   the   deleted   2   and   3   respondents   had initially opted for plot no.1218 but had subsequently opted CA No.9646 of 2013 10 for   an   ‘Executive   Home’   constructed   on   the   plot.     This statement of the first respondent is palpably and   ex facie correct for the change of plot was to the detriment of the nd rd deleted 2  and 3  Respondent as the Appellate Tribunal had passed an interim order thereby staying the creation of any third­party interest in the plot. In view of the interim order, inspite of substantial payments by the deleted respondent   Nos.   2 &   3   nearing   to   95%   of   the   agreed   price   of Rs.17,73,616/­   (Rupees   seventeen   lakhs   seventy­three thousand   six­hundred   sixteen),   they   could   not   be   given physical   possession   of   the   property   i.e.   the   constructed house.  After about 20 years and upon the impugned order th on 8  March, 2013 being passed, the sale/conveyance deed th in   their   favour   was   registered   on   17   May,   2013.     The appellant has also challenged the sale/conveyance deed on nd rd the ground that the deleted 2  and 3  respondents were not present   in   India   on   the   date   when   the   document   was registered.   The   first   respondent   has   submitted   that   the deleted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were non­residents and had executed the documents in April, 2013 and that the sale deed was presented for registration by the vendor i.e. the CA No.9646 of 2013 11 first respondent through its duly authorised representative. The   vendor   i.e.   the   first   respondent   through   its   duly authorised   representative   and   the   two   witnesses   were nd present   on   the   date   of   registration.     The   deleted   2 respondent   had   signed   the   sale/conveyance   deed   for   self rd and as attorney of the deleted 3   respondent. Photographs nd rd of the deleted 2   and 3   respondents were affixed.   Even otherwise   the   law   requires   acceptance   by   the   vendee. Signature of the vendee on the sale/conveyance deed is not mandatory  (see Aloka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi, (2009) 2 SCC 582).    Signature of the vendor(s) and witnesses are admitted by the appellant. Acceptance is apparent. Thus, the plot stood transferred to the deleted respondent Nos. 2 & nd rd 3.     Further,   2   and   3   respondents   who   had   acquired ownership of the plot pursuant to sale deed executed by the th first respondent on 17   May, 2013 are not parties to the present appeal having been deleted from the array of parties. In this backdrop, we are unable to grant the appellant relief in the nature of possession and registration of the sale deed of the plot.  CA No.9646 of 2013 12 12. It   would   be   relevant   here   to   state   that   after   the impugned order, the appellant had also filed a complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,   which   complaint   was   dismissed   by   Consumer th Disputes   Redressal   Forum   vide   its   order   dated   14 September, 2017 for various grounds and reasons including limitation   and   the   order   passed   by   Appellate   Tribunal. Apparently,   the   appellant   has   made   criminal   complaints pursuant to which FIRs have been registered all pertaining to the transaction. 13. To deal with the question of refund of money, interest and mesne profits and forfeiture of Rs. 1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­five thousand one hundred five), it would have been pertinent to peruse the instalment plan/schedule as agreed between the appellant and the first respondent, which was supposedly and annexure to the Plot Buyer’s agreement th dated 7   January, 1992. Neither the appellant nor the first respondent have placed on record the instalment schedule inspite of the direction given by this Court [Coram: Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.] vide order dated th 24   October, 2017 to the first respondent to place all the CA No.9646 of 2013 13 documents on record. The appellant states that she does not have a copy as the same was not furnished to her. This is disputed by the first respondent, who however should have placed the   details/schedule of payment of instalments as was directed.   We have no hesitation in observing that the first respondent was anxious to cancel the allotment as the prices had substantially increased which is apparent from the agreement between the first respondent and the deleted nd rd 2   and   3   respondent   of   over   Rs.17,00,000/­   (Rupees seventeen   lakhs).   No   doubt   this   figure   includes   cost   of construction, albeit the first respondent could have produced better   details/breakup   or   similar   plot   buyer’s   agreements with third parties to establish the market price of the plot on the date of cancellation.  This evidence and material has been withheld and adverse inference has accordingly been drawn by us.   Therefore, we would hold that the forfeiture of Rs. 1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­five thousand one hundred five)   by   the   first   respondent   was   not   correct   and   in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in  Kailash   Nath Associates vs. DDA and Another (2015) 4 SCC 136. CA No.9646 of 2013 14 14. Having examined the above aspects, it is clear to us that there had been faults and lapses by both sides. On one hand, the appellant was a persistent defaulter who had failed to   make   overdue   payments   in   spite   of   written communication(s) for nearly 9 months after the last payment th was   made   on   4   September,   1992   till   the   allotment   was nd cancelled   on   2   June,   1993.   Further,   Cheque   for   Rs. 66,279/­   (Rupee   sixty­six   thousand   two­hundred   seventy­ nine) issued by her in January, 1993 had bounced. She had clearly failed to respond to the letters written to her in June, 1993. Per contra, the agreement entered into between the nd rd first respondent and the deleted 2   and 3   respondents in September 1993 for the same plot with construction over it was   for   a   substantially   higher   amount   than   the   amount which was agreed by the first respondent with the appellant. Yet the amount of Rs.1,55,105/­ (Rupees one lakh fifty­five thousand one hundred five) was forfeited. It is beyond doubt that   the   first   respondent   had   not   suffered   any   loss   or damage.  15. Moreover, the issues which would arise in the present case related to unfair trade practices and whether the terms CA No.9646 of 2013 15 and conditions in the agreement to sell/allotment agreement were valid and good.  These aspects were not gone into and examined   primarily   because   the   appellant   did   not   have proper legal guidance and assistance.   16.  For deciding the rate of interest, we have noticed that the appellant was liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on reducing   balance   of   the   price   of   the   plot   and   External Development Charges along with each instalment. Further, interest   @   20%  per   annum   was   liable   to   be   paid   on   the delayed payments.  The first respondent had pointed out to us that they had sought to refund and repay Rs. 3,34,695/­ (Rupees three lakhs thirty­four thousand six­hundred ninety­ five) along with interest @ 9% after the impugned order was passed   but   the   appellant   had   refused   to   accept   the   said payment.   As noticed above, the first respondent had also nd sent a cheque along with a cancellation letter dated 2  June, 1993 and had written letters to the appellant to collect it. However, Rs.1,55,105/­ (Rupee one lakh fifty­five thousand one hundred five) was forfeited and has remained with the first respondent for more than 25 years from June, 1993 till today.     Keeping   in   view   the   aforesaid   facts   and CA No.9646 of 2013 16 circumstances,   we   deem   that   it   would   be   just,   fair   and appropriate that the first respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs (Rupees thirty lakhs) to the appellant within a period of six weeks from today and in case of failure, pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till the payment is made.  In order to avoid any controversy, the said amount would be deposited by the first Respondent in the Registry of this Court within the time as mentioned above and the appellant would then be entitled to withdraw the same. 17. The   appeal   is   accordingly   disposed   of.     All  pending applications are also disposed of.  No order as to costs. ……………………..CJI [RANJAN GOGOI] ………………………,J. [L.NAGESWARA RAO] ………………………,J. [SANJIV KHANNA] New Delhi; March 07, 2019 CA No.9646 of 2013