Jurisdiction under competition law and forfeiture of earnest money were limited by contract terms and equitable relief.

Compensation under the MRTP framework was confined to loss or damage arising from a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice, so a pure breach of contract and refund dispute did not by itself confer jurisdiction on the Commission under section 12B. The Court also distinguished earnest money from a security deposit, holding that earnest money, if reasonable and part of the bargain, may be forfeited on failure of the transaction. Applying the equities of the two matters, the Court upheld forfeiture in principle but moulded the final relief differently, granting tailored monetary or possession-based relief instead of sustaining the Commission's orders.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission had jurisdiction to entertain a claim under section 12B where the grievance was essentially of breach of contract and refund of money. (ii) Whether the amount paid by the allottee was earnest money liable to forfeiture, and what relief, if any, should follow in the facts of the two appeals.

Issue (i): Whether the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission had jurisdiction to entertain a claim under section 12B where the grievance was essentially of breach of contract and refund of money.

Analysis: The statutory scheme limited compensation under section 12B to loss or damage caused by monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade practice. A bare contractual dispute, without proof that the impugned conduct amounted to such a trade practice and without the necessary jurisdictional foundation, could not be converted into a compensation claim before the Commission. The definitions of trade practice, restrictive trade practice, service, and unfair trade practice were examined to hold that mere non-refund, delay, or contractual default would not by itself confer jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Commission had no jurisdiction where the matter was in substance only a contractual dispute and not a properly established claim for loss or damage arising from a trade practice.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount paid by the allottee was earnest money liable to forfeiture, and what relief, if any, should follow in the facts of the two appeals.

Analysis: The Court distinguished earnest money from a security deposit and held that earnest money, if reasonable and forming part of the bargain, may be forfeited on failure of the transaction. At the same time, the surrounding conduct, the requests for refund, and the overall equities justified moulding relief. In one matter, the forfeiture right was recognised but the equities were adjusted by awarding a fixed monetary sum in exercise of constitutional discretion. In the other, the Commission's approach was found unsuitable, and possession was directed on payment of the agreed net amount, with equal treatment vis-a -vis similarly situated allottees.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of earnest money was upheld in principle, but the final relief was moulded differently in the two matters, resulting in monetary relief in one appeal and possession-based relief in the other.

Final Conclusion: The Commission's orders could not stand as such, and the matters were finally disposed of by granting tailored relief under the Court's constitutional powers, while affirming the legal distinction between earnest money and security deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation under the MRTP Act is maintainable only when loss or damage is shown to arise from a monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade practice, and a pure contractual dispute does not by itself confer jurisdiction on the Commission; earnest money, unlike a security deposit, may be forfeited in accordance with the contract, subject to the equities of the case.

---