TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules on unfair trade practice in land dispute, clarifies authority limits</h1> <h3>Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Ved Prakash Aggarwal</h3> Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Ved Prakash Aggarwal - [2009] 91 SCL 281 (SC), 2008 AIR 2569, 2008 (8) SCR 676, 2008 (7) SCC 686, 2008 (7) JT 386, ... Issues:1. Allegation of unfair trade practice by the GDA2. Jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission to direct alternative plot allotmentAnalysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute over land allotment by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) in its Govindpuram Scheme. The respondent alleged that the GDA arbitrarily cancelled his allotment and sought a refund. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission found in favor of the respondent, stating that the cancellation of the allotment was unfair and ordered the GDA to allot a plot or provide an alternative at the 1988 price. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that the respondent had paid the full amount and was successful in the draw, indicating the GDA's unfair trade practice.2. The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission to direct the GDA to hand over possession of a plot to the respondent. It was held that while the MRTP Commission can impose damages or compensation for unfair trade practices, it does not have the authority to direct specific performance like allotting a plot. Therefore, the Court remanded the case to the MRTP Commission to decide on compensation and refund with simple interest, allowing the appeal in part and emphasizing that the MRTP Commission's actions exceeded its powers.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the finding of unfair trade practice by the GDA but remanded the case to the MRTP Commission for appropriate redressal, highlighting the limitations of the Commission's powers in directing specific performance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
