Jurisdiction in unfair trade practice proceedings excludes specific performance, but admitted refund with interest may still be granted.

A complaint and connected Section 340 CrPC application failed because no offence was identified in relation to the proceeding or any document produced in evidence, and the material did not attract Section 195 CrPC or disclose forgery, false evidence, criminal conspiracy, or another cognisable offence; the application was rejected. Relief seeking delivery of possession of a plot was also beyond jurisdiction, because unfair trade practice proceedings under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 are confined to redress for such practices and do not extend to specific performance or civil possession orders; that prayer was refused. The admitted refundable amount was nevertheless ordered to be returned with interest, leaving only limited monetary relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and the connected application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 disclosed any offence warranting inquiry and action; (ii) whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession of the plot or grant relief amounting to specific performance in an unfair trade practice proceeding; (iii) whether the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount paid with interest.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint and the connected application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 disclosed any offence warranting inquiry and action.

Analysis: The application did not identify any offence committed in relation to the proceeding or any document produced in evidence. The material did not disclose grounds attracting Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, nor did it make out forgery, false evidence, criminal conspiracy, or any other offence alleged to have been committed before the Tribunal. The request was therefore legally untenable.

Conclusion: The application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession of the plot or grant relief amounting to specific performance in an unfair trade practice proceeding.

Analysis: Relief under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 is confined to inquiries into unfair trade practices and consequential redressal such as compensation for loss caused by such practice. The Tribunal could not assume the role of a civil court or order specific performance by directing delivery of possession of the plot. The dispute, on its own showing, was essentially one of contractual breach and cancellation of allotment, which fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction for possession-related relief.

Conclusion: The prayer for possession was held to be beyond jurisdiction and was not granted.

Issue (iii): Whether the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount paid with interest.

Analysis: The respondent had expressed willingness to refund the balance amount earlier agreed to be returned. In the absence of jurisdiction to award possession or mesne profits, the proper relief was limited to refund of the amount admitted to be refundable. Considering the long pendency of the matter, interest was directed on the refunded sum.

Conclusion: Refund of the admitted amount with interest was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding resulted in rejection of the Section 340 criminal-law application, refusal of possession-based relief, and grant of limited monetary relief by way of refund with interest, thereby leaving the complainant only partly successful.

Ratio Decidendi: In an unfair trade practice proceeding under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, the Tribunal cannot grant relief amounting to specific performance or possession of property, and where the dispute is essentially contractual, the remedy is confined to such monetary redress as is legally permissible.

---