TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as 'the Commission') in Compensation Application No.367/97 preferred by the sole respondent. 2. In view of controversy arising for determination being very limited and confined to reasonableness of rate of interest payable on refund of registration amount, it is not necessary to delve deeper into the facts. Suffice to note that the appellant Delhi Development Authority is a statutory body constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It is entrusted with the planned development of Delhi and claims to function on a No Profit No Loss basis in the matter of providing subsidized housing to different income groups. The appellant invited applications from eligible members of the general public during the period May 1985 to Aug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not as per his preferences. He demanded the registration deposit of Rs. 15000/- made in 1985 along with an interest @ 15% p.a. in place of 7% p.a. indicated in the scheme and the Brochure on the ground that the deposit would have earned a minimum of 15% interest if it was deposited in a Class I company. 4. The appellant chose to accept the proposal for cancellation of allotment made by the respondent but it refunded the registration amount along with only 7% interest in terms of the offer document which had been accepted by the respondent and was thus the rate finalized by agreement between the parties. 5. The respondent in his complaint before the Commission filed on 29.6.1997 raised two-fold grievances which have been noted by the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lar circumstances. The applicant is also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges which the Respondent is directed to pay." 8. Inspite of notice the respondent has not chosen to appear nor he has filed any counter affidavit. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant materials on record including the order under appeal. According to learned counsel for the appellant when the main grievance of the respondent in respect of levy of cancellation charges and penalty was not found acceptable by the Commission and when the Commission found nothing wrong in the action of the appellant in the light of declared policy and contract governing the matter at hand, it should not have enhanced the contract ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the impugned order in respect of rate of interest, we find sufficient merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. The Commission has clearly erred in interfering with the contractual rate of interest in absence of any finding against the actions and orders of the appellant. Without returning a finding that there was any unfair trade practice or any restrictive/monopolistic trade practice pursuant to inquiry under the provisions of the Act, the Commission clearly erred in compensating the respondent with a higher rate of interest. Even the basis for grant of higher interest is without discussion of any material. The judgment and order under appeal indicates no material for coming to the impugned finding that payment of i....