Legalcops – Legal Blog – Business Registrations & Tax Compliances

Hi there,

The final relief does not have to be the natural result of the judgment’s Ratio Decidendi

Brief facts of this case:
In this case, the MRTP commission dismissed a lawsuit brought by some home buyers (plaintiffs) under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and (d), 36-D, and 36-E of the MRTP Act, as well as Sections 2(i) and 2(0). The buyers were displeased with the builder’s demand for additional fees. According to them, the demand for extra charges after the start of construction amounted to price manipulation, resulting in an increase in cost at the expense of the buyers.

Contentions of the Appellants :
The appellant has claimed that the imposition of extra charges was a calculated and pre- planned design of the respondent.

Contentions of the Respondents :
According to the respondent there has been no misrepresentation made from their side amounting to an unfair trade practice for the delay in handing over possession of the apartments. The extra charges that were demanded by the respondent were pursuant to clauses 2(b), 4, 15 and 16 of the ABA. The respondent had also duly informed the appellants of the details of the extra cost being incurred. Therefore the respondents are convinced that there is no misrepresentation made by them
and, therefore, have rejected the allegation of unfair trade practice.

Finding and Observations of the Court :

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the final remedy granted by it does not have to be the natural result of its judgment’s ratio decidendi.
  • Amidst upholding the MRTP Commission’s order, a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai, and BV Nagarathna directed the builder to transfer the ownership of the flats to the appellants upon fee of Rs.25,00,000/- per flat by the appellants.
  • The Court observes that no explicit reference has been made to any clause in the ABA by which the appellants appear to be offended, so as to shock the moral compass of this Court to exceed its terms in light of it being an unconscionable contract.
  • The appellants’ requested compensation cannot be granted because Section 12-B of the MRTP Act authorises the Commission to grant compensation only when a consumer suffers loss or damage as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive, or unfair trade practice.
  • Because the appellants failed to show that the respondent engaged in unfair trade practices, they are not entitled to any compensation.

In my opinion , the judgement observed ,that is the reasons for the decision, or the ratio decidendi, are not included in the final order containing the decision is correct and the Court rightly held that the appellants are not entitled to any relief as they have already approved the order of MRTP by holding that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.

Judgment Name: B.B.Patel . vs DLF Universal Ltd.
Judgment Date: January 25, 2022
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna
Name of the writer: Divyanjali B Rathore
College: Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law , Punjab

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *