Holding

The reservation of a plot did not create a legal right to that plot; the appellant was only entitled to a refund of the amount deposited, which must bear interest at 18% rather than 5%, and no unfair trade practice was established.

Summary

Manjul Srivastava applied for a residential plot in the Ghaziabad Development Authority's 1988 housing scheme, paid the full amount and received a reservation letter, but after nine years was informed she had not been allotted a plot and was offered a refund with 5% interest. She claimed the cancellation was an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and sought either another plot or a higher interest rate of 20% on the refund. The MRTP Commission held that she was not an "allottee" because she failed the lottery, and therefore no unfair trade practice occurred; it ordered a refund with 5% interest. The Supreme Court upheld the Commission’s view that a reservation does not guarantee a specific plot, but modified the interest rate to 18% as per the brochure, and affirmed that the appellant could not claim a plot after accepting the refund. The appeals were partly allowed, directing the authority to refund the amount with 18% interest.

Issues considered

Whether the cancellation of a plot reservation and refund with 5% interest constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
Whether a reservation letter confers a legal right to a specific plot before the lottery allotment.
What rate of interest is payable on the refund of the reservation amount – 5% as claimed by the authority or 18% as per the scheme brochure.
Whether the appellant can claim a plot after having accepted and subsequently returned the refunded amount.

Legislation cited

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969

Subjects

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Actunfair trade practiceplot reservationlottery allotmentinterest on refundgovernment housing schemecivil appeal

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 903

-f MANJUL SRIVASTAVA A
v.
GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1758-1759 of 2002)

AUGUST 29, 2008
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

·--· Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 -
Unfair trade practice - Allotment of plot - Reservation Jetter
that plot reserved in name of applicant - Deposit of entire c
amount by applicant within the stipulated period - However,
order of cancellation of reservation of plot in favour of applicant
after ninf;J years and entire amount to be refunded with 5%
interest by the Development Authority- Challenge to, alleging
unfair trade practice and direction sought to allot another plot
D
or in alternative 20% interest on deposited amount with
compensation - Dismissed by MRTP Commission -
.-;. Justification of - Held: Justified - Amount for reservation of
plot would not lead to inference of registration by itself
guaranteeing allotment of specific plot to applicant - Reading
clauses of the Brochure as also Reservation Letter clearly E
shows that plot was reserved for applicant subject to holding
of lottery for specific plots for allotment - Applicant was
unsuccessful in draw of lots, thus, would not acquire any legal
right to such plot- It would only be entitled to refund of amount
deposited - On facts, Authority directed to refund the amount F
f ...... deposited with 18 % interest and not 5% interest.
The appellant applied for allotment of residential plot
in Ghaziabad Development Area under the Housing
Scheme of the year 1988. It deposited the registration
G
fees. The GDA issued reservation letter to the appellant
-<I
.• reserving plot category D in her name. It was stipulated
that the possession of the plot would be given in 1991
and draw for specific plot number would be held
903 H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R

A separately. In pursuance to the letter, appellant deposited +
the entire balance amount within the stipulated period.
After nine years, the appellant was informed by registered )-

letter that she was not allotted a plot and would be
refunded the deposited· amount with 5% interest.
B Appellant filed application before MRTP Commission
alleging that the cancellation of allotment by GOA was
arbitrary, unfair and illegal, thus, amounted to 'unfair trade ...,..._
practice' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
}
Practices Act, 1969. It sought direction to the respondent-
c GOA to allot another plot or in the alternative pay 20%
interest on the deposited amount for the entire period as
also compensation. Appellant filed another application
'·
that after reservation of the plot, a draw was to be held
only for allotting the specific plot to such persons and
the same was not held. During pendency of the
D
application, GOA issued cheque to the appellant for the
entire amount with 5% interest. Appellant received the ,,,__

cheque under protest but subsequently returned the +-
entire amount by drawing another cheque in favour of
GOA. The Commission rejected the application holding
E that the appellant not being "allottee" from the result of
the draw was not entitled to any plot thus, charge of "unfair
trade practice" against the GOA could not be established;
and .that under clause 9 of the brochure, the appellant
was only entitled to the refund of the deposited amount
F with 5 % interest. Aggrieved appellant filed Review
application which was dismissed. Hence the present +- ,·
appeals.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
G HELD: 1.1 The Commission was justified in rejecting
the claim of the appellant. The plot in question was a +- ..
category of plot (Category D) which was only reserved
for the appellant but from the Clauses of the Brochure, it
would be clear that the final allotment was to be made as
H regards specific plots only after the lottery related to such
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA v. GOVT OF U.P. & ORS. 905

....... allotment was made. In the draw of lottery the appellant A
was unsuccessful as her name did not figure in the same.
The 'plot reserved' and a 'plot allotted' are different aspects
altogether. Clause 9.10 of the Brochure of the GOA related
to the distribution of plots which clearly stipulates that
the candidates who were not allotted any plot, would b~ B
entitled to get refund of the entire amount deposited with
the GOA and also the reserved amount with interest at
the rate of 5%, if such amount was kept with the GOA for
less than one year. Clause 9.50 clearly shows that ari
applicant who is unsuccessful in the draw of lots woulq c
only be entitled to the refund of registration amount and
such process of refunding the registration amount shall
start only after one month of the draw of lots are finalized.
Therefore, reading the Clauses in the brochure, it is'
evident that since the appellant was not allotted any plot
D
and only a plot was reserved subject to holding of a lottery
for the specific plots for allotment, the appellant would
not acquire any legal right to such plot, only she would
be entitled to get refund of her amount deposited with the'
GOA. [Para 12] [913- A to G]
E
1.2 A clear reading of the clauses of the Brochure, it
would be evident that two separate parts of the clauses
have been indicated in the brochure. The first part was
with regard to the reservation amount and sacond part ·
was with regard to allotment of plot if an applicant was F
successful in the draw of lots. The reservation letter
-+ issued by the GDA dated 10th of February, 1989 to the
appellant was regarding reservation of Plot-D in
Govindpuram for the appellant. It would also be evident
from the said letter that certain clauses were inserted by ,G
the GOA if an applicant was defaulter in payment of the
......
f balance amount. It was made clear in the said letter that
the allotment was subject to conditions "Draw for specific
Plot number shall be held separately". Therefore, it must
be inferred that no plot was allotted to the appellant since
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A allotment. of specific plot could not be made because of +-
failure on the part of the appellant to succeed in the draw ..
}

of lots. A reading of letter dated 10th of February, 1989
and also the diffetent clauses in the brochure, the
appellant could not have acquired any legal right for
B allotment of a plot until and unless he could be found to
be successful in the draw of lots. Therefore, it was an
amount for reservation of Category-D pl~t, which by no ..........
means, would lead to the inference of registration by .itself
guaranteeing the allotment of a specific· plot to the t

c appellant. [Para 13] (913 G-H 914 A-G]
Saurabh Prakash vs. DLF Universal Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC
228 - distinguished.
"
1.3 Before the Commission, the GDA, on affidavit, I

asserted that no plot was available for allotment to the
D
appellant in the Housing Scheme, thus, it would be ;
_)
practically impossible to allot any plot, even if it is held ......
that allotment of plot was made by GDA in favour of the ~·

appellant. [Para 14] [915-A-B] )
...
E 1.4 The appellant should be allowed to get refund
from the GOA the entire sum with interest at the rate of
18% not at the rate of 5% as it is found from the brochure
itself, it would be clear that in the event, the appellant
could not deposit the entire amount after the allotment is
F made within certain time, 18% interest shall be levied on
the appellant. The appellant deposited the entire amount
as directed by the GDA in the year 1989 and the order of +- {
cancellation of reservation of a plot in favour of the
appellant was made after more than seven years and,
therefore, the respondent was liable to pay interest not at
G
the rate of 5% but at the rate of 18%. The order of the
Commission holding that there was no "untarr-rra-de +- ~
practice", is upheld but in the facts and circumstances of
the case that the GDA had utilized the entire amount of ~

I
the appel!ant for their own purpose till they ~ad refunded
H
k
\
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA v. GOVT OF U.P. & ORS. 907

~ the amount to the appellant and the respondent is directed A
to refund the money already deposited with the GOA with
interest at the rate of 18 o/o and not 5%. [Para 14] [915-C-G]
Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India and Ors. 2007
(3) sec 545 - referred to.
B
1.4 The Commission was also justified in rejecting
.......,. the claim of the appellant for allotment of a plot as the
entire amount of refund with 5% interest was initially
accepted by the appellant, but subsequently, she returned
the like amount to the GOA. Having accepted the amount c
and encashed the same, it is no longer open to the
appellant to turn around and claim allotment of plot from
the GOA. [Para 15] [915-H 916-A-B]
Case Law Reference
2001 (1) sec 228 Distinguished. 13 D

2001 (3) sec 545 Referred to. 14
~-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
1758-1759 of 2002
E
From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.5.2001 and
7.12.2001 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice
Commission, New Delhi in C.A. No. 154 of 1998 and R.A. No.
37 of 2001 in C.A. No. 154 of 1998 respectively
K. Rajeev for the Appellant. F
)
4 R.K. Gupta, G.V. Rao, Rakesh Uttamechandra Upadhyay,
Washid Hussain and ravi Prakash Mehrotra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J 1. These two appeals at the G,
-4 instance of Mrs. Manjul Srivastava (appellant herein) have been
.>
filed against the orders dated 9th of May, 2001 and 7th of
December, 2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short "the
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A Commission") in C.A. No. 154 of 1998 and R.A. No. 37 of 'lo-'
2001, which also arose out of C.A. No. 154of1998, whereby the
Commission had held that the Ghaziabad OevelopmentAuthority
(in short "the GOA") had not resorted to any "unfair trade practice"
inasmuch as the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw for
8 allotment of a plot in Govindpuram area of District Ghaziabad in
the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, she could not be termed
as an "allottee" of the residential plot in that area. ~-

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, as
emerged from the complaint filed by the appellant before the
c Commission, may be narrated in a nutshell as under:-
The dispute in these appeals pertains to allotment of a
certain plot of land by the GOA in its Govindpuram. Housing
Scheme of the year 1988. The appellant applied for allotment
of a residential plot pursuant to an advertisement of the GOA
0
after depositing registration fees for an amount of Rs. 7210/-
on 1oth of February, 1989. The GOA issued a Reservation Letter
to the appellant reserving plot Category - 0 in her name and +
further requiring her to deposit the entire balance amount of Rs.
62 ,240/- towards the estimated cost. In the Reservation Letter,
E it Was_ stipulated that if the payment was not made within three
months after it was due along with penal interest, if any, the
allotment would be treated as cancelled without notice. It was
further stipulated that the possession of the plot would be given
in 1991 and that the draw for specific plot number would be
F held separately. On 5th of April, 1989, the appellant deposited
(.
the entire balance amount of Rs. 62,240/- with the GOA but she +---
was not put in possession of any plot whatsoever.
3. After the lapse of almost nine years, more particularly
on 1st of October, 1997, the appellant received a .Registered
G
Letter from the GOA informing her that she had not been allotted
~
a plot in the Scheme and that the amount deposited by her With ...
the GOA would be refunded with 5% interest. However, no reason
for not giving possession of the plot, already reserved in the
name of the appellant, was given.
H
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA v. GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. 909
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]
~
4. Feeling aggrieved by this action on the part of the GOA A
of not allotting a plot in her name, although the entire amount
was deposited by the appellant, the appellant filed an application
before the Commission, which came to be registered as C.A.
No. 154of1998 alleging that the cancellation of the allotment
by the GOA was not only arbitrary but also unfair and illegal, B
therefore, it amounted to "unfair trade practice" under the Act.
Accordingly, the appellant sought for a direction to the
respondent to allot another plot to her or in the alternative, to
pay with interest at the rate of 20% on the entire amount for the
entire period and also for a direction to pay compensation to c
her. On 23rd of February, 2000, the GOA filed its reply to the
above application contending inter alia that since the appellant
was unsuccessful in the draw of lots, no allotment could be
made in her name. It was further stated in defence that since no
plot in the Govindpuram Housing Scheme was available,
D
allotment of plot was also not possible and that the GOA had
• .Ji.
given a public notice to the appellant to collect the entire amount
deposited with interest at the rate of 5% in a local widely
circulated newspaper "Hindustan Times". Accordingly, GOA
prayed for dismissal of the application of the appellant. On 30th
of March, 1998, a supplementary application was filed by the E
appellant by which the appellant had brought to the notice of the
Commission that after the reservation of the plot, a draw was
to be held only for allotting the specific plot, namely corner plot,
road facing, park facing etc. and that no draw was to be held
for allotment for those persons for whom a plot had already F

• 4 been reserved.
5. During the pendency of the application before the
Commission, the GOA had issued a Cheque for Rs. 97,944/- to
the appellant towards· the amount deposited by her along with G .
-I interest at the rate of 5%: The appellant received the said cheque
> under protest, but subsequently returned the entire amount by
drawing another cheque for the like amount in favour of the GOA.
6. The Commission, by its Order dated gth of May, 2001,
rejected the application filed by the appellant primarily on the H
910· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R

A ground that the appellant not being ~n "all9ttee" from the result
of the draw held, she was not entitled to any plot, as claimed,
. ti
and, therefore, the charge .of "unfair trade practice"
-~ . .
agair:istthe. ..
'

GDA/re_spondent could not be established. It was.further held
that under C.lause 9 of the brochure, the appellant was only '
B entitled to the refund :Of the deposited amount with interest at
the rate of S%. . . · · · ·
T Feeling aggrieved by this decision of the Commission.-
the appellant also filed ·a Review Application before the
Commission, which tanie to be registered as R.A. No. 27 of
C 2001,·which was also reJected by the Commission. Accordingly,
being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Orders of the
Commission, the appellant has filed .these two appeals in this
Court, which was heard in presence of the learned counsel for
' the parties.

-
D.
, · . 8. We have heard the learne9 counsel for tbe parties .and
examined the ilT)pugned orders of the Commission and also
other materials on record including the reievant clauses
appearing in a.brochure pertaining to the Govindpuram Housing
+
Scheme in question. The only question that needs to be decide.d
E · in these appeals is whether the Commis_sion w~s justified in
rejecting the application of the appell~nt by the Orders impugned
· in. these appeals. Before we. answer the questi~n po~ed before
us, it would be _e.xpedieri~ at this stage to record the findings of
the Commission while rejecting the application of the appellant.
F The findings are.to the following effecr:- · ·
"Being not an allottee as the result of the draw held, the
applicant has no legal .right to the_ plot as claimed.
· Therefore, the charge of unfair trade practices against
. the respondent is not established. At best, the applicant
G
is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited, which
,. has since been received by it along with the interest at
·the rate of5%. In the result, the compensation qpplicatlon
stands dismissed. No order as to costs in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA v. GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. 911
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J] .

9. Keeping the aforesaid findings of the Commission in A·
mind, let us now proceed with the respective submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned ·
counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the
appellant having made full and final payment to the GOA well •
within the stipulated period as directed by it and a plot was B
reserved for her which was to be given to her in the year 1991 ,
as per Clause 3 of the reservation letter dated 1oth of February,
1989 issued by the GOA, the Commission was in error in holding
that the appellant was not an allottee of the plot because she '
had failed in the draw inasmuch as a plot had already been C
reserved in. the name of the appellant and the draw, if any, was 1

only restricted in allotment of specific plot numbers. The learned
counsel, therefore, submitted that the GOA, having indulged in ,
an "unfair trade practice", the Orders of the Commission
deserved to be set aside.
0
10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant were hotly contested by the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the GDA. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned '
senior counsel appearing for the respondent/GOA contended
that since the appellant was not successful in the draw of lots E
and, therefore, the GOA was, within its jurisdiction, not to allot
any plot to the appellant. It was further contended that the GOA ,
had already refunded the amount of Rs.97,944/-to the appellant
towards the amount deposited by the appellant along with
interest at the rate of 5% and that amount was accepted by the F
appellant, therefore, it was no longer open to the appellant to
challenge the Order of Cancellation after having accepted the
amount. Although, the said amount of Rs.97,944/-was returned
to the GOA subsequently, it was further argued that since the
letter of the GOA dated 1oth of February, 1989 was only a G
Reservation Letter which was issued pursuant to the application
made by the appellant, no allotment of any plot was made in
favour of the appellant on account of failure in the draw of lottery,
the question of canceling the reservation of a plot alleged to
have already.made in favour of the appellantcould not arise at
,·

\
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.

A all. Accordingly, Mr. Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing
for the GOA sought for disrnissal of the appeals and submitted
that the Orders passed by the Commission were fully justified.
11. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to reproduce
some of the relevant clauses from the brochure, which should
8 be required for the proper appreciation of the controversies
involved. Cla~se 9 of the Brochure is produced as under:- :-r-·
"9.00 UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS
9. 10 Those applicants, who have not been allotted/
c reserved plots houses, will be returned their registration
amount without interest if the period of deposit of such
I-
money with GOA is ·1ess than one year.
9. 20 However, if the period of deposit is more than one
year, 5% simple interest shall be paid for the entire period
D
of deposit.
9. 30 For the purpose of calculation of period of deposit +
the month of deposit & refund shall not be counted. Any
period after the date of start of refund of registration
E amount of unsuccessful applicants, shall not be counted
for purpose of calculation of "period of deposit".
9. 40 The registration amount shall be refunded to the
unsuccessful applicants by Vijaya Bank 84, Navyug
Market Ghaziabad directly.
F
9. 50 The refund of registration amount to unsuccessful
applicant shall be started after one month of the draw.
9. 60 Unsuccessful applicants should contact personally
or by post only the Vijaya Bank 84, Navyug Market,
G Ghaziabad for refund of registration amount. They are
required to surrender the original copy of cha/Ian from
(Applicant's copy) duly signed on the reverse to the Bank.
9. 70 G DA itself does not entertain any applicants directly
for refund of registration amount." ·
H
MANJUL SRIVASTAVAv. GOVT OF U.P. & ORS. 913
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]
'-i
12. In our view, the Commission was justified in rejecting A
the claim of the appellant. The plot in question was a category
of plot (Category 0) which was only reserved for the appellant
but from the Clauses, as mentioned above, it would be clear
that the f'1al allotment was to be made as regards specific
plots only after the lottery related to such allotment was made. B
It is beyond dispute that in the draw of lottery, the appellant was
unsuccessful as her name did not figure in the same. It could
not be disputed that 'plot reserved' and a 'plot allotted' are
different aspects altogether. A reading of the Clauses, as
indicated above, would clearly show that a plot was reserved c
for her subject to the final allotment after the lottery related to
such allotment was made. It would be evident that Clause 9.1 O
of the Brochure of the GOA related to the distribution of plots
which clearly stipulates that the candidates who were not allotted
any plot, would be entitled to get refund of the entire amount
0
deposited with the GOA and also the reserved amount with
~ interest at the rate of 5%, if such amount was kept with the GOA
for less than one year. Clause 9.50 deals with refund of
registration amount to unsuccessful applicant which would start
after one month of the draw. This Clause clearly indicates that
the refund of registration amount to unsuccessful applicant shall E

' start after one month of the draw which would clearly show that
an applicant who is unsuccessful in the draw of lots would only
be entitled to the refund of registration amount and such process
of refunding the registration amount shall start only after the
'
/
4 draw of lots are finalized. Therefore, reading the aforesaid F
Clauses in the brochure, it is evident that since the appellant
was not allotted any plot and only a plot was reserved subject
to holding of a lottery for the specific plots for allotment, the
appellant would not acquire any legal right to such plot, only she
~ would be entitled to get refund of her amount deposited with the G
~ GOA.

13. In view of our discussions made hereinabove. and a
clear reading of the clauses of the Brochure, it would be evident
...
that two separate parts of the clauses have been indicated in

J
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

t-·
A the brochure. The first part was with regard to the reservation
amount and second part was with regard to allotment of plot if
an applicant was successful in the draw of lots. In this connection,
the letter issued by the GOA dated 1oth of February, 1989 may
be looked into. The subject indicated in -the said letter to the
8 appellant was regarding reservation of Plot-0 in Govindpuram:
then from the letter itself it would also be evident that a plot was '
r-
reserved for the appellant. It would also be evident from the
said letter that certain clauses were inserted by the GOA if an
applicant was defaulter in payment of the balance amount. In
c this connection, Clause 5 ·of the letter dated 101h of February,
1989 needs reproduction :- }

"Final cost of the plot shall be determined after taking
into account its specific location in terms of park-facing,
corner, major road facing etc. for which extra rates are
D prescribed to be charged which will be intimated after
allotment of specific plot."
It was made clear in the said letter that the allotment was
+
subject to conditions "Draw for specific Plot nurnber shall be
held separately". Therefore, it must be inferred that no plot was
E allotted to the appellant since allotment of specific plot could
not be made because of failure on the part of the appellant to l
succeed in the draw of lots. In our view, a reading of this letter f
dated 1oth of February, 1989 and also the different clauses, as
already indicated in the brochure, we have no hesitation in
F agreeing with the Commission that the appellant could not have k
,.
'
acquired any legal right for allotment of a plot until and unless
he could be found to be successful in the draw of lots. Therefore,
in our view, it was an amount for reservation of Category-D plot,
which by no means, would lead to the inference of registration
G by itself guaranteeing the allotment of a specific plot to the
~ ~

appellant. In this connection, a decision of this Court in Saurabh t..
Prakash VS. DLF Universal Ltd. [(2007) 1 sec 228] was cited
at the ·Bar. In our view, the said decision of this Court is not
applicable to the present case. In any view of the matter, in the
H peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court also
...: .... ,,. •l' ,,..( _,.~,
MANJUL SRIVASTAVA v. GOVT OF U.P. & ORS. 915
[TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]

expressed that the said decision shall not be treated to be a A
precedent.
14. Before the Commission, the GOA, on affidavit, asserted
that no plot was available for allotment to the appellant in the
Govindpuram Housing Scheme and, therefore, it would be
practically impossible to allot any plot, which is not available B
-.,..(
with GOA for allotment, even if it is held that allotment of plot
was made by GOA in favour of the appellant. A decision of this
Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India
& Ors. [(2007) 3 sec 545] may be referred as it was also cited
at the Bar. In that decision it has been clearly held that the c
amount of interest to be awarded for refund of any amount
deposited by the candidate would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Such being the state of affairs, we
are of the view that the appellant should be allowed to get
refund from the GOA the entire sum with interest at the rate 0
of18% not at the rate of 5% as we find that from the brochure
itself, it would be clear that in the event, the appellant could not
deposit the entire amount after the allotment is made within
certain time, 18% interest shall be levied on the appellant. It is
an admitted position that the appellant deposited the entire E
amount as directed by the GOA in the year 1989 and the order
of cancellation of reservation of a plot in favour of the appellant
was made after more than seven years and, therefore, we must
hold that the respondent was liable to pay interest not at the
rate of 5% but at the rate of 18%. In the facts of the present F
).
case, since the GOA had utilized the entire amount of the
appellant for their own purpose till they had refunded the amount
to the appellant, we confirm the order of the Commission holding
that there was no "unfair trade practice", but in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we allow these appeals in
~
G
,>
part and direct the respondent to refund the money already
deposited with the GOA with interest at the rate of 18 per cent
and not at the rate of 5%.
15. Before we conclude, we may also mention that the
Commission was also justified in rejecting the claim of the H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A appellant for allotment of a plot in Govindpuram Housing Scheme
at Ghaziabad as we find the entire amount of refund with 5%
interest was initially accepted by the appellant, but subsequently,
as noted herein earlier, she returned the like amount to the
GOA. Having accepted the amount and encashed the same, it
B is no longer open to the appe~lant to turn around and claim
allotment of plot from the GOA.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed
only to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to
costs.
c
N.J. Appeals partly allowed.

+

.....