Skip to content


Mrs. Indira Rai and anr. Vs. Vatika Plantations Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMrs. Indira Rai and anr.
RespondentVatika Plantations Pvt. Ltd.
Excerpt:
.....acre in the revenue estate of village siwana kiranki, sub tehsil sohna, distt.gurgaon, haryana the purchase agreement has been filed with the complaint. the complainants paid a total sum of rs. 50,000/- to the respondent as is evident from reading of the purchase agreement. the dispute arose between the parties particularly with reference to the number of the plot as well as for payment of maintenance charges and non-plantation of eucalyptus trees. the complainants have already got possession of the plot and it is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the number of the plot is c-80 as indicated on the sale deed. therefore, the dispute with regard to the number of the plot does not survive. the other contention that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance charges.....
Judgment:
1. Mr. Justice C.M. Nayar, Chairman-The present complaint has been filed under Section 10 read with Section 36-A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 against the respondent for indulging in unfair and restrictive trade practices. The complainants as well as respondent have entered into an agreement dated 6th June, 1989 wherein they purchased a plot of and admeasuring 1 acre in the revenue estate of village Siwana Kiranki, Sub Tehsil Sohna, Distt.

Gurgaon, Haryana The Purchase Agreement has been filed with the complaint. The complainants paid a total sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent as is evident from reading of the purchase agreement. The dispute arose between the parties particularly with reference to the number of the plot as well as for payment of maintenance charges and non-plantation of Eucalyptus trees. The complainants have already got possession of the plot and it is conceded by learned Counsel for the respondent that the number of the plot is C-80 as indicated on the Sale Deed. Therefore, the dispute with regard to the number of the plot does not survive. The other contention that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance charges as no roads etc. have yet been constructed, can be examined in terms of Clause 14(xi) of the Purchase Agreement which requires the party to take recourse to a remedy of Arbitration which reads as below : "14(xi) In the event of any dispute or difference arising out of or relating to this Agreement between the parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of a nominee of Shri Anil Bhalla of the vendor and any award made in such arbitration shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties. The venue of such arbitration shall be at New Delhi." 2. The parties have entered into an agreement to which they have appended their signatures and it will be appropriate if they take recourse to a remedy of Arbitration in accordance with the same. We, therefore, direct the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. The Arbitrator shall enter appearance and decide the issues which arose between the parties after granting due opportunities to both of them. The complaint as well as compensation application stand disposed of in these terms.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //