Competition Act, 2002 – Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Payment of interest on instalments towards allotment of a flat under construction which was ultimately cancelled – Competition Appellate Tribunal (“COMPAT”) held that complainant eligible for interest of 15% p.a. from 1st May 2005 (when allotment was cancelled) to 7th May 2016 (when pay order was revalidated and cumulative instalment amount was credited to the account of the complainant) – Builder argued that complainant had filed ‘original’ pay order (issued in 2005) before the COMPAT, and not intimated builder, hence amount was deducted from builder’s account in 2005 itself, and never credited back – Impleaded Citibank averred that this contention was correct, and submitted that the amount was credited to the ‘Unclaimed Sundry Amount’ as instructed by Reserve Bank of India, where it remained for the eleven years in question – Builder thus contended that it had discharged its liability under Order XXI of the CPC.
Dismissing the complainant’s appeal, the Court HELD: 1.The provisions of Order XXI are applicable to decrees of civil court. However, they embody a sound policy principle, that if the amount is deposited, or paid to the decree holder or person entitled to it, the person entitled to the amount cannot later seek interest on it. This is a rule of prudence, inasmuch as the debtor, or person required to pay or refund the amount, is under an obligation to ensure that the amount payable is placed at the disposal of the person entitled to receive it. Once that is complete (in the form of payment, through different modes, including tendering a Banker’s Cheque, or Pay Order or Demand Draft, all of which require the account holder / debtor to pay the bank, which would then issue the instrument) the tender, or ‘payment’ is complete. [Para 31][1096-C-E]
2. In the present case, the complainant was aware that the Pay Order had been tendered by the developer to her; nevertheless she filed the original Pay Order with her complaint, and did not seek any order from the MRTP Commission at the relevant time. The pleadings in the complaint did not disclose that the Pay Order was filed in the Commission, to enable the developer to respond appropriately. In these circumstances, the developer’s argument that the rule embodied in Order XXI, Rule
4 CPC, is applicable, is merited. The developer cannot be fastened with any legal liability to pay interest on the sum of ¹ 4,53,750/- after 30th April 2005. [Para 32][1096-E-G] 3.This court is also of the opinion that the complainant’s argument that on account of the omission of the developer, she was wronged, and was thus entitled to receive interest, cannot prevail. The records nowhere disclose any fault on the part of the developer; on the other hand, the complainant did not take steps to protect her interests. It has been held by this court, in Sailen Krishna Majumdar v Malik Labhu Masih that in such cases, even if equities are equal, the court should not intervene. [Para 33][1096-G-H; 1097-A]
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Ved Prakash Agarwal C.A. No. 794/2001 : [2008] 8 SCR 676; Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd vs. Ananta
Bhattacharjee (2004) 6 SCC 213 : [2017] 6 SCR 453; Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India [2006] 8 SCC 457 : [2006] 7 suppl. SCR 422; V. Kala Bharathi & Ors. vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2014] 5 SCC
577 : [2014] 5 SCR 1; Sailen Krishna Majumdar vs. Malik Labhu Masih [1989] 1 SCR 817 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.