Shivani Gadhavi
Published On: January 29, 2022 at 18:17 IST
The Supreme Court of India on January 25, 2022 observed that while giving a Judgment, the Ratio Decidendi of a particular Case might be different than the final Order given out by a Court.
In the present Case, the Supreme Court Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna was hearing a Petition challenging Order of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission had dismissed a Plea of the current Petitioners filed under Sections 36-A, 36-B(a) and (d), 36-D and 36-E read with Sections 2(i) and 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.
The Petitioners in the Case were Alleging that the Defendants took time in giving them possession of Property that they had paid 40% for. The Petitioners sought possession of a Property, the cost of which is more than 10 times the price at which it was offered, without even paying the balance basic sale price.
The Supreme Court upheld the Decision of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which had Dismissed the Plea of the Petitioners regarding Unfair Trade Practices done by the Defendants.
The Supreme Court stated that “The Appellants are not entitled to any relief on this count as we have already approved the Order of MRTP by holding that there is no Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Respondent.”It was also observed that the reason for the Decision or the Ratio Decidendi is not the final Order containing the Decision.
However, the Bench while dismissing the Plea granted relief to the Petitioners and pointed out that “It is settled Law that final relief granted by this Court need not be the natural consequences of the Ratio Decidendi of its Judgment.”
The Court later on ordered that “Though, we have upheld the order of MRTP Commission, in the interest of Justice, the Respondent shall handover possession of the flats to the Appellants on payment of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) for each flat by the Appellants.”