1.     These cases are pending before this Commission since 2016, preliminary issues have been raised by the Opposite Party bank in its Written Version(s) as well as by filing interlocutory application(s).

2.     Heard arguments at length from learned senior Counsel for the Complainant companies and the Opposite Party bank.

Perused the entire material on record.

3.     Similar facts and same questions of law are involved in all these cases.

As such, all these 18 cases are hereinafter being disposed of vide the instant common Order.

4.     For ready appreciation of the particular facts and specificities of this matter, and the issues of fact and of law involved, exemplar extracts from the record, to wit, para 10 of the Complaint in C.C. No. 871 of 2016, para 5 of the Written Version in C.C. No. 871 of 2016, para 2 of the Rejoinder in C.C. No. 871 of 2016 and paras 1, 2 and 6 of the I.A. No. 17180 of 2017 in C.C. No. 871 of 2016, are reproduced below:

Para 10 of the Complaint:

The Complainant states that in the meanwhile, in the last week of October 2013, the Director, Mr. Abhay P. Shah learned that another company had been cheated by not repaying fixed deposit amount on maturity. On enquiry, he was assured by the officials of the Opposite Party that the said allegations were false and that the deposits made by the Complainant were safe and secure. However, the Directors of the company subsequently came to know that the officers of the opposite party Dhanlaxmi bank in active connivance with outsiders had misappropriated funds of the Complainant Company. It came to light that fictitious documents and instruments, letter heads and seals of the Complainant Company were fabricated to siphon off the money deposited with the Opposite Party by way of fixed deposits with the active connivance of the officers of the Opposite Party Bank. The Complainant, thereafter, lodged an FIR with the economic offences wing (“EOW”) of the Mumbai Police. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure C-6 is photocopy of the said FIR dated 28-07-2014.

    (emphasis supplied)

Para 5 of the Written Version:

5.       It is humbly submitted that the present Complaint is based on bogus set of facts and none of it can be taken to be true. The Opposite Party No. 2 would like to bring to the attention of this Hon’ble Commission that the FD Receipt No. 135009 herein marked as ‘Annexure-C4’ produced by the said Complainant is absolutely fake and is a mere attempt on their part to defraud the Opposite Parties. It should be noted that the present Complainant Company has not deposited any such amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores only) with the Opposite Party No. 2 or with any other branch of Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited. That the Complainant Company should be put to strict proof to prove the legality of such a bogus document. Therefore, the present Complaint ought to be dismissed on this ground alone, as the only document on the basis of which the Complainants have approached this Hon’ble Commission is bogus and is merely an attempt to defraud the Opposite Parties.

      (emphasis supplied)

Para 2 of the Rejoinder:

2.       That the Opposite Party No. 2 has claimed that the FDR No. 135009 is fake and has disputed the deposit of the amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- in the fixed deposit with it. It is humbly submitted that that the said refusal by the opposite party Bank is completely dishonest and a desperate attempt on its part to wriggle out of its obligations to make payment against the FDR in question. The Complainant had made the said investment in fixed deposit and the FDR at Annexure C-4 was issued by the opposite party bank. The Bank has further sought to take refuge of the documents which are and have been found to be forged and fabricated. The Opposite Party has sought to allege that the payment against the fixed deposit has been made and adjusted to the purported OD-FDR Loan Account of the Complainant. It is humbly submitted that the Complainant has never availed Loan/Over Draft against the Fixed Deposit in question on different dates by pledging the Original FD Receipts as security with the Opposite Party as alleged or otherwise or at all.  On the contrary, it stands established that the said alleged OD-FDR Loan Account had been opened by fabricating an application using fictitious documents, instruments, letter-heads and seal of the Complainant Company by the officials of the opposite party Bank and in contravention of the procedure prescribed under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and/or under the directions/circulars/instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, more particularly in violation of the KYC norms. The officers of the Bank while being the service of the Opposite Party Bank in active connivance with outsiders have misappropriated funds of the Complainant Company. It is submitted that the opposite party Bank cannot escape liability for the actions, negligence and the wrongs committed by its employees.

(emphasis supplied)

Paras 1, 2 and 6 of the I.A. No. 17180 of 2017:

1.       The present application is being moved as the complaints filed by various companies are not maintainable as they are barred by limitation and the claims are based on forged Fixed Deposits Receipts (FDR’s) and involve issues of egregious fraud. It is humbly submitted that these preliminary issues ought to be considered prior to admission of the complaint. The claims filed by the complainants are based on forged FDR’s and the complaints deal with grave issues of fraud carried out by persons like Mr. Avinash Khandale, Mr. Anupam Thakur, Mr. Vimal Barot and companies like M/s Showman Hospitality, Synergy Minetrade Expo. Pvt. Ltd., and Integration Technology Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the claims and issues raised are all subject matters of pending investigation and criminal proceedings before various forums such as the Economic Offences Wing and the CBI.

2.       These preliminary issues pertaining to limitation and maintainability of the complaint have been raised in the written statement. The opposite party Bank rely on the pleadings in the written statement and the written Statement may be read as part and parcel of this petition. The complaint which has been filed by the complainant company is time barred and are also based on forged FDR’s. A total of 21 complaints have been filed by various companies of the PG Group along with Parasraj Bohra Memorial Trust etc. The claims in the respective complaints are part of a larger scam of about Rs.600 crore involving 6 banks carried out by M/s Showman Hospitality. A copy of the report of such scams in various media outlets and newspapers are being marked and annexed herein as Annexure R-1 (colly).

6.       That the complainant company being part of the PG Group of Companies, had invested in Fixed Deposits made with the Opposite Party Bank through Mr. Avinash Khandale and Mr. Anupam Thakur, financial consultants belonging to Nice Investment and Solutions of AVP Privilege Business Group. Mr. Abhay P. Shah was in charge of all the companies under the PG Group who have instituted individual complaints herein against the Opposite Party Bank, and was himself liable for the actions carried out by the various PG Group subsidiary companies. Even before investing with the Opposite Party Bank, the director of the complainant company, Mr. Shah had already made fixed deposits in other banks through Mr. Avinash Khandale and Mr. Anupam Thakur. A copy of the FIR dated 28.07.2014 filed by Mr. Shah recording his statements have already been attached by the complainant company with the complaint. That Mr. Shah acting on the advice of investment consultants, Mr. Avinash Khandale (Investment Consultant) and Mr. Anupam Thakur (Marketing Head of the Western Region of Nice Investment and & Solution of AVP-Privilege Business Group) and Mr. Vimal Barot proceeded to invest in Fixed Deposits in various banks. In return, these financial consultants purchased shares in the PG Group of Companies from the accounts of Showman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Integration Technology Pvt. Ltd. and Synergy Minetrade Expo. Pvt. Ltd. on 21.07.2012 and 24.07.2012.

(emphasis supplied)

5.     It is seen that allegations and counter-allegations of forgery and fraud have been made, financial malfeasance and malafide pervade the matter. 

6.     Noting the entire material on record, and the specificities of the evidence involved, this matter, for apt adjudication on merit, to do justice to it, requires recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that is best undertaken in a civil court.

In other words, the matter, as discernible from the entire material on record, and from the specificities of the evidence involved, is not found to be such as can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi-judicial Consumer Protection Fora established under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.     In the light of the discussion afore,  

[a] the Complaints, in each case, are returned, un-adjudicated; and

[b] the Complainants, in each case, are granted liberty to seek remedy in a competent civil court as per the law.

It goes without saying that the right of the Complainants to agitate their cases before any competent authority remains unaffected.

But quasi-judicial Fora established under the Act 1986, to provide additional remedy to Consumers, in summary proceedings, are not for them.

It also goes without saying that the Complainants, if they choose to bring action in a civil court, are free to file application(s) under Sections 5 and 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological proceedings in this Commission would be material and relevant towards making such application(s).

8.     It is made explicit that this Commission has consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the matter, or to make a detailed critique, since the right of the Complainants to seek remedy in a competent civil court or to agitate their cases before any competent authority survives, and this Commission does not in any manner want to colour the vision of any authority / court.

It is also made explicit that this Order has been passed on considering the particular facts and specificities of the instant matter, as evinced from its record.

9.     So disposed.

‘Dasti’, in addition.