By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The respondent company has introduced a new scheme by issuing Bonds in open market. The face value of the bond is Rs.1800/-. The general public can purchase these bonds by investing amounts. The company promised several rate of interest to the amounts invested or deposited in the Bonds. The company is legally bound to give the promised rate of interest to the investors and investors or the purchaser of the Bonds are legally entitled to receive the promised rate of interest for the invested amount from the respondent company. The complainant has purchased 30 Bonds having serial No.01089901 to 01089930 and the face value of a Bond is Rs.1000/. So for the 30 bonds Rs.30,000/- is the total amount and the company has given a Bond Certificate bearing No.20935 to the complainant. The rate of interest fixed is 11% annually. The maturity date of bonds is limited to 84 months. The complainant has purchased these bonds on 10.11.2003 and the maturity date is 9.11.2010. The company also promised to return the invested amount ie. Rs.30,000/- on the date of maturity. 12.11.2004 is the last date on which the complainant received the agreed rate of interest and after that the company is in default in paying the agreed rate of interest. The due interest amount is Rs.3300/-. Even though the complainant demanded the interest there is no response from the side of the respondents. On enquiry it is came to know that the company’s functioning is improper and there is financial instability. The company is in sinking position. The complainant is entitled for the agreed rate of interest and also entitled for 12% interest for this interest amount from 12.11.2004. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter is that the complainant applied for Secured Redeemable Non Convertible Bonds by accepting the terms and conditions for the issue of such bonds. The allegations in the complaint that the respondents are withholding the payment of interest on the bond amounts that the same amounts to deficiency in service and that the complainant is entitled to be paid the bond amounts with interest and compensation are all false and denied. The bonds are premature and not redeemable. The complainant did not apply to redeem the bond in question. The complaint is premature. The first respondent has filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for the approval of a scheme of arrangement/compromise between the respondent company and its bond holders as Company Application No.855/05 under Section 391 of the Companies Act 1956. Pursuant to the said application a meeting of the bond holders of the respondent company was convened and held in Chennai on 10th august 2005 to consider the compromise or arrangement proposed to be made as aforesaid. It is resolved that the consent of the bond holders of the Company is hereby accorded to the scheme of arrangement/compromise between the respondent company and its class of creditors and it is further resolved that the Board of Directors of the Company hereby authorised to make and/or consent to the modifications, alterations or amendments in the scheme which are desired, directed or imposed by the High Court of judicature at Madras or any other authority. The complainant being a bond holder is also bound by the above mentioned resolutions duly passed subject to the final decision of the Madras High Court. So the complaint is not maintainable and dismiss. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Is the complaint maintainable? (2) Is there any deficiency in service? (3) If so, reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and Exts. R1 to R4. No oral evidence adduced by both. 5. Points: Ext. P1 is the Photostat copy of the bond issued by the first respondent in favour of the Company. As stated in the complaint the face value of the bond is Rs.1000/- and the complainant purchased 30 bonds worth Rs.30,000/-. The complainant states that it was agreed to give 11% interest for the bond amount and 12.11.04 is the last date on which the complainant received the agreed rate of interest and after that the respondent company is in default in paying the agreed rate of interest. The complaint is filed to get the agreed rate of interest to the invested amount of the complainant ie. Rs.3300/- and 12% interest for that amount. He also seeks a prayer for return of the invested amount of Rs.30,000/-. 6. The first point to be considered is the maintainability of the complaint since the dispute is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also under the consideration of Madras High court. The respondent produced Ext. R2 the copy of judgement passed by Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in favour of the respondent Company. In the impugned judgement it is held that the proper course open to the lower Forums was to wait for the orders of the Company Court instead of passing the impugned orders. As the sanctioned arrangement and compromise are binding on all the creditors of the company including the complainant or complainants in respective complaint made before the lower forums the order impugned is not sustainable and are liable to be upturned. So the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram made it clear that still the Madras High Court did not finally dispose of the matter it is desirable to wait for the orders of the Company Court instead of passing orders in the case pending before the different courts. There is no evidence adduced by both to show the final disposal of the matter by the Company Court. So we are not going into the merit of the case and dismiss with liberty to file fresh complaint depending upon the orders of the Company Court. 7. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of April 2010.
| | HONORABLE Rajani P.S., Member | HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member | | 
