KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.715/02 JUDGMENT DATED.30.08.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/s.S.S.Industries & Enterprises Ltd., Sucra Mansion, II Floor, 158, Arcot Road, : APPELLANT Vadapalani, Chennai-600026, (By Adv.V.S.Bhasurendran Nair) Vs John Mathai, Kottackattethu, T.C.2/1077, Pazhaya Road, Medical College.P.O., : RESPONDENT Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.K.C.Anilkumar & Josh Rajan) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in OP.No.614/99 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant, ie; the company along with rest of the opposite parties ie; 1 to 4 and 7 to 13 are under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 14.5% from 20.1.99 till realization and also to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as FD with maturity date on 19.1.99 with the opposite party company/appellant. It is his grievance that the amount has not been repaid so far. 3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that the Forum is not having jurisdiction as the matter falls exclusively within the province of the Company’s Act and that the Company Law Board has seized of the matter. It is further explained that the shrimp culture activities in which the company was engaged has to be stopped on account of the intervention of the Supreme Court, and hence the F.D amount could not be repaid. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5. 5. The counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the contention that the matter has been taken over by the Company Law Board and a Scheme with respect to the settlement of the claims of depositors have been framed and notices have been issued to the depositors in January 1999 itself. The counsel has relied on the decision in M/s.Allianz Capital and Management Services Ltd Vs N.P.Grover and Others, 1 (2000) CPJ 617 (NC) that once a matter has been seized of by the Company Law Board any grievances about non payment according to the Scheme drawn by the Company Law Board can be raised before the Company Law Board only. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd Vs The Official Liquidator and another 1992 (1) KLT 743 wherein it has been held that once the proceedings of liquidation has been initiated the consumer Forums have no jurisdiction to consider the claims of creditors of companies which are being wound up. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/complainant has relied on the decision in Lloyds Finance Ltd Vs MS.Napeena Singh, I (2006) CPJ 163 (NC) 6. We find that in Lloyds Finance Ltd., (op.cit) the National Commission has considered M/s.Allianz case (supra) and entire gamut of the provisions under section 45QA, section 45Q, section 58B, section 58E and section 58F of the Company’s Act with respect to the scheme etc to be framed by the Company Law Board and has observed as to the inefficacy of the above provisions and difficulties and helplessness of the depositors to pursue the implementation of the Scheme and held that the jurisdiction of the consumer Fora’s are not ousted just because the Company Law Board has seized of the matter. We find that in view of the ratio in Lloyds Finance Ltd (op.cit) the contentions of the appellant cannot be sustained. 7. As to the fact of deposit and non payment after the period of maturity there is no dispute, and hence we find that there is no reasons to interfere with the order of the Forum. In the result the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU ......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | |