No. 20/23.02.2009.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Heard Mr. Jay Kumar Chowdhury along with Mr. Amit Kumar Ghosh, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Hiranmoy Brahmachri, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.  Appellant pays the cost as was directed by our earlier order against Receipt. 

The facts involved are that the investments of the Petitioner were matured on 01.04.2004 and the grievance of the Complainant is that payment of redemption amount were not remitted to the Petitioner within 01.04.2004.  It is pleaded that the Petitioner did not get the maturity value of the units with interest from 01.04.2004 to 15.04.2004 whereby the Petitioner was deprived of the benefit accrued due to the late remittance of the cheques by 15 days from the actual date of maturity.  In respect of the above contention Mr. Brahmachri, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent states that the Complainant was entitled to the interest in view of deferred payment of maturity value for the period from 01.04.2004 to 15.04.2004 of Rs. 6,00,000/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- being the three investments.

On behalf of the Appellant the Ld. Advocate contended that the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulation 1996 provides in Regulation 53 that every mutual fund and Management Committee shall deposit the redemption or repurchase proceed within ten working days from the date of redemption or repurchase.

In the above circumstances we find that applying the said Regulation the Appellants were required to despatch the proceed on maturity within ten working days from 01.04.2004 and in the present case despatch was made on 15.04.2004 and, therefore, excluding the holidays there is no delay in the matter of despatch by the Appellant.

The contention of the Complainant that she received the amounts long thereafter, has not been substantiated by any proper pleading in the complaint and proof and, therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to make out the said case at this stage.

The findings of the Forum below in the impugned judgement cannot be agreed to as the date considered as 18.05.2005 as the date of receipt of the maturity value, has not been substantiated by the Complainant and not even pleaded in the complaint.

Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgement is set aside.  the complaint is dismissed and there is no order as to cost.