C.C.No.57 of 2008

Between:

1. Mr.B.F.Bastawala

    S/o.late Feroze Shah Bastawala,

    Aged 79 years, Occ:Retd.Govt.Servant.

2. Mrs.Freny Behmanshah

    S/o.Mr.B.F.Bastawala.

    Aged 82 years, Occ:Retd.Lecturer.

3. Ms.Yasmin Behmanshah

    D/o.Mr.B.F.Bastawala,

    Aged 51 years, Occ:Pvt.Servant.

4. Mrs.Nawaz Banu Anwer Hussain,

    D/o.late Feroze Shah Bastawala,

    Aged 82 years, Widow, Occ:Retired

    Teacher, Res.8-703/3/B Rd.No.12,

    Banjara Hills

5. Ms.Lulu Behmanshah,

    Adopted D/o.Mr.Behmanshah Bastawala,

    Res.8-703/3/B Rd.No.12,

    Banjara Hills, age 28, Physically Handicapped

    With polio.

    All R/o.H.No.Flat No.715,

    Brindavan Apartments,

    Niloufer Hospital Lane,

    Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.                                                                                          ..Complainants

                   And

1. The Telegragh Traffic Employees Co-op.Credit

    Society Ltd., represented by Special Officer,

    C/o.Central Telegraph Office,

    Koti, Hyderabad.

2.  The Hyderabad District Co-op. Central

     Bank Ltd., rep. by its Manager, Mr.Shamshuddin

     Head Office Nampally statuibRoad,

     Hyderabad-500 001. A/c.No.300

3. Union Bank of India,

    Door No.3-5-919 to 925, Balaji Arcade,

    Main Road, Himayathnagar,

    Hyderabad-500 029. rep. by its Manager.

    A/c.No.555701010050183                                                                                      ..Opp.parties.

Counsel for the Complainants : Mr.K.Paramdhara Chary.

Counsel for the Opposite parties:Mr.N.Rajeshwar Rao-O.P.1

                                                        O.Ps2 and 3 served.

QUORUM:   THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

.

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***

The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainants deposited certain amounts with opposite party No.1, who has issued the following  fixed deposit certificates in the name of the complainants:

totalling to Rs.22,86.000/- with a maturity period of 6 months each.  Opposite party No.1 agreed to pay interest at 13% p.a. on some F.Ds. and 14% p.a. on some F.Ds.  The complainants submitted that opposite party No.1 issued circulars from time to time with respect to change in interest rates and the last agreed interest payable was 14% p.a. The complainants submitted that they invested the amounts in fixed deposits with opposite party No.1 from out of pension benefits and their personal earnings in fond hope that the investments will be of help during the hour of need and rest of the retired life.  The complainants further submitted that opposite party No.1 has been very irregular in paying the interest on some of the F.Ds and when the complainants requested for refund of the principal amounts after maturity, opposite party No.1 paid interest due on some of the F.Ds. and assured that the principal amounts will be refunded within a short time.  Thereafter the complainants send several reminders requesting opposite party No.1 for refund of the principal amount and interest but in vain.  The complainants submitted that they even reported the matter to the Registrar of Co-op.Society, Divisional Co-op.Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Police of Detective Department & City Crime Stations, Hyderabad for immediate action against opposite party no.1 and advise it to refund the amounts due to the complainants and also sent a reminder on 16-10-2008 but no action was taken by anyone.  The complainants submitted that they have requested opposite party no.1 on several occasions stating that they are badly in need of money for the treatment of complainant No.3, who has to undergo a major surgery abroad immediately for removal of brain tumor costing about Rs.50,00,000/-.

        The complainants 1, 2 and 4 are aged more than 75 years and they are dependants on pension and the nominal income from investments made out of pensionary benefits.  The complainant no.3 needs money for surgery and all family members want to contribute some amount towards her treatment.  Complainant No.5 is a physically handicapped and solely dependent on the income and if any of these sources were blocked, it would be very difficult to meet their and their family’s day today expenses and other needs.  Inspite of repeated demands by the complainants, opposite party no.1 neither refunded the principal amounts nor paid the interest accrued thereon and due to this the complainants underwent lot of mental agony and suffered hardship for which opposite party No.1 is liable to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainants submitted that pursuant to the complaints to various departments by the complainants, the Registrar of Co-operative Society appointed Special Officer to manage the affairs of opposite party No.1 and the administration of opposite party No.1 has been handed over to the care taker.  The complainants further submitted that they came to know that the earlier management failed to maintain proper accounts of the society and any amount mis-managed would definitely lead to losing of the whole or substantial part of the amounts due by the opposite party.  The news item with respect to the society’s misappropriation of funds was published in local newspapers and the complainants submitted that opposite party No.1 is liable to the following amounts:

                a) Principal Amount             Rs.22,86,000-00

                b) Interest @ 14% p.a.                Rs.  3,98,778-00

                c) Principal + Interest          Rs.26,84,778-00

                d) Damages                        Rs.2,00,000-00

                        Total                         Rs.28,84,778/-

                                                        =========

        The complainants submitted that the opposite party No.1 failed to pay the amounts due from time to time right from the initial period and failed to comply with the terms of deposit resulting in deficiency in service and hence it is liable to refund the above said amounts i.e. Rs.26,84,778/- to the complainants with interest at 24% p.a. till payment,        Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and hardship and costs.

        Opposite parties 2 and 3 though served remained absent and hence they are set exparte.

        Opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint.   It submitted that the complainants clearly admitted that the earlier management of the society misappropriated the funds collected from the depositors and caused substantial loss to the society as well as to its members and committed default in not paying the interest due to the depositors.  In view of this mismanagement of the society, the police registered cases against the committee members and the Government appointed the P.I.C. U/s.32 (7)(a) of the APCS Act and accordingly the Chairman has taken over the society pending enquiry U/s.51 of the Act by the enquiry officer into the affairs of Telegraph Society.  Opposite party no.1 submitted that the complainants failed to implead the erstwhile management and therefore it cannot be alleged that P.I.C. (opposite party No.1) has committed default in payment of the F.D.R. amounts to the depositors and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action in filing the complaint against the P.I.C. of opposite party No.1 society and pending enquiry, this Commission cannot entertain the complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prevent P.I.C. Committee and Enquiry Officer from discharging their duties in accordance with the Act.  It further submitted that unless and until the enquiry is completed, further steps cannot be taken as the grievance of the members of the society, if any, has to be settled in accordance with the provisions of A.P.C.S.Act and hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the fact that opposite party no.1 is a society registered under APCS Act, 1964 and the settlement of claims of members/depositors by or against the society has to be done as per the provisions of the Act and Section 133 of APCS Act contemplates that the provisions of APCS Act shall have effect not withstanding anything in consistent there with contained in any opther law.  Section 121 also provides bar of jurisdiction of court against the society and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

It further submitted that without prejudice to the above legal contention that Telegraph Traffic Employees Co-op Credit Society Ltd., is a society established by its President, Sri S.Ramachandra Reddy and Sri K.Krishnamurthy Secretary and Committee Members and collected deposits from its members and non members luring higher rate of interest of deposits.  After collecting huge amounts from the depositors including the complainants herein, they misappropriated the amounts and absconded.  On the complaints made by the depositors, the CCS of Police registered criminal case in Cr.No.226 of 2008 U/s.406, 409, 420 IPC R/w. Sec. 3 and 5 of A.P.Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishment Act against the President and other committee members.  The Government thereafter by order dt.29-9-2008 ordered enquiry U/s.51 of APCS Act, 1964 into the constitution, working and financial position of the society and by order dt.18-10-2008 by superseding the managing committee of the Telegraph Society appointed the P.I.C. Committee to manage the affairs of the society.  Accordingly the Committee of P.I.C. headed by its Chairman has taken over the affairs of the society pending enquiry.  Pending enquiry, the complainants approached this Commission complaining that the Special Officer of the Society failed to pay interest and failed to the refund the amounts and consequently sought for a direction for refund of the amount along with damages of Rs.2,00,000/-.  They contended that as the erstwhile management of the society committed misappropriation of the funds, P.I.C. was appointed to look after the affairs of the society pending enquiry, therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the complaint against the P.I.C. of the society and there is no deficiency in service by P.I.C. as alleged by the complainants  and until and unless the enquiry is completed, further steps cannot be taken.  It further contended on the preliminary investigations of opposite party No.1, it found that nearly 5,000 depositors including members and non members of the society from whom the previous management of the society collected deposits and misappropriated and after completion of enquiry under the APCS Act, the claims of all depositors have to be settled as per the provisions of APCS Act, 1964 and therefore the complainants cannot contend that their claims have to be settled at the first instance and cannot claim any undue preference for settlement of claims and have to sail along with others.  It further submitted that some small depositors have approached the District Forum and the claims of the depositors will be settled in accordance with the laws applicable to the society and also subject to outcome of criminal case pending before XII Addl.CMM Court, Nampally, Hyderabad and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In support of their case, complainant No.3 filed her affidavit on behalf of complainants 1, 2 4 and 5 and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.  Opposite party No.1 filed affidavit of PIC reiterating the facts stated in the counter and relied on documents marked as Exs.B1 to 13.

Ex.A1 are bunch of 19 FDRs. For total amount of Rs.22,86,000/-.  Ex.A2 is cheque return memo issued by the Hyderabad District Co-op. Bank.  Ex.A3 is the complaint given by the complainant No.3 to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Golconda Division dated 23-9-2008. Ex.A4 and A5 are written complaints given to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, City Crime Station, Special Officer, Telegraphic Traffic Employees Co-operative Credit Society dt. 4-10-2008 and 16-10-2008 respectively  by complainant No.3.  Ex.A6 is the MRI Brain report of Santhosh Diagnostic and scan centredt. 3-3-2008.  Ex.A7 is written complaint given to the District Co-operative Registrar by complainant No.3 dt.12-12-2008.  Ex.A8 is written complaint given by complainant No.3 to Registrar of Co-op. Credit Society, Hyderabad.   Ex.A9 is Garnishee order in CC.IA.No.2699/2008 in C.C.No.57/2008  dated 21-2-2009.

Ex.B1 is proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 18-10-2006.  Ex.B2 is the proceedings of the District Co-operative Officer, dt.29-9-2008.  Ex.B3 and B4 are  attested copy of bye-laws proceedings issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 28-2-2001.  Ex.B5 is letter addressed by CB, CID dated 27-6-2009.  Ex.B6 is Surcharge proceedings initiated by DLCO U/s.60 of APCS Act, dated 23-7-2009.  Ex.B7 is W.P.No.21858/2009, Writ petition filed by Non Member Depositors.  Ex.B8 is W.P.11734/2009, writ petition filed by Members for settlement of claims, Ex.B9 is W.P.No.12928/2009, Writ Petition filed by the members for conducting elections to the Telegraph Society.  Ex.B10 is W.P.No.28935/2009 Writ Petition filed by Non-members for liquidation.  Ex.B11 is W.P.No.15333/2009, writ petition filed by retired members. Ex.B12 is the explanation by the Ex.President of the society, dated 11-2-2010.  Ex.B    13 is the explanation submitted by the Secretary dated 25-10-2009.

Complainants filed their written arguments stating that they deposited certain amounts with opposite party No.1 for which opposite party No.1 issued the fixed deposit certificates with a maturity period of 6 months each.  in their names for an amount of Rs.22,86,000/- as shown below:

        They submitted that opposite party No.1 agreed to pay interest at 13% p.a. on some F.Ds. and 14% p.a. on some F.Ds. and also issued circulars from time to time with respect to change in interest rates and the last agreed interest payable was 14% p.a. The complainants submitted that they invested the amounts in fixed deposits with opposite party No.1 from out of pension benefits and their personal earnings in fond hope that the investments will be of help during the hour of need and rest of the retired life.  The complainants further submitted that opposite party No.1 has been very irregular in paying the interest on some of the F.Ds and when the complainants requested for refund of the principal amounts after maturity, opposite party No.1 paid interest due on some of the F.Ds. and assured that the principal amounts will be refunded within a short time.  Thereafter the complainants sent several reminders requesting opposite party No.1 for refund of the principal amount and even reported the matter to the Registrar of Co-op.Society, Divisional Co-op.Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Police of Detective Department & City Crime Stations, Hyderabad for immediate action against opposite party no.1.  The complainants submitted that they have requested opposite party no.1 on several occasions stating that they are badly in need of money for the treatment of complainant No.3, who has to undergo a major surgery abroad immediately for removal of brain tumor costing about Rs.50,00,000/-.

They further submitted that complainants 1, 2 and 4 are aged more than 75 years and they are dependants on pension and complainant no.3 needs money for surgery and all family members want to contribute some amount towards her treatment and complainant No.5 is a physically handicapped and solely dependent on the income and if any of these sources were blocked, it would be very difficult to meet their and their family’s day today expenses and other needs.  Inspite of repeated demands by the complainants, opposite party no.1 neither refunded the principal amounts nor paid the interest accrued thereon.  The complainants submitted that pursuant to the complaints to various departments by the complainants, the Registrar of Co-operative Society appointed Special Officer to manage the affairs of opposite party No.1 and the administration of opposite party No.1 has been handed over to the care taker.  The complainants further submitted that they came to know that the earlier management failed to maintain proper accounts of the society and any amount mis-managed would definitely lead to losing of the whole or substantial part of the amounts due by the opposite party and submitted that opposite party No.1 is liable to the following amounts:

        The complainants submitted that the opposite party No.1 failed to pay the amounts due from time to time right from the initial period and failed to comply with the terms of deposit resulting in deficiency in service and hence it is liable to refund Rs.26,84,778/- to the complainants with interest at 24% p.a. till payment,  together with Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and hardship and costs.  

        The complainants submitted that they filed a petition under Section 13(3b) to grant an order of garnishee prohibiting opposite parties 2 and 3 from making payments or releasing amounts to the extent of total claim of Rs.28,84,778/- to the opposite party No.1 from the accounts of opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the same was granted.  They submitted that they have approached opposite party no.1 for repayment of their F.Ds. and in the counter filed by opposite party No.2 they contended that as the earlier management of the society misappropriated the funds, the Government has superseded the society and the functioning power is transferred to the present body but the society was not liquidated.  Thereafter also the complainants approached opposite party No.1 i.e. P.I.C. U/s 32 (7)(a) of APCS Act and he is also liable to the amount under Section 2(b) and 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act, 1986.  They submitted that the stand taken by opposite party No.1 stating that Section1 121 of Co-op. Societies bars the jurisdiction of the Commission is absolutely wrong and contended that it is wrong to state U/s51 of APCS Act, 1964 has constituted enquiry committee to enquire into working and financial position of the society and thus unless and unitl statutory enquiry is completed no further steps can be initiated against opposite party No.1 is against the statutory rules and regulations and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  They further relied on several decisions that the dispute between members and management of co-operative society and the fixed deposit, deposited amount not returned with interest   comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

        Opposite parties filed written arguments and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that the complainants are not consumers and that there is no jural relationship betwen the parties since the telegraph Employees Society is registered under the APCS Act, 1964, the provisions of this Act alone is applicable for the settlement of the dispute between the society and its members. He further contended that the complainants took a risk depositing the money by way of cash with the Secretary of the society, who misappropriated the funds.  The complainants were non members obtained the FDR deposits without any counter signature of the society members or committee members and that in the event of liquidation U/s65, the claims of the depositors has to be settled U/s.66 of the APCS Act.  Rule

42 clearly states that no society shall enter into any transaction with a person other than a member unless the byelaws of the society permit to enter it such transaction and the previous sanction of the Registrar has been obtained by the society for entering into such transaction.   There is no service rendered by the opposite party and if the opposite parties initiated action as per the provisions of APCS Act, the deposit amount cannot be refunded to the complainant which would affect interest of 2400 other members of the society.  He stated in his written arguments that they are four categories of members as under:

a) Members:                               114                   Rs.3,44,65,500

b) Members (Retired): 166

c) Non-Members                        2,340                  Rs.52,12,89,150

d)Kith and Kin of Members                                    ------------------

                                Total:                                        Rs.55,57,54,650

                                                                        ===========

It is submitted that the Members and Non Members filed the following cases for refund of amount.

High Court Cases:

CONSUMER FORUM CASES:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COMMISSION:

It is submitted that the present financial position of the society is as under:

a)    Amount available in the Bank

     As on 12-12-2009                               Rs.1,90,08,704/-

b)    Amount involved in the above cases          Rs.1,16,86,778/-

c)     Total Amount Claimed by the Members

         And Non Member (Deposits)                Rs.55,57,54,650/-

d) Members Thrift Deposit                            Rs.   72,15,190/-

e) Members Share Capital                             Rs.   52,83,925/-

f) Total liability of society(C+D+E)                      Rs.56,82,53,765/-

1)                                                                 ============

It is the case of the complainants that they have deposited amounts of Rs.22,86,000/- under various F.D.Rs. with opposite party No.1 society from 21-4-1997 to 18-1-2008 and stated that the society promised them13% interest on some F.Ds. and 14% p.a. interest on some F.Ds. but was very irregular in paying the interest and finally opposite party No.1 failed to refund the deposit and a complaint was made to the Registrar on 16-10-2008 and the amount to be paid to them is as follows:

Total principal amount Rs.22,86,000-00

Interest at 14% p.,a.   Rs. 3,98,778-00

Principal + interest =    Rs.26,84,778-00

Damages claimed is       Rs. 2,00,000-00

 The society handed over the management to a care taker since there was misappropriation of funds by the earlier management.  The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1  contended that there is no jural relationship between the parties i.e. between the complainants and the society and the complainant did not avail any services from opposite party no.1, P.I.C. Chairman, who took charge on superseding of the Managing Committee of the society.  The contention of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainants are not ‘consumers’ and there is no jural relationship is unsustainable. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that U/s. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is in addition to and not in derogation to any other Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute under the Co-operative Societies also.  It was held by the Apex Court in SECRETARY, THIRUMURUGAN COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY v. M.LALITHA reported in  I(2004) CPJ 1 (S.C) that

‘dispute between the members and management of the Co-operative Society  and Sections 90 and 156 of Tamilnadu CooperativeSocieties Act, 1983 wherein rights and liability created between members and the management of the co-operative society under the said 1983 Act cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986’.

        The Apex court in Civil Appeal No.92/1998 decided on 11-12-2003 reported in Vol. I 2004 CPJ P-1 SC held that

‘Dispute between Members and Management of Co-op. Society can be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora’. 

In Raju sitaram Landge V. Sadguru Park Co-op. Housing Society and others reported in Vol. II (2008) CPJ P-114 NC, the National Commission held that

       ‘Co-op. societies fall within the entity of being ‘person’ and the

      consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is competent to

      file this complaint’.

a)          Keeping in view the aforementioned judgements, we conclude that this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The contention of the opposite party no.1 is that in view of the fraud and misappropriation of the funds by the previous managing committee and in the absence of funds in the society, the present PIC Committee represented by its Chairman is not liable to pay the deposit amounts to the complainants.  It is the further case of the opposite party No.1 that as per Sec.39 of A.P.C.S. Act share or interest is not liable for attachment. 

While the counsel for the opposite party No.1 relied on Sections 47, 48 and Rule 42 of A.P.C.S. Act and he also contended that the depositors, i.e. Members and non Members have approached the High Court in various writ petitions in W.P.7430/2009, W.P.1734/2009, W.P.12928/2009, W.P.15333/2009 and W.P.21858/2009 are all pending before the High Court.  It is pertinent to note that in W.P.No.7430/2009 there is a prayer to implement the District Forum  order and the High Court has given an interim order for implementation of the District Forum  order.  The opposite party could not get the stay vacated and it is still pending before the High Court, till date no liquidator is appointed and it is also pertinent that there is no stay in any of these proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court.  Hence we rely on the judgement of the National Commission in R.P.No.1768/2000, 1769/2000 and 2886/2005 dated 3-4-2007 in which they observed as follows:

        “In view of the matter, particularly when liquidation petition for winding

          up is pending before the High Court of Bombay and the fact that a

          Special Committee is appointed and functioning under the High Court and

          that it has drawn a plan for repayment to the depositors/investors as

          quoted, we hereby direct that neither the State Commissions nor the Dist.

          Forums, would proceed further with the dispute which are pending against

          Lloyds Finance Ltd.,  However, it would be open to the Dist. Forums or the

          State Commissions to finalize the amount payable by the company (payment

of interest and compensation would be subject to final orders of the special committee or the liquidator) and/or to direct the investors to lodge a claim

before the Special Committee.  These directions shall be abided by Consumer Fora all over the country”.

    Keeping in view the aforementioned judgements that it is open to the consumer fora and the State Commission to finalize the amounts payable, we are of the considered view that the complainants are entitled to the principal amounts deposited i.e. Rs.22,86,000/- and the payment of interest and compensation would be subject to the  orders of the Hon’ble High Court.  There is no deficiency in service established against opposite parties 2 and 3, therefore, the complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is dismissed without costs.

        In the result this complaint is allowed in part directing opposite party No.1   to pay Rs.22,86,000/- as admitted by them and determined by this Commission.  However, interest and compensation would be payable by them subject to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.  Complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is dismissed without costs.

                                                                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                     Dt.01-7-2010

//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

For complainant                                         For Opp.parties

Affidavit of complainant No.3 filed.                                Affidavit of PIC of opp.

Party No.1 filed.

Witnesses examined

For complainant                                         For Opp.parties

NIL                                                                   NIL

Exhibits marked on behalf of complainants:

Ex.A1 are bunch of 19 FDRs. For total amount of Rs.22,86,000/-. 

Ex.A2 is cheque return memo issued by the Hyderabad District Co-op. Bank.     

Ex.A3 is the complaint given by the complainant No.3 to the Divisional Co-

         operative Officer, Golconda Division dated 23-9-2008.

Ex.A4 and A5 are written complaints given to the Deputy Commissioner of

      Police, City Crime Station, Special Officer, Telegraphic Traffic Employees

      Co-operative Credit Society dt. 4-10-2008 and 16-10-2008 respectively

      by complainant No.3. 

Ex.A6 is the MRI Brain report of Santhosh Diagnostic and scan centre dt. 3

       -3-2008. 

Ex.A7 is written complaint given to the District Co-operative Registrar by

         complainant No.3 dt.12-12-2008. 

Ex.A8 is written complaint given by complainant No.3 to Registrar of Co-op.

         Credit Society, Hyderabad.  

Ex.A9 is Garnishee order in CC.IA.No.2699/2008 in C.C.No.57/2008  dated  

         21-2-2009.

Exhibits marked on behalf of opp.party No.1:

Ex.B1 is proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 18-10-2006. 

Ex.B2 is the proceedings of the District Co-operative Officer, dt.29-9-2008.  Ex.B3 and B4 are  attested copy of bye-laws proceedings issued by the

         Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 28-2-2001. 

Ex.B5 is letter addressed by CB, CID dated 27-6-2009. 

Ex.B6 is Surcharge proceedings initiated by DLCO U/s.60 of APCS Act, dated

         23-7-2009. 

Ex.B7 is W.P.No.21858/2009, Writ petition filed by Non Member Depositors. 

Ex.B8 is W.P.11734/2009, writ petition filed by Members for settlement of

        claims,

Ex.B9 is W.P.No.12928/2009, Writ Petition filed by the members for

        conducting elections to the Telegraph Society. 

Ex.B10 is W.P.No.28935/2009 Writ Petition filed by Non-members for

           liquidation. 

Ex.B11 is W.P.No.15333/2009, writ petition filed by retired members.

Ex.B12 is the explanation by the Ex.President of the society, dt 11-2-2010. 

Ex.B13 is the explanation submitted by the Secretary dated 25-10-2009.

Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                                                Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                                                     Dt.01-7-2010

L.R. copy marked/not to be marked