View 72 Cases Against Nidhi Limited
Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited filed a consumer case on 19 Aug 2016 against P.Iswara Bhat in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/04/544 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Aug 2016.
APPEAL NO.544/2004
JUDGMENT DATED 19/8/2016
(Appeal filed against the order in O.P No.201/2003 dt.18/11/2003 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod)
PRESENT:
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
K.P. Complex, Main Road, Puttur-574 210
– Rep: by its Directors.
M/s. Shree Ambika Nidhi Limited,
Ndar Bus stand, Kasargod
– rep: by its Manager, K. Gopalakrishna Bhat,
Samethadka, S/o. Ramakrishna Bhat, Hindu,
Businessman, Samethadka House, Puttur P.O.,
Puttur, D.K. District, Karnataka.
(By Adv: R.S. Kalkura)
Vs
RESPONDENT:
P. Iswara Bhat, S/o. Narayana Bhat,
Poongalakaya House, Kanathoor P.O.,
Kasargod District.
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order passed in O.P.No.201/2003 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod.
2. When this appeal came up for hearing it is submitted that the subject matter in issue is under the order of the Official Liquidator of the Madras High Court. The respondent filed the complaint alleging that the amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited with the Opposite party had matured and on demand of the amount with interest was not paid and was constrained to file the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties accepted the deposit and the amount is due to the respondent. Consequent to the appointment of the liquidator by the order of the Madras High Court an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Company in liquidation was under the supervision of the Court. The order of the Company Court was rendered after the disposal of the complaint before the District Forum, the consequence and effect of such an order concerning the opposite party Company now has to be adverted. It is also considered by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court as per section 456(2) of Company’s Act that the effects of a company shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court from the date of the order for the winding up of that company. Hence the case instituted under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to consider the claim of the creditors of company which are being wound up under the provisions of the Company’s Act 1956. Due to the subsequent event which resulted in the ouster of the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction thus stands ousted is inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since the appeal is a continuation of the proceedings instituted by the complainant became subsequent event and the complaint became not maintainable because of lack of jurisdiction. Under the circumstance the impugned order is liable to set-aside and appeal is to be allowed. This order cannot affect the rights of the respondent/complainant to pursue his claim before the Company Court. The statement with regard to the complaint pending before the Fora is to be filed includes the appeal also. Because of the effect of the order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court the appeal is to be allowed.
In the result, appeal is allowed but this order shall not affect the right of the respondent/complainant to pursue his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court. There will be no order as to cost.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.544/2004
JUDGMENT DATED 19/8/2016
Sa.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.