Harinder Kumar Versus PACL India Ltd. CC 37/2016

6.12.2016 Present:Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Kumar Bansal counsel for opposite parties.

The complainant Harinder Kumar son of Niranjan Dass has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the PACL India Limited and another.

2. The facts leading the present complaint are that the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties and invested a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite party and it was agreed that the opposite party would pay an estimated amount of Rs. 29,094/- on 18.12.2013 and the opposite party issued a policy cum registration letter bearing registration No. U017076995. It is alleged that the opposite party failed to pay the said estimated amount. Hence the present complaint is filed.

3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared. However, instead of filing the written version they have filed the application for dismissing the complaint in view of the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since the decision of this application directly affects the fate of the present complaint, therefore it is desirable to dispose of this application.

4. In the application the opposite parties have averred that vide order dated 2.2.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 13301/2015 titled Subrata Bhattacharya Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under.-

“The SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the Former Chief Justice of India, would be the Chairman of the said Committee. It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Committee to appoint such experts or other persons, as he might think it necessary, in consultation with the SEBI, so as to enable the Committee to sell the land and pay to the investors in a manner that might be decided by the said Committee.”

Therefore, it is requested that in view of the said order the present complaint may be dismissed.

5. In reply to the said application, the complainant has submitted that the opposite parties have wrongly interpreted the Orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the present complaint is not barred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also averred that even there is nothing about the maintainability or non maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum. Moreover, no direction is given of any kind by the Hon'ble Apex Court to this Forum. Even, the complainant was not a party in the said order. Hence, it is prayed that the present application is not maintainable and same be dismissed with costs.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

7. In Civil Appeal No. 13301/15 titled Subrata Bhattacharya Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No. 3 observed as.-

“3. The SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by the Company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the Former Chief Justice of India, would be the Chairman of the said Committee. It would be open to the Hon'ble Chairman of the Committee to appoint such experts or other persons, as he might think it necessary, in consultation with the SEBI, so as to enable the Committee to sell the land and pay to the investors in a manner that might be decided by the said Committee.”

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed in para No. 7 as.-

“ 7.The methodology with regard to recovery of amount by sale of the land and disbursement of the amount to the investors shall be overseen by the Members of the Committee.”

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed in para No. 12 and 13 as.-

“ 12. The amount, which is lying in the bank accounts of the Company and other cash belonging to the Company shall be released in favour of SEBI so that it can be used either for disbursement in favour of the investors or for incurring necessary expenditure. If any amount has been deposited by the Company or by its Directors or by any other person on behalf of the Company in any Court, the same shall be released in favour of the SEBI, who shall have a separate account so as to deal with the same. The Committee shall also decide as to whether the staff of the Company should be continued or relieved.

13. The decision with regard to sale of property of the Company by the Committee shall not be interfered with by any Court.”

10. Now coming to the present complaint, it is not disputed that the complainant namely Harinder Kumar is one of the investor who made investment with the opposite party company i.e. PACL Ltd.. It is also not disputed that the subject matter of the present complaint as well as that of the Hon'ble Committee is same qua the return of the money to the investors. Thus, the Hon'ble Committee under the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court has already seized the matter in question. Therefore, to continue with the present complaint will be a futile exercise.

11. In these premises, we are of the opinion that this Forum is unable to pass an executable order against the opposite parties. Therefore, the present application is accepted. Consequently, we also dispose of the main complaint accordingly. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Hon'ble Committee to seek his claim. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records.

Member President Member