Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 02-12-2015, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in CC/339/2015, whereof the complaint has been allowed.  Aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is preferred by the OP of the complaint case, i.e., M/s Rose Valley Estate & Construction Ltd.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that, she deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the OP Company.  On maturity, she claimed the maturity amount from the OPs which has, however, not been paid by the OPs; hence, the complaint.

Case of the OPs, on the other hand, is that the Asset Disposal Committee appointed by the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta has been entrusted with the job of management of seized assets of the company and all the bank accounts of the OPs have also been sealed.  In such circumstances, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

There is no dispute as regards investment of Respondent’s hard earned money in the Appellant Company and non-payment of the maturity sum to the Respondent.  There is also no dispute as to the fact that the Hon’ble High Court has not debarred other competent Court of Law to deal with the issue of return of deposited sum to the depositors of the Appellant Company.

The only plea of the Appellant is that post freezing of its bank accounts; the company is not in a position to honour its contractual commitment of repaying the maturity sum to the Respondent.

We find that several other Appeals of identical natural are pending before this Commission and the same have been filed after depositing statutory deposits in accordance with the 1986 Act, the sum total of said sum is quite significant.  Further, it transpires from the record that in terms of the Order No. 4, passed in this Appeal on 28-03-2016, Appellant has deposited 50% of the decretal amount with us.

Therefore, the alibi of Appellant’s handicap position in the wake of sealing of bank accounts of the company or management of the assets of the company by the Asset Disposal Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Court is not tenable.  

The Appeal is virtually bereft of any merit whatsoever and for this reason, we see no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The Appeal, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No order as to cost.