FA.No.512/2009 against CC.No.401/2008 District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad.

Between:

M/s.Twin Cities Permanent Fund Ltd.

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Sri Madhusudhan Rao,

Office at : 1-1-790, Ashoknagar Extension,

Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

1.Smt.Shanta Gudur, W/o.S.V.Gudur,

   Aged about 55 years, Occ: Household.

2.Sri Srinivasa Venkatesh Gudur,

   S/o.late V.N.Gudur, Aged about 71 years,

   Occ: Retired Bank Officer,

Both R/o.D.No.1-11-252/41, 12, SBH Colony,

Motilal Nehru Nagar, Begumpet,

Hyderabad.

…Respondents/Complainants.

Counsel for the Appellant           :  Mr.K.Visweswara Rao.

Counsel for the Respondents     : Admn.stage.

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

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President

******* 

1.         Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.         The case of the complainants in brief is that the1st complainant was a retired bank officer and he deposited his retirement benefits to a tune of Rs.4,05,380/- with the appellant finance company, wherein it agreed to pay the maturity amount.  In spite of a legal notice dt.10.12.2007, it did not pay the amount.  Therefore, he filed the complaint.

3.         The appellant though resisted the case did not dispute issuance of fixed deposit receipts to the complainants.  It alleged that the complainants were its shareholders and in fact the complainants have been collecting interest on the said deposits.  They are being renewed the same from time to time.  However, the other borrowers filed various suits pending in various courts for recovery of the amount, which was within the knowledge of the complainants.  The complainants agreed to receive the matured deposit amounts covered under the fixed deposit receipts as and when the amounts are realized in priority basis.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainants in proof of their case filed affidavit evidence of the 1^st complainant and got Exs.A.1 to A.12 marked.  One of the Directors of the appellant company filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.B.1 and B.2 marked.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that in view of the fact that the appellant company had issued fixed deposit receipts, evidenced under Exs.A.1 to A.8 agreeing to pay the maturity value, it was liable to pay and accordingly directed the appellant to pay Rs.4,05,380/- together with interest at 9% per annum and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant finance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  It ought to have observed that in the Company Petition No.1/2009 filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the High court directed the appellant company not to satisfy any of the decrees till the determination of the Company Petition.  In view of the said order, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  In fact the complainant was a member and paid the membership fee, evidenced under Ex.B.1 , and therefore, it need not pay any amount and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.         It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act receiving deposits under Fixed Deposit Scheme.  It is also not in dispute that the complainants had deposited various amounts evidenced under Ex.A.1 to A.8 TDRs amounting to Rs.4,05,380/-.  Even after the expiry of the maturity amount period, the appellant did not return the amount.  After issuing legal notice evidenced under Ex.A.10, they filed the complaint. 

8.         The appellant did not dispute the receipt of amount and issuance of various fixed deposit receipts, evidenced under Exs.A.1 to A.8.  The only contention taken was that in view of pendency of Company Petition for winding up of the company in C.P.No.1/2009 before the High Court, the complainants are not entitled to the said amount.  We may state herein that the said Company Petition was filed in 2009 whereas the order of the District Forum is dated 31.12.2008, long prior to the filing of the Company Petition.  The learned counsel for the appellant made available an order of the Hon’ble Judge in Company Application No. 295/2009 in Company Application No.1029/2008 in Company Petition No.1/2009 wherein the following order was passed:  

“Therefore, the petitioner Company is restrained from making any payments to any of the Decree holders to satisfy such decrees and on the contrary, they must bring it to the notice of the Executing Courts about the pendency of Company petition before the Company Court, so that the Executing Court will await further steps to be ordered by the Company Court, in the matter of execution of those decrees.”

In the light of the specific order, we do not see how the above said order would help the appellant, and how could he raise the contention, which was raised in the appeal.  What all the High Court said was not to satisfy any of the decrees passed by the courts.  More so, a direction to the appellant was given to bring it to the notice of the executing courts about the pendency of the Company Petition, so that the executing courts will await further steps to be ordered by the Company Court in the matter of execution of the decrees.  There is no embargo for the courts or tribunals to pass decrees or orders against the complaints filed.  The only prohibition imposed is against passed orders in execution proceedings.   Absolutely, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant for passing a decree or order against it.  When it admitted issuance of the fixed deposit receipts to the complainants, it was liable to pay the amounts covered under Exs.A.1 to A.8 subject to the direction issued by the High Court in this regard.  We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

9.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.  However, no costs.     

PRESIDENT   

MEMBER   

MEMBER

DT: 08.06.2009