SRI RITURAJ DEY, Member
The present case has been filed by the complainant for passing an order to direct the OPs to return the amount of Rs. 4,32,635/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-
The complainant-s case in a nutshell is that the complainant took Agro Bond of Rs.1,11,000/- from OP No.1 for 36 month on 16/04/2011 through OP No.3 and from the office of OP No.2. In accordance with the Agro Bond No. MC006/A/04/11/006197, the complainant would be returned Rs. 4,32,835/- on 16/04/2014. After expiry of said period the complainant went to the OPs to get back the Rs. 4,32,835/-. Having had no response the complainant sent a letter on 24/06/2014 to the OP No.1 & 2 by registered post demanding the said money but in spite of receiving the aforesaid letter the OP had not paid the said amount to the complainant. Hence, the case has been filed by the complainant.
The OP No.1 & OP No.2 have appeared in the case by filing W/V as also W/N/A wherein the OPs have stated that the office at the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Midnapore, -Sahoo Bhawan-, Kshudiram Nagar, Paschim Medinipur, has already attached the Bank Account of the OPs. According to the OPs under consideration of the OPs- letter dt. 19/05/2014 by order No. RO/003/2014(Recovery Certificate No.20/2013) dt. 06/06/2014 the Recovery Officer of Securities and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) under Rule 16 and 48 of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961, read with section 28 A of the SEBI Act 1992 has prohibited the OPs from disposing, transferring, alienating. charging in respect of all the immovable properties held by the OPs and including the immovable properties which are mentioned in the Annexure-1 and also prohibited all other moveable properties held by the OPs except the Bank Account as permitted by the Hon-ble High Court of Kolkata under order dt. 19/12/2013.
Recovery Officer of SEBI further directed that all persons are prohibited from taking any benefits under such transfer, disposal alienation or change in respect of the properties mentioned in the Annexture-1.
SEBI further directed that the said order should be served on the District Register of Paschim Medinipur and on the Sub- registers of Binpur-1 and Jahargram Blocks not to act upon any documents purporting to be dealing with transfer, mortgage, charge, lease or creation or alteration of any interest in any of the properties specifically mentioned in the Annexure-1 of the said order if presented for registration.
The OPs have replied against the Order No. RO/003/2014 (Recovery Certificate No.20 of 2013) by their letter dt. 20/06/2014 to the Regional Manager, Eastern office, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) where the OPs have submitted the details of properties/assets (movable and immovable) of CIS as desirers by Recovery Officer of SEBI for liquidating the said properties/assets and making repayment to the investors Under CIS 1999 on behalf of CIMC (MPS GDL) by SEBI in the prescribed format.
According to OPs the Recovery Officer of SEBI in the order No. RO/003/2014 has attached the Shares held by the promoters in its group companies and attached and recovered an amount of Rs. 2,00,46,000( Rupees Two core Forty Six Thousand Only) which is due to be paid by West-Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd to the OP No.1.
According to the OP No.1 & 2, as all the relevant papers and documents are in the custody of the Income Tax Deptt. and SEBI, so, it would not be possible, feasible and practicable for the OPs to make scrutiny of the documents of the complainant. The OP No.1 &2 have emphasized to make Income Tax Department and SEBI as the Opposite Parties in the present proceedings or in the alternative the aforesaid case may kindly be stayed till the dispute of Income Tax Department with the OP No.1 & 2 are settled.
The OP No.3 has not appeared in the present case by filing W/V as also W/N/A after receiving the notice sent by DCDRF, Purba Medinipur. So, the case has been heard ex-parte against OP No.3.
None of the parties adduced any evidence but they have relied upon the averments in their respective pleadings which were supported by affidavit and the documents submitted by them before this Forum. But both the parties submitted their respective W/N/A except OP No.3.
We have gone through the pleadings, the documents including W/N/A submitted by them.
Points for Consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or compensation?
Decisions with reason
With an eye to the above two points, the decisions are mentioned below :
Points No.1 & 2.
Having perused all the documents filed by the complainant and OP No.1 &2, it appears that the complainant had invested Rs. 1,11,000/- to the AGRO BOND FOR 36 MONTHS scheme of OP No.1 for getting Rs. 4,32,835/- after 36 months from the date of investing or depositing aforesaid amount. From the admitted fact by OP No.1 & 2 and relevant documents on record we see that the complainant has not received the final return amount of Rs. 4,32,835/- from OP No. 1 &2 till filing of the present case, on the contrary, the OP No.1 &2 has been unable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant, as stated in AGRO BOND certificate bearing BOND NO.MC006A/04/11/006197.
Form the Notice Under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 to Br. Manager of various Banks starting from 31.12.2012, it appears that the office of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Midnapore attached the Bank accounts of the OP/OPs due to an amount of Rs. 145,78,10,912/- subsequently Rs.143,58,22,545/- which is due from MPS Greenery Developers Ltd. of Vill. Dighisole, Dahijuri, Jhargram Dist-Midnapore(w) on account of Income tax /penalty /interest /fine . Due to the said attachment according to Op, they were/ are unable to make any transaction with the banks which made OP/Ops unable to make payment to depositors and the complainant also. Income Tax Department has sent notice to 37 branches of different or same banks where the OP No.1-s Account lies. The Income Tax Department has directed the banks to pay the amount lied in the OP No.1-s Account to recover the said due amount from OP No.1.
From the documents filed by the OP No.1&OP No.2, it appears that in the Notice of Attachment dt. 08/01/2014 and 09/01/2014 to the op by the SEBI , the SEBI prohibited and restrained until further orders of the Recovery Officer from transferring any such shares standing in the name of the op in MPS Food Products Limited ,MPS Aqua Marine Products Ltd ,MPS Industries & Agro Research Ltd , MPS Infotech Pvt. Ltd.,MPS Resorts and Hotels Ltd., MPS Ayurvedic and Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd., MPS Real Estate & Infrustructure Pvt. Lltd. ,MPS Retail & Fast Food Pvt. Ltd. creating any encumbrance or receiving any dividend thereon. Due to the said notice the op has been hindered to make transaction relating to shares and payment of any dividend.
Having perused Order No. RO/003/2014, order under Rule 16 and 48 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 28A of the SEBI Act, 1992, The para 7 in the order discloses -the defaulter is hereby prohibited, till further orders from disposing, transferring, alienating, or charging in respect of a) all the immovable properties held by the defaulter including the immovable properties mentioned in Annexure -1. b) All other movable properties held by the defaulter except the bank- order dated December 19, 2013.” and the Para 8 discloses, -It is further directed that all persons are hereby prohibited from taking any benefit under such disposal, transfer, alienation or charge in respect of the properties- We see in this order stated above that the SEBI has made a prohibition on the transaction and any activity of OP No.1 & 2 in respect of their properties, movable and immovable.
Having regard to the facts and Circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above we feel it would not be possible (wise) to come to any conclusion as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP/OPs, or not, for which the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for at this stage on the reasons as discussed above. In the circumstances as aforesaid, the instant case is liable to be dismissed at this stage.
Both this points are thus disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the case being No.60/2014 be and same is dismissed on contest against OP No.1 and 2 and on ex-parte against OP No.3 without any cost.
