By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

           The case of the complainant in brief is that he invested a sum of Rs. 21,000/- for 210 redeemable preference share of Rs. 100/- each on 19.09.2011 being certificate No. F/MCD/000640 to the opposite parties. The date of redemption was 19.09.16 and the redemption value was Rs . 42,000/-.  On 19.09.2016 the complainant demanded the said redemption value and deposited all the relevant documents, but the OPs did not return the money.

            Hence, this case on the ground of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

            The OPs no 2 and 3 have filed written version and contested the case. It is contended in the WV that the case is not maintainable, that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and also the territorial jurisdiction in the case has been disputed. It is contended that the complainant had to approach before the SEBI for proper redressal. They asserted that purchase of shares is purchase of portion of ownership of the company and therefore, the complainant being share-holder is considered to be owner of the company  and she is not consumer of the company Ultimately these OPs have claimed that they have no role in the repayment of the money to the complainant.

            The points for discussion in the case are (1) whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether the claimant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                             Decision with Reasons.

Issue No.1

            We have pursed the complaint and written version as well the documents filed by the parties.

         OPs alleged that the present OPs are not Directors of the company and also this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

      It appears from the cause title of the complaint that address of the OP no.1 is at Nilgunje, Sodepur, Kolkata 700110, address of the OP no.2 is at 14 Subhas Pally, Kolkata 700108, that of OP no.3 is at 14 Subhas Pally,  Kolkata 700108 and address of the OP No.4 is at  14 Subhas Pally, Kolkata 700108 and the complainant has also prayed for direction  on the O.Ps. to pay the redemption value of Rs. 28,000/- with 10% interest from 19.09.2016 from the OPs till full realization.

      The documents filed by the complainant  is copy  of the letter of allotment  cum share  certificate showing face value of Rs. 100/- each  of Brilliance Agro Project Ltd. It appears that said certificate has been signed by  Chairman, Director and Authorized signatory whose full name  is not given in the said letter of allotment  cm share certificate. Their signatures are in initial form and whether the present OPs are at all involved in the case is not understood.

           Section 11 (2) of the CP Act , 1986 says :-

 (a ) the OP or each of the Ops where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint , actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

b) any of the OPs where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provides that  in such case  either the permission of the State Commission is given or the  OPs who do not reside or carry  on business  or have a branch office or personally works for gain as the case may be acquiesce in such institution, or

c) the cause of action ,wholly or in part arises.

      After going through the complaint it appears that complainant has stated that the cause of action arose on 19.09.16 but complainant did not state where the cause of action arose.

        In the circumstances we are of the view  that this Form has no territorial jurisdiction  to try this case U/Sec 11(2) of the C P Act, 1996. Hence, we do not want to go into the merit of the complaint. The complaint petition should be returned to the filing lawyer for filing the same before the proper Forum.

      Hence, it is

                                                                                         ORDERED

       That the CC No. 349 of 2016 be and the same is barred U/Sec 11(2) (a) (b) and ( c ) of the CP Act, 1986.

       Parties do bear their respective cost.

       The complaint be returned to the filing lawyer for presentation of the same before the proper Forum.