SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

                       The gist of the complaint case is that he invested a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as for 1000 Redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100/- each on 13.10.12 to the OP being certificate No. F/MCD/001456. The redemption value was Rs. 2,00,000/- as on 13.01.17.  The complainant also invested a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as for 100 Redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100/- each on 13.10.12 to the OP being certificate No. F/MCD/001589. The redemption value was Rs. 20,000/- as on 20.01.17. The complainant also invested a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as for 1000 Redeemable preference shares of Rs. 100/- each on 30.03.13 to the OP being certificate No. F/MCD/001972. The redemption value was Rs. 1,20,000/- as on 30.03.14.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

 Summons were issued upon all the OPs. OP No 1 did not appear to contest the case. Other Ops ie  OPs no. 2 to 4 filed joint written version and contested the case. 

The specific case of the contesting OPs is that the complaint case is not maintainable under different provisions of law and also they contended that the dispute should be filed  before the Company Law Board, not before this Ld. Forum. The Ops no. 2 to 4 stated that they were never Directors  of the OP Company. They were only agent under the Co. These Ops assert that as they live beyond the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, the case should be dismissed on that ground U/Sec 11 of the C P Act 1986.   These OPs further assert that the complainant purchased shares which is a portion of ownership  of the Co. As such the complainant is also a share holder of the Co.  On the above grounds, the Ops pray for dismissal of the complaint case as these OPs have no role in payment of the redemption value of the complainant.

The points require discussion are whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs  as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all  the documents filed by both the parties and heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant as  also the OPs.           

            The main defence of these OPs that the instant complaint is barred under territorial jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum as per Section 11 of the C P Act 1986. Neither of the address of   the Ops are within the territorial jurisdiction of this Ld.  Forum.

 In this respect we find that the address of the OPs no. 2 to 4, who have contested the case, have presently been shown under the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum, although their actual address is beyond the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.  The complained failed to  file any sort of document by which it could be proved that any of the above  contesting OPs are presently living under the jurisdiction of this ld Forum.

             From the complaint itself it appears that the address of the OP no. 1 is beyond the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum. Section 11 of the CPAct 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.

         So, the case is not maintainable against the OP no.1 who also does not appear to contest the case.

        In view of the above discussion we find that we do not need to enter into the merit of this case as for want of territorial jurisdiction this complaint is not maintainable in this Ld Forum.           

            Both the points are answered accordingly.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/262 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed  against the OP Nos. 2 to 4 on contest and  dismissed ex parte against the OP no.1.

However, the complainant is given liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate forum. The time spent during the pendency of the complaint before this Forum shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.