The instant complaint is filed u/s 12,13 and 14 of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002by the Complainant as purchaser against theRegistrar/ Managing Director of M/s Unitech Ltd. at their New Delhiand Kolkata offices as OP1 and OP2 alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite Parties in a consumer dispute of non-receipt of interests from fixed deposits.
The gist of the case as averred by the complainant in brief is that the complainants had taken Fixed Deposit on 08-07-2013 for 1 year tenure at a rate of interest of 11.5% per annum for Rs. 25,000/- for a total matured value of Rs 28,031/- vide FDR receipt no. 1227040 dated 16-7-2013. But the OP company allegedly paid back only Rs 3,031/- on 08-07-2014 and never refunded the original deposit of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the case. Photocopies of the Money receipt from Unitech Ltd. and correspondences sent to OP company by complainant are exhibited alongwith complaint petition from Sl(1) to S(7) in support of the the complaint
From the records, documents and exhibits it appears that the case has been originally filed at Barasat commission and transferred thereafter to Rajarhat commission when it was running ex-parte against OP1 and OP2.It appears fact that complainant awaited receipt of principal and interests generated out of his fixed deposit but the OP 1 and OP2 took no steps to provide the same. After several reminders also, the OPs deliberately avoided to act in terms of the fixed deposit schemes. Being aggrieved with delay in receiving principal amount back, the complainant filed this instant complain petition with a prayer for refund of maturity value of Rs. 28,031/- a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
It is apparent from various analogous cases against the same OP company and also fromwww.confonet.comthat in the Appeal Execution no. 94 of 2019 and 95of 2019 before the Hon’ble National Commission against the Orders both dated 08/07/2019 in Complaint No. 27/2017 of the State Commission West Bengal in the matter of M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anindita Ghosh and M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs DebashisModak& Sujata Modak that as per Judgement dated 24.01.2020 on both the cases, the Hon’ble NCDRC dealt appeals which were directed against the orders of the SCDRC, West Bengal dated 08.07.2019 and 10.07.2019 whereby the State Commission, despite the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.04.2018 passed in SLP Crl. No.5978-5979/2017 and the order of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 passed in E.A. No.80 of 2016 and connected matters (Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi&Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. &Anr), decided to proceed with the execution application against the appellant and dismissed the application which the appellant had filed for stay of the execution proceedings. Views and decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in this matter is quoted below : - QUOTE “It is not disputed before me that the appellant M/s Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Private Ltd. is a subsidiary company of Unitech Ltd. The orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in respect of Unitech Ltd. and its subsidiary companies were considered by a three-Members Bench of this Commission in E.A. No.80 of 2016 and connected matters Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi&Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. &Anr. & connected matters on 08.01.2019 and the following view was taken: (10) Unless permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings instituted under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, against Unitech Ltd., and its subsidiary companies of as well as against the persons incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business shall be kept in abeyance, so long as the orders pertaining to them and mentioned in para 35 hereinabove remain in force. (11) Unless permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings instituted under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, against Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited and other applicants in Crl. M.P. No.29029/2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, shall remain stayed so long as the order dated 05.3.2018 is in force. In view of the pronouncement of the three-Members Bench of this Commission, based upon the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, the State Commission was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant company seeking stay of the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the complainants submits that the time frame fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for lodgement of claim on the web portal created on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court having expired, it is not possible for the complainants to lodge their claim on the said portal. Even if this is so, the execution proceedings cannot continue against the appellant company so long as the above referred orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court remain in force. It is for the complainants to decide their next course of action, in view of the circumstances highlighted by them. Therefore, the delay in institution of these appeals is condoned. The impugned orders are set aside and the execution proceedings against the appellant company are kept in abeyance so long as the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of Unitech Ltd. and its subsidiary companies, as mentioned in para 35 of the order of this Commission dated 08.01.2019 remain in force. Of course, the complainants/respondents shall be entitled to seek revival of the said execution proceedings if so permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appeals stand disposed of” UNQUOTE | | | | | |
| | | | | |
During pendency of the proceedings of these complaints, from the copy of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2016 titled ‘Bhupinder Singh Vs. Unitech Ltd.’ vide order dated 20.01.2020, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed moratorium against the institution of proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“(vii) Pending further orders of this Court, there shall be a moratorium against the institution of proceedings against Unitech Limited and its subsidiaries. The moratorium shall also extend to existing proceedings against the Company as well as the enforcement of orders that may have been passed against the company.”
It is also brought to our notice, by another Order dated 18.05.2022 from the Hon’ble Apex Court in the same matter of Civil Appeal no.10856 of 2016 titled ‘Bhupinder Singh Vs. Unitech Ltd, it was ordered that :-
QUOTE
“The moratorium which is presently in force shall continue to remain in operation. The compounding fee, upon being quantified by the planning authorities shall be payable by Unitech Limited as and when a demand is raised”
The SC bench led by Hon’ble Justice DY Chandrachud also granted moratorium to the new boars of Unitech from any legal proceedings against the Company’s management. The SC has accepted the proposal of proposal to take over the management control of the Unitech Limited by appointment of Govt. nominee directors on the board and complete pending projects of the company for providing relief to hassled homebuyers.
Till the time/date, when arguments were heard in these cases, nothing has been brought on record to show that the said moratorium has been vacated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this view of the matter, these complaints are adjourned sine die giving liberty to the parties to file an application for revival of these complaints, in case the moratorium is vacated or modified.
Copies of this order may be collected by the parties, free of cost.
The Registrar of this Commission is hereby directed to arrange consignment of this file to record room which should be carefully retained for future references, if situation arises and file gets recalled.
Dictated and Corrected by
[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
