B.M. BHANDARI vs J.V.G. SECURITIES AND LEASING LIMITED

THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II] disposed of the complaint keeping in view the provisions of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 and directed that the complainant can ask for the leave of the Company Court i.e., the Hon''ble High Court at Delhi for proceeding with the complaint in the present Forum or for transfer of the case to the said Court. THE complainants Shri B.M. Bhandari, Mrs. Purnima Bhandari and Mrs. Neelima Talwar filed the Complaint Case No. 935 of 1999 and claimed refund of the various amounts deposited in the scheme floated by the respondents M/s. JVG Securities Limited.

THE respondents appeared and took a plea before the District Forum-II that the liquidation proceedings regarding the respondents M/s. JVG Securities Limited were pending before the Company Judge of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi in cases mentioned in the order itself i.e., Reserve Bank of India v. JVG Finance Ltd., CP No. 265/98 in C.A. No. 885/98; Reserve Bank of India v. JVG Leasing Ltd., C.P. No. 266/98 and C.A. No. 886/98 and Reserve Bank of India v. JVG Securities Ltd., in C.P. No. 267/98 and C.A. No. 887/98. Reference was also made to a copy of the letter dated 30.8.2001 issued by the Assistant Official Liquidator, Delhi addressed to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-V, Delhi regarding the O.Ps. being ordered to be wound up provisionally by the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 5.6.1998 and the Official Liquidator attached to the Hon''ble High Court was appointed as Provisional Liquidator. THE District Forum-II relied on the provisions of Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 which provided, inter alia, that no suit or other legal proceedings shall be commenced, or if pending at the date of the winding up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the Court. Consequently, the impugned order was passed which has now been challenged in this appeal. Under somewhat similar circumstances, the appeal of Mrs. Kamini Nanda and Mrs. Asha Rani bearing No. 145 of 2001 filed against M/s. JVG Leasing Limited came up for hearing before this Commission on 27.8.2001 and the same was allowed and a direction was issued to the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh to decide each complaint case on its own merit and according to law. THE said appeal was argued by Mr. P.S. Nanda, authorised representative of the appellants. Shri P.S. Nanda is the authorised agent for the appellants in this appeal and he has stated before us that this appeal also deserves to be decided in the same terms as appeal No. 145 of 2001 ''Kamini Nanda v. M/s. JVG Leasing Limited''.

After carefully going through the record of the case of Appeal No. 145 of 2001 ''Kamini Nanda v. M/s. JVG Leasing Limited'', we find that this appeal involves common question of law regarding the adjudication of the complaint case on its own merit and not to be disposed of for filing any enabling order of the Hon''ble High Court of Delhi. Apart from it, we find that the District Forum-II had clubbed several complaint cases pertaining to JVG Leasing Ltd., JVG Finance Ltd. and JVG Securities Ltd., all of whom were not under liquidation. The approach of the District Forum-II in clubbing 34 complaint cases filed by different complainants against three different sets of companies and deciding them by a common judgment was thus contrary to law. The remedy provided by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] to a consumer is in addition to the other provisions of the law applicable and a complaint filed under the C.P. Act, which is a special legislation, would not be validly and legally covered under the definition of a suit or other legal proceeding appearing in Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. Even if the company is under liquidation, the liability of the company to pay the amounts invested and sought to be refunded can be appropriately considered by the Company Judge only after such liability has been considered and fastened on the company in the complaint case.

THUS we are of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the complaint case deserves to be remanded for decision on merit and according to law. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum-II is set aside. The complaint case is remanded to the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh with the direction that the District Forum-II shall proceed to consider the complaint case and decide the same on merit and according to law. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 25.11.2002. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.