BOLISETTY RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, HI-TECH DRUGS LTD.

THE complaint O.P. No. 88/1997, District Forum, Guntur was filed against the Managing Director, Hi-Tech Drugs Limited, Madhya Pradesh for a direction to the opposite party to send the endorsement stickers and also for compensation and costs as according to the complainant due to the delay in sending the stickers the value of the shares has come down.

THE complaint O.P. No. 90/1997, District Forum, Guntur was filed against the Managing Director, M/s. Ambica Proteins Limited. Ahmedabad for a direction to the opposite party to send the full-pledged share certificates and also for compensation and costs as according to the complainant due to the delay in sending the shares the value of the shares has come down. The complaint O.P. No. 89 /1997, District Forum, Guntur was filed against the Managing Director, Essar Oil Limited, Chennai for a direction to the opposite party to send interest warrants for the year 1995-96 and also for compensation and costs.

Notices were ordered and the opposite parties were served.

ONE of the points framed by the District Forum for consideration in this complaint is whether the District Forum, Guntur has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The District Forum held relying on the decision of the National Commission in I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC)=1996 (1) CPR Page 35 in Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Suryakant Nithin Kumar Gupta (HUF) that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, it accordingly dismissed the complaint. Questioning the said orders, these appeals are preferred by the complainants. Since common questions arise for consideration, all the appeals are being disposed of by a Common order. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri V. Gourishankar Rao that while interpreting section 20 of C.P.C., the various High Courts have taken a view that even at places from where the money was sent for fulfilling a contract, part of cause of action arose in that place and that, therefore, it is submitted that the complaints are maintainable at District Forum, Guntur. He further relied on the decisions reported in 1994 (1) CPR 193 (TN), AIR 1982 A.P. 388, AIR 1957 A.P. 530, AIR 1974 Calcutta 231, AIR 1924 Nag. 308, AIR 1965 Mysore 316, and contended even at a place from where the money was sent to the opposite party, the Forum having territorial jurisdiction over that place can entertain the complaints. But all those cases does not arise under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and also do not relate to the application of shares and their allotment. The National Commission in Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. v. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta (HUF) I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC)=1996 (1) C.P.R. 35 held that in a case relating to complaint about non-receipt of share certificates, it was only the registered office of the company at Chandigarh that has jurisdiction and not the place from where the money was sent. It was also held in 1995 (2) CPR 499 Naryana Urban Development Authority v. Vipan Kumar Kohli where the complainant applied for allotment of residential flat and deposited the earnest money in Bank of New Delhi to reach the Estate Officer, Faridabad, the mere fact that the Bank in Delhi received the money does not mean that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of the National Commission we are of the view that the District Forum rightly held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as the opposite parties have no registered office in Guntur and also do not have any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of Guntur District Forum. In the result the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals. One month''s time is granted from today for the appellants/complainants to take back the papers and represent the same in a proper District Forum. Appeals dismissed.