GOLDEN FORESTS (I) LIMITED vs Union Bank of India

THE complainant has alleged that it had been running agro-forestry Company at Chandigarh and had branches throughout India and at Nagpur as well. THE complainant issued a cheque in its own favour drawn on Union Bank of India, Nagpur i.e. the respondent and it was handed over to INDUSIND Bank Limited, Chandigarh but the respondent has held back the cheque of the complainant without any cogent reason and authority. THE relief claimed by the complainant in para 7 is reproduced as under : (i) To direct the clearing/transfer of funds as required from the respondent in favour of the complainant payable at Chandigarh. (ii) To award Rs. 4 lacs damages/ compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

IT shall be useful to reproduce the preliminary objections. Paras 1 to 5 taken in reply, which are as under : "1. Without prejudice to the submission to be made subsequently in the latter part of this written statement, with utmost regards it is submitted that in view of the claim of Rs. 5.00 lacs made by the complainant, this Hoh''ble Commission is not rested with requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the same. The jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Commission starts with claims exceeding Rs. 5.00 lacs and ends where the claims exceeds Rs. 20.00 lacs. For ready reference Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under : Jurisdiction of the State Commission- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction : (a) To entertain- (i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any claimed, exceeds rupees (five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. From the above, it is evident that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon''ble Commission and the same is liable to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. 2. That without prejudice to the above submission made in the reply it is humbly submitted that the complainant which is claiming itself to be a huge Company having turnover in over Rs. 1,000/- crores with an all India base is too big an entity to be termed as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus no relief is permissible to it. The submission has been made as per the view of the Hon''ble National Commission on this subject. As a matter of fact the Act has been enacted for solving the ordinary and simple dispute of innocent and helpless persons/consumers. In the light of the volume of the size, activity, quantum of business and the turnover the present complaint is not entertainable under the Act and is liable to be dismissed.

That in any case the matter at issue is hypertechnical matter involving various statutory rights and obligation as well as the contractual rights and obligation of Banker and customer. Besides, the matter at issue is also substantially and principally covered in writ proceeding in the Hon''ble High Court and also in the writs pending in the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. In Bombay, the writ was filed by SEBI, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the securities and Exchange Board of India and keeping in view the serious and glaring irregularity by SEBI and to safeguard the ultimate interest of innocent and helpless investors who are supposedly from the lower strata of Society in a fairly large number. Hon''ble Bombay High Court passed the following order : ''Heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length. Till further orders, respondent No. 1 is directed not to withdraw any amount of money lying in various bank accounts except in the course of business. It is also directed that it would not withdraw any amount for the purpose of paying to its sister concerns, associates and directors or any other companies.'' Answering opposite parties was not conveyed at any point of time that the withheld cheque was issued by it in normal course of its business. This Hon''ble Court too will appreciate that the normal course of business involves the payment of investors'' returns, staff salary or the rent of the premises, etc. and withheld cheque since involved the payment of a huge amount, the same apparently could not be termed as a cheque drawn in regular course of business. From the above referred order, it was bona fide construed that the cheque in question which has been withheld is not in bona fide course of business. Answering opposite party which is a Nationalised Bank and its staff member never wished to do any such act which by any stretch of imagination directly or indirectly could be termed as a contempt of Hon''ble Bombay High Court. Likewise the writ petitions filed by the complainant himself against the answering opposite party and Canara Bank in which petitions too, on 17.3.1998, the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order that the complainant would get such cheque encashed from the Banks and correspondingly the Banks would encash such cheque as are issued in favour of the investors only. Although this order was passed after the presentation of the cheque in question but in any case the said order is binding with effect from 17.3.1998 till such time when the same is either vacated or modified. In the wake of such an advance stage of litigation in between the parties and various interim orders by different Hon''ble High Courts, it is appropriate if this Hon''ble Commission in all fairness stays its hands and advises the complainant to seek an appropriate order in already pending litigations in the Hon''ble High Court. In such technical issues involved herein even the issue does not fall within the purview of this Hon''ble Commission on the ground of being hypertechnical, ticklish and having a multiple repercussions. The present complaint thus is not worthy of being perused and deserves dismissal.

That the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The relief sought is over-lapping the relief granted by the Hon''ble Bombay High Court to SEBI. Such directions or relief if granted is bound to affect the rights, spirit and obligations of SEBI and thereby eventually going to prejudice the investors. The SEBI being a necessary party, the present complaint deserves dismissal.

THAT the present complaint even otherwise is liable to be rejected/dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 and/or analogous provision of Civil Procedure Code for failure to disclose cause of action. In the entire complaint based on non-clearance of cheque, neither the number and date of the cheque nor the date of presentation thereof nor the name of payee has been mentioned (although improperly made copy is attached) wherefrom this Hon''ble Court could know the basics and in case of need work out the limitation. Likewise the complainant is not coming with clean hands as it has not disclosed the factum of various stay orders and pending litigations. All this clearly indicates that no relief is admissible at all on this ground too and the complaint deserves dismissal." 3. The other pleas are that legal questions on the issues involved are pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 597 of 1997. A part of the dispute between Golden Forests India Limited and another against Canara Bank was dealt with by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Misc. No. 10381 of 1998 decided on 28.5.1998. Thus, where main dispute between M/s. Golden Forests (I) Limited and various banks and between the present complainant. and the Securities and Exchange Board of India on whose instructions the payments were withheld by Union Bank of India, Nagpur (C 2) it was not fair for the complainant to approach this Commission and that too concealing important facts. There is an order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 199 of 1998 of the Bombay High Court dated 29.1.1998, Annexure R2. There is another order which has been passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 18167 of 1997 on 17.3.1998 and no mention was made in respect of these proceedings and orders in this complaint instituted on 8.6.1998. These have been brought on record by the respondent. Moreover, the complaint is not signed or verified by the Managing Director or Director of the Company. There is only an affidavit of Legal Consultant of the complainant dated 29.10.1998 which too does not contain the particulars, details of any cheque and necessary facts. After considering all these reasons, the complaint is hereby dismissed. 4. Similarly connected Complaint No. 17 of 1998 against Oriental Bank of Commerce and Union Bank of India, is also dismissed after hearing. Complaint dismissed. _______________