MANAGING DIRECTOR, DUGAR INDIA LTD. vs SOBHANA NAIR P.N.

THESE appeals are by the same opposite party before the District Forum against whom the respective respondent/complainant had filed complaint alleging that though the deposits made by them had matured, inspite of demand the said amount with interest since was not paid they had to file the said complaint. The opposite party did not dispute as to the deposits but sought to maintain that the Company Law Board had passed a scheme as per its order dated 31st December, 1998, hence no direction as sought for would be made. Now the learned Counsel for the appellant has produced the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Company Petition No. 48/2000 along with a petition to receive the same. The copy of the said order thus produced states that the Madras High Court ordered that the Official Liquidator attached to Court is appointed as Provisional Liquidator of the opposite party Company, that the Provisional Liquidator shall forthwith take charge of all the property and effects of the Company, that the petitioner shall file into Court a comprehensive list of all of its debtors, amounts due from each of them as on this date of the order, the number of instalments still payable by them as also the amount of each instalment and the address of borrowers as also the documents evidencing the lending; that the Company shall file the statement setting out all the immovable properties of the Company giving full description of the same, its cost of acquisition and the current estimated marked value, that the Company shall file a complete list of all payees and the amounts and reason for payment from the date of the Company Law Board judgment till the date of the order and the Company should also furnish a comprehensive list of all the proceedings pending against it in any Court Consumer Forum or in any other Adjudicatory Authority and the Company shall also file statement containing details of the amount in each of those cases pending in such Court or Forum and if any of the Directors named as party in any of those proceedings shall also be stated". This order was rendered on 8th April, 2000. Consequent upon the said order the Madras High Court had by its order dated 21.6.2000 appointed an Administrator to manage the affairs of the Company in liquidation in close liason with the Provisional Liquidator under the supervision of the Court.

THIS order of the Company Court was rendered after the disposal of the respective complaints before the District Forum, the consequence and effect of such an order concerning the opposite party Company now has to be adverted. The Kerala High Court in the decision in Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. v. The Official Liquidator & Anr., ILR 1992 (1) Kerala 743, considered a similar question wherein Kerala High Court held as per Section 456(2) of the Companies Act all the properties and effects of a Company shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Court from the date of the order for the winding up of that Company and in the concluding portion the Kerala High Court held ''Under the circumstances, I hold that the authorities instituted under the Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to consider the claims of the creditors of Companies which are being wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956." As per the pronouncement of the law by the Kerala High Court, in the context of the order for winding up of the appellant Company it has to be held that the Fora created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. This as noticed was due to a subsequent event which resulted in the ouster of the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction thus stands ousted is inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, there can be no question of submission to jurisdiction. Since the appeal, under law, is continuation of the proceeding instituted by the complainant this subsequent event would have effect. Thus the complaints became not maintainable because of lack of jurisdiction. Consequently the impugned order had to be treated rendered by the Fora which should be deemed to have no jurisdiction to render such an order. In that view the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and appeals have to be allowed. Thus this order cannot affect the rights of the complainants/respondents to pursue their claim before the Company Court. As has already noticed the Company is required to file statement before the Company Court with respect to all the complaints pending before the Courts and Fora and that would include certainly appeals also. Because of the effect of the order passed by the Madras High Court now the appeals as indicated above are to be allowed.

In the result, these appeals are allowed but this order shall not effect the right of the respective complainants to pursue their remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court. In this appeal there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.