MODERN SYNTEX (I) LTD. vs ADITYA KUMAR SHARMA

BOTH these appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as ''the Act''), are directed against common order dated 1.4.2000 passed by West District Forum-III in Complaint Case No. 6028/1998 - Aditya Kumar Sharma v. Modern Syntex (I) Ltd., and Complaint No. 6029/1998 - Shakuntla Sharma v. Modern Syntex Ltd., whereby appellant was directed to pay to each complainant, the amount mentioned in Column No. 6 along with interest @ 15% p.a. w.e.f. the date mentioned in column No. 7 of the Annexure attached to the said order. Appellant was also directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to each respondent.

FACTS relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal in brief are that respondent in each case had invested a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in fixed deposit. Appellant failed to pay back the said amount with agreed rate of interest on maturity and each respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. Appellant, in its written statement, before the District Forum, pleaded that Company Law Board had approved a scheme for the payment of deposits to the creditors and, therefore, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was, accordingly prayed that the complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum held that Fora was not bound by the order of the Company Law Board and that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Thereafter the impugned order was passed granting relief to the respondents.

We have heard arguments advanced by Mr. Vishal Kant, constituted attorney of appellant and Mr. Aditya Kumar Sharma for self and for Ms. Shakuntala Sharma.

IT is pertinent to point out that this Commission in Appeal No. 1051/1999, M/s. World Link Finance Ltd. v. M.R. Dixit & Ors., held that jurisdiction of Fora was not ousted in cases where Company Law Board was seized of the matter and had approved a scheme for payment of deposits to its creditors. However, the National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 2184-2206 of 1999 titled M/s. Allianz Capital and Management Services Ltd. v. B.P. Grover & Ors., decided on 9.11.2000, has held as under : "The Company Law Board is now seized of the matter in dispute. IT has been stated on behalf of the Company that the petitioner-Company is adhering to the scheme of payment framed by the Company Law Board. Since the Company Law Board is seized of the matter, we will not hear the case any further. The matter is disposed of finally as above. Any grievance about non-payment according to the schedule drawn by the Company Law Board can be raised before the Company Law Board."

We are bound by the order of the National Commission. National Commission has held that since the Company Law Board is seized of the matter, they would not hear the case any further. It is further held that any grievance about non-payment according to the schedule drawn by the Company Law Board can be raised before the Company Law Board.

IN view of the aforesaid decision of the National Commission, we hold that order passed by District Forum-III dated 1.4.2000 cannot be sustained. Consequently both the appeals are accepted and the order of the District Forum dated 1.4.2000 passed in Complaint Case Nos. 6028/1998 and 6029/1998 is set aside. Any grievance about non-payment according to schedule drawn by Company Law Board can be raised before Company Law Board by the respondent. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.