VISHWANATH PODDAR Vs. SBI MUTUAL FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by the Calcutta District Forum Unit -I in the Forum Case No. 787/2001. The present appellant was the complainant before the Forum whereas the respondents were the O.Ps. The relevant facts are briefly stated hereunder.

(2.) THE complainant while living in Mujaffarpur purchased certain Magnum units of the O.P. -1 for his family trust from a broker. The complainant sent 1100 magnums to O.P. -1 requesting for the transfer of the same in his name in the capacity of a trustee of the said trust. Out of 1100 mangums only 800 were transferred and sent to the complainant though the complainant did not receive them. However, the said 800 mangums in duplicate were issued to the complainant afterwards. The balance 300 magnums were sent but these also were not received by the complainant. Later on it transpired that out of the 300 mangums 200 were held back on the ground that the signature of the transferer did not agree while the other 100 magnums stood transferred in the name of some other person. In such circumstances the complainant filed a case before the Forum praying for transferring the 200 magnums in his name and cancellation of the 100 magnums registered in the name of some other person and for the payment of dividend on 300 mangums for the relevant period. The Forum initially took up the question of jurisdiction of the Forum for deciding upon the maintainability of the complaint petition. The Forum was of the view that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. Moreover though the O.P. 2 was having its office in Kolkata it had nothing to do with the disputed magnums. Accordingly the Forum came to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. Hence the Forum ordered that the complainant may take back the petition of complaint so as to file it in the appropriate Forum. Being aggrieved by this order of the Forum the complainant has come in appeal before the Commission.

(3.) IN the memo of appeal the appellant has covered, the entire gamut of the case. However we are inclined to take up the question of jurisdiction alone. The appellant has pleaded that as per Section 11(2)(a) of the C.P. Act the Forum did have the jurisdiction because O.P. -2 has its office in Kolkata and hence a branch of O.P. -1 is situated in Kolkata within the jurisdiction of the Forum. During the hearing of the appeal the appellant was present in person but none appeared for the respondent and the hearing was held ex parte. The appellant who was present in person argued himself. The points taken by him in the argument are as under: