B B SHARMA Vs. SUSHMA BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all 31 revision petitions, filed by Shri B. B. Sharma, common question of law and fact is involved and the petitioner in all the cases is the same. Hence all the revision petitions mentioned above are being disposed of by this single order.

(2.) THE facts of the cases in brief are that the petitioner was the director of M/s. Hoftland Securities Ltd. and the respondents had made various deposits with the company. However, the petitioner failed to refund the principal amount deposited by the respondents along with interest. Hence the respondents filed separate complaints before the District Forum and the District Forum vide separate orders directed the petitioner to make the payment of the principal amount, as well as interest besides costs and compensation for mental tension. The petitioner, however, did not comply with the order of the District Forum. Hence the respondents moved application under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for initiating proceedings against the petitioner. Still the petitioner did not comply with the orders of the District Forum and failed to refund the money hence the District Forum after issue of notice to the petitioner in all the cases and after considering his reply sentenced the petitioner Shri B. B. Sharma to one year of imprisonment in each case under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . It is against the orders passed under Sec.27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the present revision petitions have been filed by Shri B. B. Sharma.

(3.) THE revision petitions have been pressed mainly on three grounds : that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself before he was sentenced to imprisonment. It is also contended that petitioner, who is in jail was not provided any legal aid. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order the learned District Forum did not enquire whether the petitioner had means to comply with the order of the learned District Forum and had means to repay the amount to the respondents.