MOREPEN LABORATORIES LTD Vs. T.L. GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 and respondents 1 and 2 are the complainant and 3rd opposite party respectively in O.P. No. 336/2005 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint therein was filed against the opposite parties 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service in their failure to disburse the maturity value of the deposited amount to the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant deposited Rs. 18,000/- on 03.07.2002 with the first opposite party M/s. Morepen Laboratories Limited with an Agreement to get the maturity value of Rs. 25,292/- on the maturity date of 03.07.2005, but the opposite parties failed to disbursed the said amount. Hence the complaint was filed claiming Rs. 25,900/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-

(2.) The opposite parties 1and 2 entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that they filed a company Petition under Section 391 of Companies Act, 1956, for reshedulement and revision of all the dues to various creditors including Fixed Deposit holders. The Hon?ble court by its order dated 28th June, 2004 granted an interim stay on all the legal proceedings pending in various courts and Foras across the country against the first opposite party/company; that the Hon?ble High court by its order dated 2nd August, 2005, directed the company to hold its meeting of all its creditors for seeking consensus of all the proposed re structuring scheme. Thus, the opposite parties 1 and 2 prayed for staying the proceedings till the disposal of the company petition filed under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(3.) The 3rd opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that they acted as broker and transmitted the application of the complainant to the first opposite party; that the first opposite party accepted the deposited amount and issued Fixed Deposit Receipt to the complainant; that the 3rd opposite party has nothing to do with the Disbursement of Deposit amount. Thus, the 3rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed against them.