BADMA GROUP OF COMPANIES Vs. P KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant who had deposited certain amounts by way of Fixed Deposit with the opposite party approached this Forum since on the maturity of the same, the opposite party gave certain cheques in repayment which all bounced. The opposite party contended that because of the financial difficulties the opposite party could not make payment but the lower Forum passed an order directing the opposite party to make payment with interest @ 18% from 14.1.1997 along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - and a cost of Rs. 500/ -. Hence the appeal.

(2.) FROM the records produced in this case, it is clear that the opposite party/appellant received deposits from various persons but they could not honour the commitment with the result that they could not repay the debts due to the several depositors. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Police acting under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 as amended by Act 47 of 1997 directed attachment of properties detailed in the annexure. It is also seen that the depositors formed themselves into a Welfare Association and negotiated the matter with the opposite party and they reached an understanding which was reduced into a Memorandum of Understanding on 7.8.1998 whereby the opposite party undertook to discharge the debts to the tune of Rs. 3.4 crores received by them from 1700 depositors by selling the lands belonging to group of Companies. The records produced showed that they have also been negotiating for the sale of their lands and because of the order of freezing of the assets they could not immediately find purchasers and, therefore, applied for the de -freezing of the same. They, in fact filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court for direction to the Inspector General of Police to grant permission to sell the properties and dispose of the same. The Hon ble High Court directed the Inspector General of Police to consider the application and the Inspector General of Police on 12.12.2000 considered the application and passed an order directing the opposite parties to remit the amount within 90 days from the date of the order with the sum of Rs. 3.1 crores and the property already freezed will be de -freezed subject to approval of the Government. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that because of the order of freezing and restraint, they were not in a position to sell the property and raise the money to discharge the loan.

(3.) IN the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter has to be remanded back to the lower Forum because the above documents namely the order of freezing, the restraint order passed by the Commissioner of Police, the memorandum of understanding arrived at and the writ petition filed by the opposite party were all not produced before the lower Forum for its appreciation and, therefore, in the absence of those documents, the lower Forum could not come to a just conclusion in that regard. Therefore, in such circumstances, we feel that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded so that the opposite party namely the appellant can produce all those documents and put forward his case which would facilitate the lower Forum to pass an order after considering those documents.