CHANCHAL NAYYAR Vs. GUPTA FINANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT No. 1 is a retired Senior Lecturer of the School Education Department and complainant No. 2 is a retired District and Sessions Judge from the State Judicial Service. Complainant No. 2 retired in the month of March 1997 and before his retirement he and his wife (complainant No. 1) had financial transactions with O.P. No. 1 which was a private finance company known and run by the name of M/s. Gupta Finance Corporation, B.C. Road, Jammu. Sh. Kasturi Lal Gupta (father of O.P. Nos. 2 to 5) and O.P. Nos. 2 and 4 herein were the partners. The business was being conducted from the premises located at B.C. Road, Jammu where petrol pump business was also being carried under the name and style of M/s. Kasturi Lal Gupta and Sons Petrol Pump, B.C. Road, Jammu. It was a registered company in the name and style of M/s. Gupta Finance Corporation, B.C. Road, Jammu. The Registrar of Firms had registered the firm on 14.9.1983 vide his registration No. 2074 -RF/3777. Sh. Kasturi Lal Gupta died in the year 19871eaving behind his legal heirs namely, OP Nos. 2 to 5 and widow Smt. Santosh Gupta. Partnership deed was executed between them on 1.1.1988 (Annexure B). Sh. Satish Bali had been working as Accountant -cum -Cashier with the said company. The case of the complainants is that when they were in Government service they had been approached by O.Ps. to deposit their savings in their company (O.P. No. 1) with an assurance that they would be getting interest @ 18% p.a. on their deposits and they would have a free will to withdraw those accumulated deposits at any time. The O.Ps. had also assured the complainants that their investments would be having security cover in the shape of other assets owned by O.P. No. 1 i.e. in the petrol pump business and other finance companies. In their rejoinder which was filed in the Commission on 3.11.2005 to the rejoinders filed by the O.Ps. the complainants have clarified that OPs were also running other finance corporations viz. Kathua Motor Finance Company, Bahu Tawi Finance Company and Santosh Finance Company from the premises of above stated petrol pump. That in order to dupe the depositors of the above stated finance corporations, the accounts of deposits and withdrawals were maintained by a common ledger book in the name of O.P. No. 1. Complainant No. 2 had started depositing his amounts in Kathua Motor Finance Corporation from 1.2.1996 to 31.10.2001 and prior to that complainant No. 1 along with her children namely, Prince Mohan Nayyar, Monica Nayyar and Sonia Nayyar had been depositing the amount with O.P. No. 1. The complainants admit the receipts of payments reflected in their pass books and ledger book and have put up the case herein that after 22.3.2003 they had refused to make any payment. In the complaint, the reliefs claimed by them are:

(2.) THEY have also placed on record original two pass books allegedly issued by O.Ps. in the name of "Kathua Motor Finance Company, B.C. Road, Jammu (Annexure F)" and "Gupta Finance Corporation, B.C. Road, Jammu Annexure G)". Further, they have placed on record ledger book accounts marked as Annexure B (page 13 to 20) indicating the entries made in them in routine by Accountant -cum -Cashier Sh. Satish Bali and some entries made in the handwriting of deceased O.P. No. 2 in his own handwriting or under his direction by Sh. Satish Bali and signed by him and one entry made by O.P. No. 3. The complainants have appeared as witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint and the entries made in the above stated record. In addition they have also examined Sh. Satish Bali Accountant -cum -Cashier as their witness. The complaint was accompanied by an application wherein interim relief under inherent powers of the Commission was sought on the plea that the complainants have a very strong prima facie case and balance of convenience was also in their favour. They had reasonable apprehension that O.Ps. would dispose of their properties and leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. That the Commission "may issue warrant for their arrest in order to secure their presence and show cause why they should not furnish security for their appearance and properties viz. petrol pump, finance companies and their assets as well as the housing property at Talab Tiloo may be attached. In the alternative they should deposit in the Commission money or other property to answer their claim." On the back page No. 1 of the above said application our predecessors had ordered that the O.Ps. should maintain status quo in respect of the properties they hold i.e. petrol pump and other properties and finance corporations as well as their house at Talab Tiloo till further orders. The order was of interim nature subject to its confirmation or vacation and the application was posted for 30.10.2005.

(3.) IN response to the notice issued the OPs I filed separate written versions. O.P. Nos. l and 2 at the first instance have taken the objection that complainant No. 2 never deposited any amount in M/s. Gupta Finance Corporation accounts. However, it is admitted that complainant No. 1 along with her son, Prince Mohan Nayyar in the year 1984 had deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000 as fixed deposit for five years, maturity value whereof in the year 1989, had to be at Rs. 80,000. After its maturity partial amount was deposited in four different accounts which need not be stated in detail but have been mentioned in para 2. It is further stated that complainant No. 2 at the first instance deposited an amount of Rs. 7,600 with M/s. Kathua Motor Finance Company, B.C. Road, Jammu which was exclusively owned by O.P. No. 2. That he had been depositing and withdrawing the money at subsequent occasions details whereof have been given and need not to be reproduced here. It is further admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,09,567 stands deposited in the name of complainant No. l and her son Prince Mohan Nayyar in M/s. Gupta Finance Corporation and complainant No. 2 has no outstanding amount. O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 were not partners of O.P. No. 1. That petrol pump and transport business has different partners and their management is also different. It is vehemently denied that an amount of Rs. 19,89,491 is due to the complainants from M/s. Gupta Finance Corporation. Lastly it is admitted that an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs is due to the complainants and their children and O.Ps. are ready to make payment in easy instalments. Objections were also filed by them for vacation of interim injunction which had been passed on 23.9.2004. O.P. Nos. 3 and 5 in their written version have denied to have any link with O.P. No. 1 in connection with its business affairs. The complaint is false and concocted and deserves dismissal.