DHIRENDRA VIR RASTOGI Vs. MAXWORTH ORCHARDS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an application filed by and on behalf of the applicants namely, Shri Dhirendra Vir Rastogi (applicant No. 1), Ms. Kaushaliya Devi Rastogi (applicant No. 2), Shri Mani Rastogi (applicant No. 3), Ms. Sonali Rastogi (applicant No. 4), Ms. Minali Bery, (applicant No. 5), Shri Puneet Bery (applicant No' 6), and Master Siddhant Bery (applicant No. 7), it is alleged thatM/s. Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1), the Chief Executive Officer, M/s. Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2), and the Assistant General Manager, M/s. Maxworth Orchards (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as R-3), by their misleading representations regarding their projects as launched have induced the applicants in making substantial investment in them. The various schemes are "Max Padli", "Max Satpur-I", "Max Peepal Kheda", and "Max Sohan Kheda". The applicants were personally approached by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and thereafter in a brochure issued (Annexure-1), they promised rich returns on the investments. It was stated that one can reap rich returns and can earn 100% tax-free income. The investments were stated to be more profitable than other investments like fixed deposits, gold share etc. The assurance was given that the respondents were competent and had necessary expertise in developing orchard. It had developed over 15,000 acres in more than 150 projects within three years time. It had a tie- up and technical expertise of Agrecotec of Israel and the Camtec, Israel and high value, UK. The fruits, and vegetables would be of high quality, high yields strains. It also conveyed in its brochure that the location of Max Orchards was ideal and most popular for sub-tropical fruits and vegetables like Mango, Litchi etc. and that there would be a professional agronomist as a Farm Manager. The time for development of farm was stated to be only nine months from the date of application and it was promised that the returns would start coming from after three years nine months. The respondent also offered a pay back of the invested amount in five years with earnings of 35% in the 6th year going upto 100% in the 11th year after year. It was also mentioned that the sale deed would be executed and the plots/lands would be registered in the name of the applicants within 180 days from the date of application. The promise was also made that the land related activities likely levelling, binding, fencing, installation of drip irrigation and planting would be completed within 270 days. The respondents also offered to buy back the lands after the agreement period of three years and nine months. The farms were to be insured with a nationalized Insurance Company. In addition, the respondents also offered gifts on investments under a scheme called M.G.M. Scheme launched by it. Attractive gifts of colour TV and others were offered subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. Allured by the schemes of the respondents the applicants invested substantial amounts in the various schemes as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_9_CPJ1_2001_1.html</FRM>

(2.) As promised, neither the orchards were developed within nine months from the date of application, nor the registration of plots/lands was executed within the time frame given by it. This was despite several reminders given to the respondents. As the time elapsed, the applicants became suspicious about the conduct of the respondents and accordingly asked for the refund of their invested amount in different schemes. On being required to make a request in writing, the applicants wrote to the respondents and also served notice dated 30th July, 1998 for refund of their invested amounts. Till date neither the deposits have been refunded back to the applicants nor there is any move on their part to assure the applicants for payment of the amounts in the near future. On the facts the applicants had no alternative but to approach the Commission, by filing an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act), for claim of compensation in respect of the loss or damage suffered on account of the unfair trade practice carried on by the respondent (hereinafter referred to for all the respondents), within the meaning of Section 36A of the Act. The prayer is for refund of the invested amount alongwith interest @ 24% from the date of deposit.

(3.) On receipt of the application, the notice under Section 12B of the Act was issued and served to the respondents by way of substituted mode of service for which affidavit of service was also filed by the applicants. From the beginning, neither the respondent appeared in person nor represented either through their Advocate or through Authorised Representative. Accordingly, the proceedings were set ex-parte and ex-parte arguments were also heard. Synopsis of written submissions was also filed by the learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant.