PARKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of 15 appeals i. e. Appeals Nos.88 to 102 of 2000 filed against the order of the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh. All the appeals have been filed by Parkash Industries Ltd. through Shri I. D. Sharma, Corporate Advisor of the Parkash Industries Ltd. In all the appeals the common point involved and raised is about the appellant-Company having been treated as sick industry under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short hereinafter referred to as SICA) by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short hereinafter referred to as B. I. F. R.) and as such the District Forum should have acted under Sec.22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and suspended the complaint filed by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments have referred to the record of Appeal No.92 of 2000 i. e. Parkash Industries Ltd. V/s. Brij Bhushan Mittal. Accordingly, the facts involved in this case are being referred from the complaint filed before the District Forum in this case by Shri Brij Bhushan Mittal against Parkash Industries Ltd. and others. The respondent in this case deposited a sum of Rs.20,000 /- with the appellant Parkash Industries Ltd. in response to the scheme floated by the appellant promising to pay the maturity value of the deposits made with the Company within a particular time frame. The complainant deposited the amount and were allotted Secured Redeemable Non-convertible Debentures (NCDs) in different schemes redeemable at the expiry of the stipulated period from the date of allotment. Since the complainant was not paid the maturity value of his deposit inspite of repeated requests, hence he filed the complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

(2.) The opposite parties impleaded in the complaint which was registered as Complaint No.935 of 1998 were Parkash Industries Ltd. , Business Park, 25, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi, Harjeet Arora and Co. SCO. No.22-23 (2nd Floor), Sector 9-D, Chandigarh and the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, Bank of Baroda Building, 16, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. The appellant - Company i. e. Parkash Industries Ltd. sent reply through registered A. D. post; vide letter dated 10.12.1998 to the President of the District Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh. It was averred, inter alia, in the reply that ". . . the performance of the Company during the year 1997-98 suffered adversely and there was a net loss of Rs.320 crores. As a result of these losses, the Company's net worth has turned negative as on 31st March, 1998 and accordingly, the Company has become a "sick company' and on a reference being made to the Hon'ble Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) pursuant to the provisions of Sec.15 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 , the Company has been declared a Sick Company and registered at SI. No.107/98". It was further averred that it appointed Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (IFCI) as an "operating Agency' to prepare a scheme to make the Company viable. Thereafter, reference was made to Sec.22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and it was urged that Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter and the complaint was not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides repelled the contention of the appellant about the applicability of Sec.22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and held that the complaint alongwith other complaints involved in the remaining appeals were not required to be stayed or dismissed on the ground urged in the reply of the appellant. Consequently, the complaint was allowed with costs and the District Forum passed the following order : "consequently, we allow all the complaints with costs of Rs.550/- in each case and direct the opposite party M/s. Parkash Industries Ltd. to make payment of the maturity value of the deposit in Complaint No.932/98 and refund the principal amount deposited by the complainants in other cases alongwith interest at the agreed rate as per the stipulated terms and conditions of the deposit. The opposite party is further directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts becoming so due to the complainants in each case for the extended period beyond the due date, till payment. " The District Forum directed that the compliance of the order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order which was directed to be sent to the parties free of charges. As would appear from the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum-II, all the complaints were decided in the same terms by the common judgment. Parkash Industries Ltd. has filed 15 separate appeals in all the complaint cases. As stated earlier we are disposing of all the appeals by this common judgment.