ELECTROLUX LIMITED Vs. HARYANA STATE AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In our view, the impugned orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission do not call for interference. Admittedly, the complainant, Haryana State Agency, had filed applications for allotment of shares of the petitioner. The said application was for 60 shares. Admittedly, only 4 shares were allotted. With regard to refund of the amount deposited for allotment of the remaining shares, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the petitioner. However, instead of appearing before the District Forum, a letter was sent on 10.6.1996 for ascertaining the application number, number of applicants and the Bank's name, wherein applications were deposited as no information was available with the respondent. The District forum, therefore, directed the complainant to send all the necessary information which was sought by the petitioner with a direction to refund the amount of Rs. 28,000/- with 18% interest thereon.

(2.) That order was challenged by filing Appeal No. 970 of 1996 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Chandigarh. That appeal was dismissed by passing a short order. Against that order, this revision application is filed.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the State Commission is not speaking and that the order passed by the District Forum was in violation of the statutory provisions of issuing notice to the petitioner. In our view, both the submissions are without any substance in view of the fact that complainant had applied for 60 shares, out of which only 4 shares were allotted. Therefore, excess amount deposited by the complainant is required to be refunded. Further, petitioner is bound to refund the amount even under the Companies Act, 1956. This does not require elaborate discussion. As against this, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the income-tax authorities have seized the amount and, therefore, he was not in a position to refund the said amount. In our view, seizure of the amount by the income-tax department has nothing to do with the refund of the amount. In any case, it is for the petitioner to settle the dispute between him and the income-tax department but the applicants cannot be directed to approach the income-tax department for refund of the excess amount deposited by them. In view of this, there is no substance in this revision application and is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.