STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. Vs. KUMUDA BHASKARN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal Nos. 1403 of 2010 and 1595 of 2010.

(2.) The factual matrix of this case are that the complainant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 who are respondents herein are shareholders and also holders of debentures of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. who are petitioners herein and were OP No.2 before the District Forum. Complainant Nos. 1 & 2 jointly owned 100 equity shares and the 3rd complainant individually held another 100 equity shares of the petitioner Co. The petitioner Co. cancelled the share certificates held by the respondents/complainants without following the procedure established by law including the procedure which was specified in the scheme approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. As per the averment, the procedure laid down in the scheme approved by the High Court was not followed by the petitioner/OP No.2 and OP No.1, respondent No.4 herein who was the Registrar and Transfer Agent for the shares/debentures of the petitioner Co. In the circumstances, it was alleged by the complainants that for no fault of theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Their repeated requests and demands made to the OPs to redress their grievance went in vain. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the three complainants filed a joint complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) On appearance, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 filed their version mainly contending that as per the scheme approved by the High Court of Bombay, the necessary option forms along with repurchase consideration warrants were sent to the complainants but since they failed to respond to the option as per the instructions forwarded by the OPs, it was deemed that the three complainants were not interested to retain their shares and hence the same were considered under the above scheme for repurchase and cancellation. Thus denying any deficiency in service of any kind on their part, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Both the parties led their evidence and after hearing their arguments, the District Forum allowed the said complaint vide its order dated 17.2.2010 which read as under:-