ICICI BANK LTD Vs. SAVITRI PISIPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Savitri Pisipati and Shri Narayan Kurthy Pisipati had invested in debenture certificates issued by the Sterling Holiday Financial Service Limited, Chennai (hereinafter called as Sterling) bearing interest 19.5% per annum: As the redemption amount was not paid the complainant asked the opposite party to refund Rs. 80,000 with interest @ 19.5 % per annum from 25.8.1998 till date of realization and also pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 as costs to the complainant. The first opposite party Sterling filed a written version stating that there is no deficiency in service and have obtained necessary clearance from the Income Tax Department for selling the properties and for remitting the proceeds to the 1CICI Limited (the second opposite party) in order to enable to disburse the same to the debenture holders including the complainants. The complainant contended that the second opposite party is the guarantor and filed a suit before the High Court of Mumbai for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the immovable properties of Sterling for realization of the amount of debentures under the trust deed. According to the opposite party the High Court passed an order on 4.8.2000 and permission from the second opposite party was obtained on 27.11.2000 to sell the property, but the due amount has not been paid by the opposite party to the complainant as the sale could not materialise. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed the opposite parties to refund the amount with 19.5% interest per annum from 25.8.1998 till the date of realization to the first and second complainants along with Rs. 1,000 each as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the second opposite party ICICI Limited (hereinafter called as ICICI) has filed an appeal No. 156 of 2003 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The State Commission dismissed the appeal by stating that this appeal is covered by the judgment in FA No. 697 of 2002 dated 25.2.2003. In the said order, the State Commission observed as follows:

(3.) In the appeal memo the ICICI Limited contended amongst other things as follows :