Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Lloyds Finance Ltd. V/s Partha Saradhi Paul

  1. #1
    Tanu's Avatar
    Tanu is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    446

    Default The Lloyds Finance Ltd. V/s Partha Saradhi Paul

    BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.

    FA.No.417/2009 against order dt.19.11.2007 in CC.No.791/2006 District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

    Between:

    1.Partha Saradhi Paul, S/o.late Netal Chandra Paul,

    Hindu, Male, Aged 45 years,

    R/o.Qtr.No.404/C, Sector –IV,

    Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam – 32,

    Visakhapatnam District.

    2.Ashma Paul, W/o.Partha Saradhi Paul,

    Hindu, Female, Aged 36 years,

    R/o.Qtr.No.404/C, Sector – IV,

    Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam – 32,

    Visakhapatnam District.

    …Appellants/Complainants.

    And

    1.The Lloyds Finance Ltd.

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    Branch Office at 214, II Floor,

    Sai Shopping Complex, Dwarakanagar,

    Visakhapatnam – 16.

    2.The Lloyds Finance Ltd.

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    Head Office at II Floor, Sandhya Complex,

    Opp.Sanyasa Ashram, Near Town Hall,

    Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009.

    …Respondents/Opp.Parties.

    Counsel for the Appellants Mr.Nimmagadda Satyanarayana.

    Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.N.A.Jairaj.



    QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

    AND

    SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.



    FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY,

    TWO THOUSAND NINE.



    Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)

    *******

    Heard both sides.

    1. Aggrieved by the order in CC.No.791.2006 on the file of District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

    2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/- each on 01.05.1997 which will be doubled by 23.03.2001. The rate of interest being 19.36% per annum and the total period of two bonds was 47 months. After the date of maturity, in spite of several requests opposite parties did not pay the amounts, and hence, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to pay maturity amount of Rs.12,000/- to each complainant with interest from 23.03.2001 to 23.09.2005 and damages of Rs.10,000/-.

    3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed counter stating that in view of the Bombay High Court order and implementation of the scheme as per P.P. proceedings the amounts could not be paid, and therefore, the complainants should approach Bombay High Court pertaining to Lloyds Finance and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

    4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint for default.

    5. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants submitted that in spite of the amounts having been emitted and in spite of several requests, the amounts were not paid by the opposite parties. Merely because of their absence on 18.11.2007, the District Forum dismissed the complaint unilaterally.

    6. The learned counsel for the respondents filed copy of orders in R.P.No.1768 and 1769 of 2000, wherein the National Commission stated as follows:

    “In this view of the matter, particularly when Liquidation Petition for winding up, is pending before the High Court of Bombay and the fact that a Special Committee is appointed and functioning under the High Court and that it has drawn a plan for repayment to the depositors/investors as quoted above, we hereby direct that neither the State Commissions nor the District Forums would proceed further with the disputes which are pending against Lloyds Finance Ltd. However, it would be open to the District Forums or the State Commissions to finalize the amount payable by the Company (payment of interest and compensation would be subject to final orders of the Special Committee of the Liquidator) and/or to direct the investors to lodge a claim before the Special Committee.”

    7. Keeping in view the order of the National Commission, we remand this matter to the District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam to finalize the amounts payable by the company and dispose of the same in accordance with law and as per the orders of the National Commission.

    8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the District Consumer Forum-I, Visakhapatnam to dispose of the same in accordance with law and as per the orders of the National Commission within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.



    PRESIDENT





    LADY MEMBER

    Dt:.01.05.2009

  2. #2
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Lloyds Finance

    Thankamma
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd

    Padmapriya investnebts Services

    Pankaj Desai
    ...........Respondent(s)





    This complaint remanded by the State Commission vide order dated 27.03.2009 in Revision Petition No. 16/08 having been heard on 30.07.2009, the Forum on 17.08.2009 delivered the following:

    ORDER




    This complaint remanded by the State Commission vide order dated 27.03.2009 in Revision Petition No. 16/08 with direction to dispose the case strictly in accordance with the directions of the National Commission.

    The fact leading to the filing of the complaint is that complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- as fixed deposit for 18 months at the rate of 16% interest on 01.11.1998 with 1st opposite party M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. through additional 3rd opposite party, Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd,

    Thiruvananthapuram. The said fixed deposit was matured on 01.05.2000 and the maturity value of Rs. 18740/- including interest of Rs. 3740/- was payable to complainants on that date. When the maturity value was claimed from the opposite parties complainants obtained an order of the Company Law Board, Western Region Branch, Mumbai rescheduling the repayment (vide Lloyds Finance Ltd., letter dated 15.06.1999). As per the said order the said fixed deposit is repayable at the rate of 30% each during the first and second year and 40% in the 3rd year with accrued interest upto the date of maturity

    as contracted and @ 12.5% till the date of actual payment. During August 2001, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid to the complainants leaving a balance of Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest. During July 2002, the original F.D receipt was submitted to the company with a request to pay the second instalment. Since then, the company was reminded on 20.08.2002, 19.12.2002, 19.02.2003, 04.07.2003 and 17.09.2003. There was no response from the opposite parties. The delay in payment of the sum due to the complainants is causing undue avoidable hardship to the complainants who are senior citizens who live on the pension due to them with no other income. Hence this complaint claiming payment dues without further delay.

    Opposite parties 1 & 2 did not file version denying the complainants’ transaction, but sent an order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revisions No. 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005 to place on record before this Forum. Additional 3rd opposite party admitted

    the fact that the complainants deposited Rs. 15000/- for a period of 18 months under the cumulative scheme interest at 16% on 01.11.1998, which was due on 01.05.2000, but the complainants have not yet received the refund.

    The points that would arise for consideration are:-

    1.

    Whether the complainants are entitled to get any amount from opposite parties?
    2.

    Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
    3.

    Other reliefs and costs.




    In support of the complaint, complainants have filed affidavit of themselves and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. No affidavit by way of evidence filed by opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 furnished the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revisions 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005.

    Points (i) to (iii):- As per the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revisions 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005, Consumer Fora all over the country were directed not to entertain any fresh complaints against Lloyds Finance company. For pending matters, it was held that consumer Fora would pass appropriate orders crystallizing the amount payable, but no order for recovery shall be passed by the Consumer Fora. In the said order it was held that it would be open to the complainant to inform the committee with regard to amount payable by the company to the complainant on the basis of order which may be passed by the Consumer Fora. Further, Consumer Fora were directed not to issue any further summons or warrants against the company in liquidation and against special committee members appointed by the High Court of Bombay.


    The operating portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: “In this view of the matter, particularly when Liquidation petition for winding up is pending before the High Court of Bombay and the fact that a Special Committee is appointed and functioning under the High Court and that it has drawn a plan for repayment to the depositors/investors as quoted above, we hereby direct that neither the State Commissions nor the District Fora would proceed further with the disputes which are pending against Lloyds Finance Ltd. However, it would be open to the District Fora or State Commissions to finalise the amount payable by the company(payment of interest and compensation would be subject to final orders of Special Committee or the Liquidator) and/or to direct the investors to lodge a claim before the Special Committee”. In the light of the aforesaid order, we are inclined to pass an order crystallizing the amount payable by the opposite parties.

    The fact in the case is that complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- as Fixed Deposit for 18 months at 16% interest rate on 01.11.1998 with 1st opposite party Lloyds Finance Ltd., through the additional 3rd opposite party Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd.(Investment Consultants) pursuant to the notification inviting deposits by the company. 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party, M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. Ext. P1 is the copy of the notification inviting the said deposits by the 1st opposite party. Terms and conditions governing the deposit schemes are seen printed on the second page of Ext. P1. Ext. P2 is the copy of deposit receipt issued by the 1st

    opposite party to complainants. A perusal of Ext. P2 would disclose that Deposit Receipt No. is

    0598004666/1, amount of deposit is Rs. 15000/-, period of deposit is 18 months, rate of interest per annum is 16%, date of deposit is 01.11.1998, maturity date of deposit is 01.05.2000, maturity value of deposit is Rs. 18740/- name of the scheme is monthly multiplier and the amount repayable to either or surviver. Submission by the complainants is that on demand of maturity of the said FD by the complainants, opposite parties paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- only on 15.07.2001(Ext. P4) leaving a balance of Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter issued by the Lloyds Finance Ltd. to the complainants regarding the repayment of deposits as per Company Law Board Order. As per Ext. P3, the fixed deposit would be repayable at the rate of 30% each during the 1st and 2nd years and 40% in the 3rd year with accrued interest upto the date of maturity as contracted and at the rate of 12.5% till

    the date of actual payment. It has been contended by the complainants that during 2002 original F.D receipt was submitted to the 1st opposite party with request to pay the second instalment. Submission

    by the complainants is that there was no response from opposite parties, inspite of several reminders as Exts. P5 to P10. 1st and 2nd opposite parties never filed version denying the said transaction. Additional 3rd opposite party admitted the said transaction. From the affidavit by way of evidence filed

    by the complainants and Exts. P1 to P10 it is evident that Lloyds Finance Ltd. are bound to repay the complainants Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest of Rs. 3740/-. Non-refund of the said amount would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Deficiency in service proved.




    In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 15740/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint (08.12.2003) till payment. Payment of interest would be subject to final order of the Special Committee or the Liquidator. Complainants shall inform the Special Committee with regard to the amount payable by opposite parties 1 & 2 on the basis of this order.




    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

  3. #3
    adv.sumit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,363

    Default Lloyds Finance

    Thankamma
    ...........Appellant(s)

    Vs.

    M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd

    Padmapriya investnebts Services

    Pankaj Desai
    ...........Respondent(s)


    BEFORE:
    1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A
    2. Smt. S.K.Sreela
    3. Sri G. Sivaprasad


    Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


    OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




    ORDER






    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

    VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    PRESENT

    SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

    SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

    SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER




    O.P. No. 486/2003

    Dated : 17.08.2009




    Complainants:




    P.J. Thankamma & E.J. Mathew, T.C 3/2114, LIC Road, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.




    Opposite parties:

    1. M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd., 601, Raheja Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021.




    2. Pankaj Desai, Managing Director, M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd, 2nd Floor, Sanidhya Complex, Opposite Sanyas Ashram, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 300 009.




    3. M/s Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd., T.C 40/117, Attakulangara, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 009.




    ORDER


    This complaint remanded by the State Commission vide order dated 27.03.2009 in Revision Petition No. 16/08 with direction to dispose the case strictly in accordance with the directions of the National Commission.

    The fact leading to the filing of the complaint is that complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- as fixed deposit for 18 months at the rate of 16% interest on 01.11.1998 with 1st opposite party M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. through additional 3rd opposite party, Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd,

    Thiruvananthapuram. The said fixed deposit was matured on 01.05.2000 and the maturity value of Rs. 18740/- including interest of Rs. 3740/- was payable to complainants on that date. When the maturity value was claimed from the opposite parties complainants obtained an order of the Company Law Board, Western Region Branch, Mumbai rescheduling the repayment (vide Lloyds Finance Ltd., letter dated 15.06.1999). As per the said order the said fixed deposit is repayable at the rate of 30% each during the first and second year and 40% in the 3rd year with accrued interest upto the date of maturity

    as contracted and @ 12.5% till the date of actual payment. During August 2001, a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid to the complainants leaving a balance of Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest. During July 2002, the original F.D receipt was submitted to the company with a request to pay the second instalment. Since then, the company was reminded on 20.08.2002, 19.12.2002, 19.02.2003, 04.07.2003 and 17.09.2003. There was no response from the opposite parties. The delay in payment of the sum due to the complainants is causing undue avoidable hardship to the complainants who are senior citizens who live on the pension due to them with no other income. Hence this complaint claiming payment dues without further delay.

    Opposite parties 1 & 2 did not file version denying the complainants’ transaction, but sent an order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revisions No. 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005 to place on record before this Forum. Additional 3rd opposite party admitted

    the fact that the complainants deposited Rs. 15000/- for a period of 18 months under the cumulative scheme interest at 16% on 01.11.1998, which was due on 01.05.2000, but the complainants have not yet received the refund.

    The points that would arise for consideration are:-

    1.

    Whether the complainants are entitled to get any amount from opposite parties?
    2.

    Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
    3.

    Other reliefs and costs.




    In support of the complaint, complainants have filed affidavit of themselves and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. No affidavit by way of evidence filed by opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 furnished the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revisions 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005.

    Points (i) to (iii):- As per the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revisions 1768 of 2000, 1769 of 2000 and 2886 of 2005, Consumer Fora all over the country were directed not to entertain any fresh complaints against Lloyds Finance company. For pending matters, it was held that consumer Fora would pass appropriate orders crystallizing the amount payable, but no order for recovery shall be passed by the Consumer Fora. In the said order it was held that it would be open to the complainant to inform the committee with regard to amount payable by the company to the complainant on the basis of order which may be passed by the Consumer Fora. Further, Consumer Fora were directed not to issue any further summons or warrants against the company in liquidation and against special committee members appointed by the High Court of Bombay.


    The operating portion of the aforesaid order reads as under: “In this view of the matter, particularly when Liquidation petition for winding up is pending before the High Court of Bombay and the fact that a Special Committee is appointed and functioning under the High Court and that it has drawn a plan for repayment to the depositors/investors as quoted above, we hereby direct that neither the State Commissions nor the District Fora would proceed further with the disputes which are pending against Lloyds Finance Ltd. However, it would be open to the District Fora or State Commissions to finalise the amount payable by the company(payment of interest and compensation would be subject to final orders of Special Committee or the Liquidator) and/or to direct the investors to lodge a claim before the Special Committee”. In the light of the aforesaid order, we are inclined to pass an order crystallizing the amount payable by the opposite parties.

    The fact in the case is that complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- as Fixed Deposit for 18 months at 16% interest rate on 01.11.1998 with 1st opposite party Lloyds Finance Ltd., through the additional 3rd opposite party Padmapriya Investment Services (P) Ltd.(Investment Consultants) pursuant to the notification inviting deposits by the company. 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st opposite party, M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. Ext. P1 is the copy of the notification inviting the said deposits by the 1st opposite party. Terms and conditions governing the deposit schemes are seen printed on the second page of Ext. P1. Ext. P2 is the copy of deposit receipt issued by the 1st

    opposite party to complainants. A perusal of Ext. P2 would disclose that Deposit Receipt No. is

    0598004666/1, amount of deposit is Rs. 15000/-, period of deposit is 18 months, rate of interest per annum is 16%, date of deposit is 01.11.1998, maturity date of deposit is 01.05.2000, maturity value of deposit is Rs. 18740/- name of the scheme is monthly multiplier and the amount repayable to either or surviver.


    Submission by the complainants is that on demand of maturity of the said FD by the complainants, opposite parties paid a sum of Rs. 3000/- only on 15.07.2001(Ext. P4) leaving a balance of Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter issued by the Lloyds Finance Ltd. to the complainants regarding the repayment of deposits as per Company Law Board Order. As per Ext. P3, the fixed deposit would be repayable at the rate of 30% each during the 1st and 2nd years and 40% in the 3rd year with accrued interest upto the date of maturity as contracted and at the rate of 12.5% till

    the date of actual payment. It has been contended by the complainants that during 2002 original F.D receipt was submitted to the 1st opposite party with request to pay the second instalment. Submission

    by the complainants is that there was no response from opposite parties, inspite of several reminders as Exts. P5 to P10. 1st and 2nd opposite parties never filed version denying the said transaction. Additional 3rd opposite party admitted the said transaction. From the affidavit by way of evidence filed

    by the complainants and Exts. P1 to P10 it is evident that Lloyds Finance Ltd. are bound to repay the complainants Rs. 12000/- plus accrued interest of Rs. 3740/-. Non-refund of the said amount would definitely amount to deficiency in service. Deficiency in service proved.




    In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 & 2 shall pay the complainants a sum of Rs. 15740/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint (08.12.2003) till payment. Payment of interest would be subject to final order of the Special Committee or the Liquidator. Complainants shall inform the Special Committee with regard to the amount payable by opposite parties 1 & 2 on the basis of this order.

  4. #4
    monojit Guest

    Default Non-payment of FDR maturity proceeds by lloyds Finance Ltd

    My FDR of Rs 28000/- matured on 27/11/1998. Despite f/up, and personal visits to their Kolkata office first and then even to their Mumbai office, nothing has happened. I amm shattered and at a huge financial distress at this old age.
    Pl help.

    ISITA CHATTERJEE
    M- 9434064640

  5. #5
    alpesh patel Guest

    Post payments from lloyds financenot got yet

    resp sir ,

    i deposited in lloyds finance in 1997 and my maturity date was 25 dec 1998 but i didnt got payments from lloyds i tried a lots to find out office of lloyds in ahmedabad but i cant got
    so manny long time after i came in india and find lloyds finance closed their office in gujrat
    so pl help me to get return my deposited amount

  6. #6
    Ratan Chand Mehta Guest

    Default The LLoyds Finance Ltd. V/s Ratan Chand Mehta and mt. Santosh Mehta

    Respected Sir,

    Myself Ratan Chand Mehta and my wife Smt. Santosh Mehta bond a Fixed Deposit of Rs.13,000.00 each with M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd. On dated 28.04.1997 for a period of 36 months which in returns having a paid interest of 17%/year by company terms and conditions. With some instructions from Reserve bank of India the company paid a sum of Rs.2600 for each FD in 01.05.2001.

    A lot of communication done by the company in this regard but for the balance payment company informed many times but no payment made till date. I felt cheated in this regard. I am old age person now and no source of income is with me.
    I requested to please look into the matter give me proper justice in this regard.
    Note :This company already operating from the following address.
    Lloyds Finance Ltd.
    Viraj Impex House, 2nd Floor,
    47, P.D’Mello Road, Masjid (East),
    Mumbai – 400 009.
    Tel.: 23484592 / 23483997
    Fax: 23482669
    Email: lflho@hotmail.com

    With regards,
    Ratan Chand Mehta & Mrs. Santosh Mehta
    Address: Ward No. 18, House No. 321,
    Near Dharam Kanta, By pass road,
    Post: Shahdol, Dist: Shahdol, 484001, Madhya Pradesh
    Mobile: +91-9425182999
    Email: mehtaharishkumar7@gmail.com

    Encl: Details of all correspondence is derived as follows.
    Details of correspondence of Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta with M/s Lloyds Finance ltd. for non payment of interest warrants and default in return of capital
    Capital amount of Rattan Chand Mehta Rs.13000.00
    Smt. Santosh Mehta Rs. 13000.00

    After part payment by the company the capital amount is outstanding
    Rattan Chand Mehta Rs. 10400.00
    Smt. Santosh Mehta Rs. 10400.00
    -------------
    Total : 20800.00

    1. The company vide their letter dated 17.12.1998 informed that under instruction from the Reserve Bank Of India our banker (State Bank Of India) has withdrawn the facility of interest payment, of warrants/Cheques Payable at par on all India Basis after 31.12.1998. Therefore all Warrants/Cheques etc. would be returned as the bank would not honour the same after 31.12.1998. However fresh Cheques/Warrants would be issued in replacement on receipt of the same.

    SRN. CHEQUE NO. INTEREST AMOUNT DATE OF PAYMENT
    1 293057 552.50 31.03.1999
    2 293058 552.50 30.06.1999
    3 293059 552.50 30.09.1999
    4 293060 552.50 31.12.1999
    5 293061 484.97 20.03.2000


    2. Letter dated 18.01.1999, addressed to M/s Lloyds Finance Ltd.
    The above 5 cheques/Warrants were surrendered vide letter dated 18.01.1999 under R.AD. with a request to the company to issue fresh Warrants/Cheques in replacement.

    3. Letter Dated 12.04.2001 :- From Mrs. Santosh Mehta to the company reminding them for payment of 30% of capital amount as fixed by the Company’s Law Board.
    4. Latter dated 23.07.1999 addressed to the company by Mrs. Santosh Mehta, intimating that in compliance to the company letter dated 17.12.1998 the following uncashed 6 Cheques/Warrants returned to the company vide letter dated 05.01.1998 under R.AD. post, but no fresh Cheques/Warrants were received inspite of reminders dated 08.03.1999,22.04.1999 and 10.06.1999. Instead the company informed vide letter dated 09.03.1999 that the company were facing fund crunch leading to liquidity, causing delay in payment. The company further informed they had sought reschedulement of all the fixed deposits which had matured and remained unpaid and which would be maturing up to 31.03.2001. The company was notified that in case of non refund of fixed deposit the matter would be taken up with the appropriate authority.
    SRN. CHEQUE NO. INTEREST AMOUNT DATE OF PAYMENT
    1 310216 552.50 31.03.1999
    2 310217 552.50 30.06.1999
    3 310218 552.50 30.09.1999
    4 310219 552.50 31.12.1999
    5 310220 552.50 31.03.2000
    6 310221 552.50 27.04.2000

    5. Letter dated 01.08.1999 from Shri Rattan Chand Mehta to the company:- reminding the company for issue of fresh warrants and 5 cheques. Also asking the company to intimate fund position and notifying the company that in case of non reply the matter will be taken up with appropriate authority.
    6. Letter dated 20.08.1999 from Smt. Santosh Mehta to the company :- In reply the company wrote wide letter no. format intt/115/99 dated 11.08.1999 that the company law board Western Region Bench vide their order dated 16.04.1999 had rescheduled the payment of our Fixed Deposit with intt. etc. The company was requested to intimate schedule of payment, as ordered by the Law Board and also requested to intimate when the payment commenced and by what time the full amount would be cleared. It was further requested to send the company’s Law Board order in this regard.
    7. Letter dated 05.03.2001 from Shri Rattan Chand Menta and also from Smt. Santosh Mehta :- The com pany was intimated that the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.0397018121/1 dated 07.04.1997 of Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and and No.0397022875/1 dated 10.05.1997 of Mrs. Santosh Mehta had matured on 21.03.2000 and 28.04.2000 respectively. As intimated by the company in their letters no.FORMAT-1/E 2518/99 dated 02.08.1999 to Shri rattan Chand Mehta and FORMAT-1/E2518/99 dated 02.08.1999 to Smt. Santosh Mehta, the following schedule of payment as Fixed by Law Board :-

    SRN DEPOSIT AMOUNT UP TO 1ST YEAR 2nd Year 3rd Year
    1 5000.00 100% within Three Months
    -
    -
    2 5001.00 to 10000.00 60% 40% -
    3 10001.00 to 25000.00 30% 30% 40%

    The company was requested to repay 30% of the deposit amount of Rs.13000.00/ of each with in 1st year after due dates 21.03.2000 and 28.04.2000 respectively. The above 2 deposit receipts in original as required were returned to the company.
    8. Letter dt.05.04.2000 written by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and also separately by Smt. Santosh Mehta to the company on 05.04.2000. In both the letters (f the same date) the company was requested to remit second installment which had fallen due for Rs.2600/- of the principal amount to Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta.
    9. Letters dated 24.05.2002 written to the company by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and also separately by Smt. Santosh Mehta. The company was reminded to remit the second installment of Rs.2600/-
    10. Letters dated 14.06.2002 written to the company by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and also separately by Smt. Santosh Mehta (same date) for remitting 2nd installment, which had already fallen due since 21.03.2002.
    11. Letters dated 11.07.2002 written to the company by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and also separately by Smt. Santosh Mehta (same date) reminder for remittance of 2nd installment
    12. Letters dated 06.02.2003 written to the chairman of M/s Lloyds Finance jointly by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta (same date) reminder for remitting of 2nd installment
    13. Letters dated 08.02.2003 jointly written by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta to Shri C.R.Mehta, Member ompany Law Board, Mumbai. He was informed that the 2 Fixed Deposits of Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta, matured in March and April 2000. The company was requested to return the money but in reply the company wrote that due to Fund Crunch they were unable to repay the amount in one go and had sought your permission to pay back the amount in installments. Your good self in your order dated 16.04.1999 granted permission to repay the capital amount in installments.
    In compliance of your order the company vides letter dated 01.05.2001 remitted one installment of Rs.2600/- for Each F.D. The second installment fell due since March-April but inspite of our several letters the company did not remit the money and remained silent in this regard. They even did not pay the 3rd installment which fell due in March – April 2003.
    I, therefore approached Shri C.R.Mehta, Member Law Board to take necessary action for release of our installments.
    The copy of this letter was forwarded to the G.M. Reserve Bank Of India for Necessary action.
    14. Letter dated 20.03.2003 was written to the G.M. Reserve Bank, Regional Office, Mumbai (Department of the Non Banking Supervision.) The G.M. was thanked for his letter dated 13.05.2003 informing us that our complaint with regard to default in payment was forwarded to the company for settlement of payment as per guide lines laid down by the Company Law Board.
    The G.M. was requested to look in to the matter and take suitable action to get our deposit released.
    15. Form No. 4 submitted on 23.08.2003 :-
    The above form no. 4, duly filled in by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and separately by Smt. Santosh Mehta was submitted to Companies Law Board. Full details and related correspondence and the dues outstanding against the company were given.
    The applications were accompanied by a fee of Rs.50/- on each.(Bank Draft. No.075066 & 075067 dated 28.08.2003, drawn on Central Bank Of India, Mumbai).
    16. Dated 03.09.2003 :- ---------Do-------
    17. The above said 2 forms, duly filled, by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta were submitted to the Company’s law Board on 28.08.2003. These were received by the Company Law Board Western Region Bench on 03.09.2003.
    18. Letter Dated 18.04.2003 by R.AD) written to the Managing Director of the company both by Shri Rattan Chand Mehta and Smt. Santosh Mehta informing him about non payment of 2nd installment by the company, drawing his attention to the various reminders in this regard. He was notified that in case the company failed to remit the due installments, I without prejudice to my right would initiate criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal misappropriation of funds.
    1. The copies of this letters was sent to Shri C.R.Mehta, member Company Law Board, Western Regional bench Ballard Estate Mumbai for necessary action in this regard.
    2. Copy forwarded to the General Manager Reserve Bank Of India, Department of Non banking Supervision., Mumbai for information and necessary action.
    19. Letter dated 10.07.2002 :- The above letter was written to the Administrative Manager of society complaint department, Ahmedabad, giving him complete information about our deposits with the company and default in return of the deposited amount by the company.
    20. Letter dated 29.08.2002 :- The Consumer Education (Complaint Department) Society wrote to Shri Rajendra Shah (V.P.) Lloyds Finance on 05.08.2002 about our complaint for non payment of installments and Fixed Deposits amount and asked the company how to resolve the complaint.
    We had informed the Administrative Manager of Consumer Education Society that no communication had been received from the company in regard to our complaints and the Education Society was requested to pursue the matter.
    21. Letter dated 26.09.2002 :-Mr. Rajendra Shah of M/s Lloyds Finance was reminded vide letter dated 27.08.2002 by Consumer Education Society for response with regard to our dispute. The Consumer Education Society was informed vide my letter dated 26.09.2002 that no communication had been received from M/s Lloyds Finance.
    22. Letter Dated 14.10.2002 :- The above letter was written to the Administrative Manager (Complaint) of Consumer Education Society, seeking his advice for fighting the case under the Consumer Protection act 1986. Since I was not conversant with the system and rules, I wanted to fight the case through the society.
    23. Letter Dated 12.11.2002 :- The Administrative Manager of society was reminded to take up my case to resolve the dispute.
    24. Letter dated 04.02.2003 :- The Administrative Manager Society was reminded to take up my case with the company as the company’s office was at Ahmedabad and it would be easier for the society to fight my case there.
    25. Letter dated 20.02.2003 :- M/s Consumer Education Society was thanked for taking our case issuing legal notices to the chairman Lloyds Finance and other offices of the company at Delhi and Ahmedabad on 30.01.2003.
    26. Letter dated 18.05.2003 :- M/s Consumer Education Society was informed that no response had been received from M/s Lloyds Finance of their notices and letters. Further the society was informed that the 3rd installment of payment had also fallen due. The society was further written all legal expenses etc. would be borne by us.
    27. Letter dated 29.08.2003 :- The society was informed that as advised, 2 Forms 4 of the Company Law Board for making an application, duly filled in with full details relating to the cases had been submitted to the Regional Bench of the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench. The applications were accompanied with Drafts of Rs.50/-(Fee) for each. The photocopies of the applications were also sent.
    28. Letter dated 08.11.2003 :- Informed the Consumer Education Society that the Company Law Board Mumbai vide their letter dated 16.09.2003 had returned our applications dated 28.08.2003, saying that we had invested in a firm and not the company and our application were not covered U/S 58A(9) of the company’s act 1956 and Company Law Board had no jurisdiction to entertain such applications.


    Mails Sent To

    uttam.nahta@mca.gov.in, uttam.nahta@mca.gov.in, josekutty.ve@mca.gov.in, Atmaram.Saple@mca.gov.in, Ramdas Gupta@mca.gov.in,secy.mca@nic.in, satyapal.rawat@mca.gov.in,mohan.jose...ad2-mca@nic.in, pankaj1.srivastava@mca.gov.in,rita.dogra@mca.gov.i n, jyotinder.Tikku@mca.gov.in, ladu.meena@mca.gov.in, sanjey.Shorey@mca.gov.in, bk.srivastava@mca.gov.in

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 12:35 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-14-2013, 05:36 PM
  3. Lloyds Finance
    By Unregistered in forum Investment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2012, 06:56 PM
  4. Saradhi Corpn. Kuries and Loans Punnayurkulam
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 12:44 PM
  5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Dev Paul Chowk, Hamirpur
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 12:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •