STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 09.03.2018

                                                         Date of final hearing: 27.04.2023

Date of pronouncement: 12.05.2023

First Appeal No. 297 of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

Jugminder Singh Anand, age 45 years son of Sh. Balwant Singh Anand, Advocate, resident of Kothi No. 124-B/R, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                      …..Appellant

Versus

1. M/s Shilpa Antibiotics now known as Shilpa Medicare Limited registered office 10/80, Ist Floor, Rejendra Gunj Raichgar Karnataka-584102 through Sh. Om Parkash Innani its Chairman.
2. Karvy Computer Share Private Limited, Plot NO. 17-24, Vittal Rai Nagar, Madhpur, Hyderabad 500081 through its authorized signatory or

Second Address: First Floor, UCO Bank Building Piara Chowk, Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar.

3.      The Stock Exchange Board of India, Delhi and Mumbai through its Managing Director, Post Bag No. 8140 Bandra.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

Argued by:-Sh. Ravinder Jain, counsel for the appellant.

                   Sh. B.S. Kalsi, counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2.

Sh. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3 (presence of learned counsel is marked on the basis of counsel’s statement recorded today and separate zimni order passed as such).

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Complainant’s father during his lifetime, had purchased 400 shares (as detailed in para 3 of Memorandum of Appeal) of M/s Shilpa Antibiotics, now known as Shilpa Medicare Limited (OP No.1/respondent No.1) and had been receiving dividends etc., when alive in respect of those shares. After his death; complainant came to know about those shares in his father’s name. For last two years he was not receiving dividends. He came to know that OP No. 1 has changed its name to Shilpa Medicare Ltd. but no information was given to him. Legal notice was issued on 30.08.2006 to OP No.1 to make payment of shares but OP No.1 did not reply. Complainant filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, and during its pendency, he also complained to OP No. 3 (SEBI). OP No.2 vide letter dated 20.01.2012 wrote that since consumer’s complaint is pending, so, they are unable to process his request. On this, he withdrew his complaint before Consumer Forum on 15.02.2012. Thereafter, he wrote letter dated 10.07.2012 to OP No. 3 and also sent e-mails requesting for action vide letter dated 20.01.2012 but to no effect. Hence, by asserting cause of action and alleging deficiency in services of OPs; complaint was filed.

2.      OPs No.1& 2 raised contest. In their defence; it is asserted that complaint is not maintainable, before District Forum.Earlier, Complaint No. 300/2007 was filed before District Forum and it was withdrawn by complainant, of his own volition and he was granted permission to file fresh complaint in appropriate court. Complainant cannot act at his own whims and fancies and take action he wants, to the detriment of OPs by filing same complaint in same Forum, just to harass OPs. Complainant is abusing the process of law. District Forum has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of complainant. It has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint, which is barred by limitation. It is pleaded that certain shares of OP No. 1, were held by complainant’s father which were partly paid. Share certificates were issued subject to payment of remaining balance amount and subsequently shares were transferred in the name of complainant. OP No. 1 issued letters to complainant on 01.06.1995, but he had not responded and also not make any payment, as required. Consequently, OP No. 1, after sending letters and notice forfeited the shares, for non-payment of balance amount on partly paid shares, on 14.08.2003. Complainant ceased to the shareholder of OP No.1 from that date. OP No. 2 is only Registrar and Share Transfer Agent and not liable to compensate the complainant.

3.      OPs No.3 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.10.2014 passed by learned District Commission.

4.      Complainant led his respective evidence(oral as well documentary) before learned District Commission and closed it on 30.09.2016. OP No. 1 & 2 did not led any evidence and same was closed by learned District Commission’s Order dated 28.11.2017.

5.      Learned District Commission after subjectively analyzing the controversy has dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.02.2018 primarily on the ground that: it has no territorial jurisdiction. Complainant has approached this Commission, through this appeal, and assailed order dated 08.02.2018.

6.      This Commission has heard learned counsel for the parties at length on 27.04.2023 and perused record with their able assistance.

7.      Learned counsel for appellant/complainant has contended that impugned order dated 08.02.2018 is erroneous, legally and factually. District Commission, Yamuna Nagar has acquired territorial jurisdiction, as office of OP No. 2, who is broker of OP No. 1 is having its branch office at Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari. This material fact has not been considered by District Commission in right perspective. It is contended that OP No. 1-Company had issued letter dated 01.06.1995 for demanding call money, but simultaneously and quite surprisingly, it issued share certificate on same date. In these circumstances,as per contention, how call money was demanded from complainant remained mysterious. It is urged that forfeiture of shares on 14.08.2003 by OP No. 1 was illegal, in wake of above scenario, by branding 400 shares allotted to complainant, as partly paid.

8.      On behalf of OPs No. 1 and 2 it is urged that Impugned Order dated 08.02.2018 passed by learned District Commission is legally justified and same does not warrant any interference.

9.      Annexure A-2 (running in 4 pages) collectively shows that total 400 shares were allotted to Jugminder Singh Anand by OP No. 1. It is also visible from these share certificates that amount paid per share on application was Rs.2.50 and face value of each share was Rs.10/. Having paid Rs.2.50 only per share against its face value of Rs.10/-;400 shares allotted to complainant have to be categorized, as ‘partly paid’. Factually there can be no error on this aspect and rightly it formed the base (non-payment of balance amount)for forfeiting the shares on 14.08.2003, being partly paid. Definitely, hence after 14.08.2003, complainant ceased to be share holder of OP No. 1. This being so, the contention of learned counsel for appellant regarding alleged mystery as to how share certificates were issued to complainant once the shares were partly paid, does not hold ground.

10.    Admittedly, complainant/appellant had earlier knocked the jurisdiction of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar by filing complaint No. 300 of 2007. He withdrew that complaint by suffering separate statement dated 15.02.2012. Order dated 15.02.2012 is explicit in itself. Complainant had appeared in person on 15.02.2012. This order reflects that respondent has taken objection to the territorial jurisdiction of forum and complainant sought permission to file his case in proper court. Accordingly, District Forum on 15.02.2012 dismissed the complaint as withdrawn as per request of complainant and granted him permission to file complaint in appropriate court. It also granted complainant, the period during which his complaint remained pending, under Section 14 (2) of Limitation Act.  Earlier, in complaint No. 300 of 2007 OPs No. 1 & 3 now impleaded in present compliant (M/s Shilpa Antibiotics and Stock Exchange Board of India) were the only respondents. OP No. 2- Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd. now impleaded in present complaint, was nowhere in picture in earlier round of litigation. Present Complaint No. 108 of 2014 has been instituted by impleading Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd. as OP No. 2, palpably, in an attempt to confer jurisdiction upon District Commission, Yamuna Nagar by asserting in Para No. 11 of complaint that: OP No. 2 (who as per written version of OPs No. 1 & 2 is Registrar of Share Transfer Agent) and is having its office in Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari and share certificates were also applied by father of complainant at Yamuna Nagar.

11.    Learned District Commission in impugned Order dated 08.02.2018 has observed that facts of earlier complaint (Complaint No. 300 of 2007) were identical to the facts of present compliant except that OP No. 2 has not been impleaded. There is no dispute on this score. Legal inference which flows out from complainant, having withdrawn his earlier complaint on 15.02.2012 as per his own wisdom, in order to file fresh complaint in appropriate court would be that: the territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar would continue to remain barred and ousted, for the reason that integral part concerning allegations of previous compliant were same and identical, viz-a-viz text and phraseology of present complaint.

12.    May be, office of OP No. 2 is situated at Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari yet in opinion of this Commission; even this circumstance will not confer territorial jurisdiction to District Commission, Yamuna Nagar. While holding so, this Commission gains strength from ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as “Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Ltd.” Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 in which it has been held as under:-

“In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  It is well settled that the expression ‘cause of action' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability.  In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala.  The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.”

          Hon’ble Apex Court has also dealt with amended Section 17(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2003 and observed in later part of judgment in following terms:-

“The aforesaid amendment came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003 whereas the complaint in the present case has been filed in the year 2000 and the cause of action arose in 1999. Hence, in our opinion, the amended section will have no application to the case at hand. Moreover, even if it had application, in our opinion, that will not help the case of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh.  We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence.  If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated.  We cannot agree with this contention.  It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting.  In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.  No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79] In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”

13.    The ratio of law laid down in this judgment is guiding principle for the purpose of deciding territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar and it is clearly applicable to the facts of present case. It provides complete answer to the contention of learned counsel for appellant/complainant, based on territorial jurisdiction of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar and the answer is in negative by holding that District Consumer Commission, Yamuna Nagar has no territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, there is no error (legal for factual) in the finding of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar in its order dated 08.02.2018 that it does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. A smart move of complainant to create jurisdiction of District Commission, Yamuna Nagar by impleading OP No. 2 and by mentioning its address of Yamuna Nagar, is condemned. Impugned Order dated 08.02.2018 is affirmed and maintained. Appellant/complainant has been rightly non-suited. This appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

14.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

15.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.    File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 12^th May, 2023