Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President;
Dr. P.K. Vasudeva & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
SURAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED—Complainant
versus
PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT
CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Complaint No. 24 of 1999—Decided on 2.8.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. I.S. Ratta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a case raises intricate questions of fact and law, the complainant should seek remedy through the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Company Dispute - Indian Companies Act, 1956, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Indian Companies Act, 1956
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming penalty and compensation for transferring a plot in favor of another party. The complaint involved disputes regarding the change in the name, style, and constitution of the company, and the transfer of leasehold rights in a plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case raised intricate questions of fact and law, and therefore, the complainant should approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of grievances. The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was directed to seek remedy through the Civil Court.
Issues: (1) Whether the complainant company is the same as the previous company with only a change in name under the Indian Companies Act, 1956? (2) Whether the change in name entitles the complainant company to negotiate the transfer of leasehold rights in the plot? (3) Whether the complainant company can validly ask for the transfer of lessee rights in the plot? (4) Whether the widow of a deceased director was divested of her rights by the present directors of the company? (5) Whether the opposite parties could withhold the change in the name and constitution of the company? (6) Whether the case raised intricate questions of facts and law?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the case raised intricate questions of fact and law, and the complainant should seek remedy through the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the complainant was directed to approach a Civil Court for redressal of grievances.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—Suraj Enterprises Private Limited, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 located at Ludhiana has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] against the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh [hereinafter to be referred in short as P.S.I.E.C.] and the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 claiming penalty, compensation for transferring Plot No. E-482, Phase-VI, Focal Point, Ludhiana in favour of Shri Subhash Chander Lakra of M/s. S.K. Metals as prayed in application dated 26.10.1998 copy Annexure R-6.
2. The averments made in the complaint, stated briefly, are as under :
3. The complainant Company - Suraj Enterprises Pvt. Limited is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and registered with the Registrar of Companies. Under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the complainant Company, the Managing Director is competent to sue on behalf of the Company. The complainant Company was previously registered as M/s. Suraj Wires [P] Ltd. and was registered with the Registrar of Companies. Later on the name of the Company was changed to M/s. Suraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
4. Plot No. E-432, Phase VI aforesaid situated in Ludhiana was allotted to one Shri Anil Chadha by the opposite parties. The said allotment was transferable. Mr. Anil Chadha transferred his lease hold rights to the complainant Company. The complainant Company moved an application seeking transfer of the said plot to its name. The opposite parties issued re-allotment letter to M/s. Suraj Wires [P] Ltd., the former Company transferring the lease hold rights in the said plot to the said Company [vide letter dated 12.2.1986 copy Annexure C-1]. The tentative price payable for the said plot was paid in entirety besides the transfer fee. A “No-Due Certificate” was issued on 26.7.1991 by the opposite parties vide copy Annexure C-2. Thereafter, a lease deed was executed on 16.7.1991 vide copy Annexure C-3. The lease deed was executed between the Company aforesaid and the opposite parties. It is alleged that Clause 9 of the re-allotment letter Annexure C-1 and Clause 2 of the lease deed Annexure C-3 are pari materia and the same was extracted in para 2 of the complaint. It is further contended that the Company raised funds from the Punjab Financial Corporation and mortgaged the lease hold rights in the plot with then Punjab Financial Corporation with the prior permission of P.S.I.E.C. Funds were raised for the working capital limit book debt at and bank guarantees etc. from the State Bank of India, Miller Ganj Branch, Ludhiana which were revised from time to time. The last such revision took place in the year 1996. The second/third charge was given on this plot, building, machinery to the said Bank. It has been contended that all the dues of the Punjab Financial Corporation have now been paid by the complainant Company. The Punjab Financial Corporation gave documents of title to the Company [M/s. Suraj Wires (P) Ltd.] and also issued a “No-Due Certificate” [copy Annexure C-4 - Colly]. The charge to the Bank had been given with the concurrence of Punjab Financial Corporation. The State Bank of India also released the security of this plot vide their letter dated 17.12.1997 [copy Annexure C-5]. The aforesaid Plot No. E-432, Phase VI, Focal Point, Ludhiana was thus released from mortgage and charge from both the financial institutions and became free from encumbrances.
5. The complainant Company moved an application on 26.10.1998 [copy Annexure C-6] to the opposite parties praying that the name, style and constitution of the Company be allowed to be changed for the purpose of holding lease hold rights in Plot No. E-432, Phase VI, Focal Point, Ludhiana. It has been alleged in para 5 of the complaint that the said application [copy Annexure C-6] is still pending
