SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

P.D.SHENOY, ANUPAM DASGUPTA
Basawaraj Vibhuti – Appellant
Versus
Channabasavayya G. Hiremath – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Mahale, Advocate.

ORDER

P.D. Shenoy, Presiding Member—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). In this case, two complainants invested their hard-earned money in a Scheme floated by the petitioner-Green Gold Units which carried interest @ 12% p.a. It was an open ended scheme. It is the case of the complainants that when they approached the respondent(s) for payment of the same invested with interest after 3 years, it was not paid. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the District Forum which was contested by the petitioner-company, stating that not all the directors are impleaded and hence the complaint was infructuous. Secondly, theirs was a Cottage Industry which was not covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Thirdly, as a result of a police case, the relevant documents were seized and hence they were not in a position to ascertain whether the complainants had deposited any money with them. The District Forum, after analyzing the records and evidence and also hearing the parties, directed in CC No.161/06 that the maturity amount of Rs. 1,92,400 be paid with 9% interest from the date of complaint till the date of realization and in CC No.373/06, Rs.3,86,325 be paid with interest @ 9% f






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top