IMPORTANT POINT
The scope under the revision petition is limited and only jurisdictional aspects are to be seen.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

These revision petitions have been filed by three different petitioners who were OP nos.2, 5, and 6 respectively in the original complaint case which was filed by respondent no.1/ complainant before the District Forum being complaint case no. 424 of 2014. Complainant has alleged that he purchased debentures of Rs.100/- each on 30.01.2013 from respondent no.2 and the redemption date of the said debentures was 30.01.2014. When the complainant could not get the redemption amount, he filed a consumer complaint being CC no. 424 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat (in short ‘the District Forum’). The OPs did not join the proceedings and they were proceeded ex parte. The District Forum vide its order dated 02.02.2015 has allowed the complaint and observed as under:

“Hence, it is ordered that the complaint and the same be allowed on ex parte against the OPs.

OPs are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.20,400/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, in default the OPs are directed to pay the maturity value of debentures together with interest @ 12% per annum for the overdue period.

OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which OPs shall have to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per day from the date of this order till its realisation, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the OPs in this State Consumer Welfare Fund.”

2. The petitioners then preferred separate appeals being FA nos. A/614/2015, A/641/2015 and A/655/2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 16.06.2017 dismissed all the three appeals.

3. Hence, the present revision petitions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent no.1/ complainant in person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that these petitioners were the Directors when the debentures were purchased, however, they resigned on 05.03.2013 and the same was also registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC). Maturity date was 30.01.2014 and therefore, at the time when the cause of action arose the petitioners were not Directors of the Company which issued the debentures. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice was served upon the petitioners by the District Forum and the petitioners were proceeded ex parte and the petitioners could not get any opportunity of defence before the District Forum.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the concerned forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in respect of redemption of debentures, as per sub section 10 of Section 70 of the Indian Companies Act 2013 which reads as under:

“Sub Section 10: Where a company fails to redeem the debentures on the date of their maturity or fails to pay interest on the debentures when it is due, the Tribunal may, on the application of any or all of the debenture holders, or debenture trustee and after hearing the parties concerned, direct, by order, the company to redeem the debentures forthwith on payment of principal and interest due thereon”.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mentioned that as per the above provision, it is only the Tribunal, i.e., National Company Law Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of redemption of debentures, hence, the orders passed by the Fora below are illegal orders which have been passed without any jurisdiction.

7. On the other hand, the respondent/ complainant has stated that the complainant visited the Company many times, however, no steps were taken by them for redemption of debentures purchased by the complainant. The OPs did not respond to the notice issued by the District Forum, that is why all the OPs were proceeded ex parte. When the execution was filed these three Directors preferred appeal. The State Commis