1. These two cross appeals are directed against the order dated 16.02.2015, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, `the National Commission’), whereby the appellant–company, Shivaji Estate Livestock and Farms Pvt. Ltd. has been directed to refund the investments made by the respondent-investors along with interest, in the scheme(s) floated by the appellant. The cross appeal by the respondent seeks limited relief of making the direction of the National Commission time- bound.

2. The appellant-company is in the business of real estate, hotels, animals feed and livestock farming. The appellant has been inviting potential investors to invest in its Goat Farming and Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.02.20 18:17:10 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified allied activities by floating various schemes. According to learned State Counsel, there are in all 30,093 investors. It seems that such investors were promised a minimum return on their investments, in addition to bonus and lucrative interest under the different investment schemes. However, those promises were not honoured by the appellant. Some of the investors, i.e., 373 in all, approached the National Commission and vide impugned order dated 16.02.2015, as noticed at the outset, a direction has been issued to refund their invested amount along with interest.

3. The appellant-company is in appeal primarily on the ground that FIR No.134/2003 was registered against it and its Directors etc. under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short, `the MPID Act’) on 23.12.2003 in which the chargesheet came to be filed on 29.03.2004. All the movable and immovable assets of the company were, thereafter, attached by the State of Maharashtra through a Notification dated 27.04.2005 and consequently, all such assets stood automatically vested in the State by implication of law. On this premise, the appellant has urged that the implementation of the direction issued by the National Commission for refund of the invested amount is beyond its control.

4. Having regard to the above-cited plea, and to test its bonafide, the appellant was directed on 23.08.2022, to place the orders on record whereby the State of Maharashtra had taken over its assets, and also to implead the said State as a party respondent.

5. The appellant has complied with the above direction and in deference thereto, the State of Maharashtra, namely, respondent No.374, has filed its counter affidavit. Para 6 of the said affidavit states as follows:

“6. I say and submit that, in exercise of powers under Section 4(1) of MPID Act, upon being satisfied that the – Financial Establishment (FE) failed to return the deposit on demand by the depositor, the Government of Maharashtra in order to protect the interest of the depositors of such Financial Establishment issued an order dated 27.04.2005 and duly notified the same in the Official Gazette attaching the money and other property acquired by such Financial Establishment in their own name or in the name of any other person out of the deposit collected by the Financial Establishment. The copy of the notification dated 27.04.2005 has been annexed with the Civil Appeal.”

6. As regard to the sale of the company’s assets, which now stand vested in the State, and consequential disbursement of the sale proceeds amongst the investors on pro-rata basis, the State of Maharashtra has taken the following stand in para Nos.18, 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit:

“18. I say and submit that, pursuant thereto the matter was listed before the MPID Court on 26.09.2022 when the Designated Court directed the Competent Authority to hold meeting with the Investors alongwith the Investigator and the accused on 20.10.2022