Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3612
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sanjay Kumar, President, Shamim Akhtar, Judicial Member
Industrial Finance Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Abhay Kumar Sinha – Respondent
Appeal No. 403 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prasant Kumar
For the Respondents: Praveen Kumar Singh
A financial institution may unilaterally redeem bonds early if such an option is provided in the prospectus and authorized by a validly passed bondholders' resolution, provided the redemption amount is calculated per the terms and publicized, constituting sufficient notice to the investor.
Headnote:The dispute arises from the early redemption of Gift Bonds issued by the appellants. The complainant contended that the scheme was unilaterally closed without informing him, seeking the full maturity value of Rs. 50,000. Conversely, the appellants argued that redemption was carried out in accordance with a resolution passed by the bondholders in 2003 and publicized in newspapers. The central issue is whether the appellants were obligated to provide individual notice to the bondholder regarding the modification of the redemption terms, and if the redemption amount paid in 2017 was sufficient. The court determined that the appellants acted within the prospectus terms and that the respondent had constructive knowledge of the redemption, particularly after receiving a cheque in 2010. The appeal is disposed of with the modification that the respondent is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the redemption amount of Rs. 6,317 from 06.12.2003 until the date of payment on 04.01.2017.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of complaint regarding premature bond closure and entitlement to maturity value. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defense regarding contractual right to early redemption and compliance with prospectus terms. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. lower court finding that public notice was insufficient for individual communication. (Para 21) |
| 4. appellate court reasoning validating redemption terms and awarding partial interest. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
Per; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
There is delay 21 days in filing appeal for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed.
Sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing appeal as such delay in filing appeal is condoned.
1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellants/opposite parties for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Patna in complaint case no. 176/2017 whereby and whereunder complaint case has been allowed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant purchased two Gift bonds of Rs.5,000/- each from Industrial Finance Corporation of India dated 06.09.2001. The Maturity value of said bond was Rs.25,000/- each totalling Rs.50,000/- only and the date of maturity of both gift bonds was 06.09.2016.
3. On attaining the date of Maturity of said bonds complainant approached the opposite party no.3 in his office for obtaining the maturity value Rs.50,000/- only where the complainant was informed that the scheme in question has been closed much earlier and advised to approach the opposite party no.1.
4. Complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and 2 at his New Delhi Office a number of times, he deposited the original bonds, as advised by the concerned authority so that cheque of maturity value can be issued to the petitioner after completing necessary formalities.
5. After completing necessary formalities a cheque bearing cheque no. 6TB0014012 dated 17.03.2017 of Rs.6,317.00 was received by the complainant through speed post. Complainant got shocked to see a cheque of such meagure amount. He approached the opposite party who informed that the said amount is full and final and nothing remains due in lieu of bonds. Complainant is entitled for entire maturity amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- along with interest over the said amount.
6. No information, notices whatsoever has ever been given to the complainant about the closure of scheme in question. Complainant cannot be put in financial loss for his no fault at all. A scheme once launched and acted upon and persons like the complainant have invested their hard earned money cannot be taken back withdrawn causing huge financial loss.
7. Complainant filed consumer complaint case in the District consumer Forum, Patna for following reliefs:-
i. Opposite parties be directed to pay the entire maturity amount of said two bonds i.e. Rs.50,000/-.
ii. Opposite parties be directed to pay the penal interest over the maturity amount Rs.50,000/- at the rate of 18% p.a. to be calculated from the date of maturity of bonds in question till the date of actual payment.
iii. Complainant also prays for awarding reasonable cost of litigation and also to financial, mental, physical, economical loss and torture due such action of opposite parties. Reasonable Cost arounding Rs.30, 000/-.
8. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and they appeared and filed their written statement therein that complainant approached opposite parties and subscribed a gift bond bearing no. 20223 in the year 1996 for Rs.5,000/-. According to the terms and conditions of “Gift bond – prospectus” it was mentioned that “Invest Rs.5,000/- in main bond and receive your investment back after 5 years plus receive two gift bonds which can be encashed for Rs.50,000/- after 15 years from the date of issue of Gift Bonds.”
9. Accordingly, on 06.09.2001 the c
