State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd. vs Kumudha Bhaskaran And Others on 1 March, 2012
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF MARCH 2012
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
Appeal No.233/2012
M/s. Karvy Computershare Pvt. Ltd.
No. 51/2, T.K.N. Complex, Vani Vilas Road, Opp. National
College, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, Karnataka, India 560004
Also at Skanda, No. 59, Puttanna Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560004
(By Shri/Smt S.R.
Sundar Ram)
1. Kumudha
Bhaskaran
W/o. T.
Bhaskaran, Jebel
Ali Port,
P.O. Box 3258, Dubai,
U.A.E.
Represented by
GPA Holder G.T.
Harikrishnan,
S/o. Late G. Thangavelu,
R/at NO. 393,
5th Main, West of Chord
Road, 2nd
Stage, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore 560086.
2. T. Bhaskaran,
S/o. Late G. Thangavelu
Aged about 53
years, Rep. by GPA
Holder G.T.
Harikrishnan, S/o.
Late G.
Thangavelu, R/at no. 393,
5th Main, West of Chord
Road,
2nd Stage,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore 560086.
3. G.T. Suresh,
S/o. Late G. Thangavelu
Aged about 45
years, Rep. by GPA
Holder G.T.
Harikrishnan, S/o.
Late G.
Thangavelu, R/at no. 393,
5th Main, West of Chord
Road, 2nd
Stage,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore 560086.
4. Sterlite
Industries ( India)
Ltd.
Rep. by its
Company Secretary,
having its
registered office at B-10/4,
Waluj, MIDC
Industrial Area, Waluj,
District, Aurangabad 43113.
Opposite Party No.1 before the DF
.Appellant/s
-Versus-
R-1 to 3 are Complainants & R-4 is Opposite Party 2 before the DF
.Respondent/s
O R D E R
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This appeal is filed by OP-1 to set aside the order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban III Additional in execution Petition No.131/2011 arising out of Complaint No.396/09 on various grounds.
2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of seven days explaining the reasons for the delay supported by an affidavit of Sri.G.N.Sridhar, the authorized representative of the appellant.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on admission and perused the records. The point that arises for our consideration whether there is any prima facie case to entertain th is appeal.
4. The case of the respondents is that they filed a complaint against this appellant and OP-2 under Section 12 of the CP Act that is in Complaint No.396/09. After contest, the complaint filed by the respondents came to be allowed holding that the complainants are entitled for restoration of the shares by recalling the order of cancellation of shares by the appellant / OP and OP-2 and directed to restore those shares bearing Nos.04006608 to 040066707 and bearing Nos.040369208 to 040369307 and further directed to give all the benefits to respondents 1 to 3 relating to the said shares if the shares were never cancelled and directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses and to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of the impugned order. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 filed the execution petition No.131/11 for enforcement of the order passed on 17th February 2010.
5. Before the DF, on service of notice OP-1 was present.
OP-2 sought for time. On 6.1.2012, the DF ordered for NBW against the appellant herein who is the OP-1 before the DF. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is only a facilitating agent acting as per the instructions of fourth respondent. Unless the shares transferred to him by other Ops it cannot transfer them. The same cannot be accepted. The appellant ought to have agitated to put forth such a contention before the DF. After passing the order against the appellant and other Ops his contention cannot be accepted.
6. A reading of the order sheet produced by the appellant discloses that the DF has not followed the procedure. If the JDR fails to comply the award of decree passed by the DF, show cause notice is to be issued to the JDR. After appearance if the JDRS fails to comply the award, the Decree Holder is to take steps by invoking the provisions of Section 200 Cr.PC r/w 27 of the CP Act to register a complaint to take cognizance of the case.
Thereafter the DF is required to record the sworn statement of the decree holders / complainants on the complaint filed under section 200 Cr. P.C.
7. After considering the prima facie case, the matter requires for issuance of show cause notice once again and secures the presence of JDRS, if it fails to comply the order, then the remedy available for the DF to convict and sentence it for non compliance of the order by following the procedures contemplated in Cr. P.C. But such a procedure has not been adopted by the DF.
8. In spite of decided law on this point by the Honorable High Court as well as this Commission in the case of M/s Vyalikaval House Building Co operative Society Ltd v- B.R.Manjashetty and 20 others in A.Nos.611/2010 and other connected appeals vide order dated 26.7.2010. The above said judgments also reported in 2011 CPC Page 436. So also the DF passed the order in the execution petition without following the precedent law laid down by the High Court of Karnataka and the orders passed by this Commission in the aforesaid appeals. Therefore, the order passed by the DF in the execution petition dated 6.1.2012 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban III Additional on 6.1.2012 in EP No.131/2011 is set aside.
The matter is remanded back with a direction to the DF that after filing of the complaint to take cognizance by the decree holders, record sworn statement and then proceed to pass orders as per the guidelines issued by the Honorable High Court of Karnataka as well as this Commission as stated above.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Rhr*