Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S Integrated Finance Co.Ltd., vs Krishna Kumar.M., on 17 May, 2010

Daily Order First Appeal No. A/10/33 (Arisen out of order dated 03/07/2009 in Case No. CC 110/06 of District Trissur)

1. Integrated finance Co. Ltd.

....Appellant Versus

1.   Krishnakumar.M ....Respondent BEFORE : 

HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU , PRESIDENT PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUSTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM   APPEAL 33/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17.5.2010   PRESENT JUSTIC SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA              : MEMBER    
1. M/S Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.,               : APPELLANTS     P.B.No.4980, "VAIRAMS"

    112, Thyagaraya Road,     T.Nagar,     Chennai - 6900017.

2. Branch Manager,     M/S Integrated Finance Co.Ltd.,     T.B.Road, Mission Quarters Road,     Thrissur.

 

  
 

(By Adv.S.Reghukumar) 
 

  
 

           Vs. 
 

 Krishna Kumar.M.,                                       :RESPONDENT 
 

Moothedath House, 
 

Nellikunnu.P.O., Thrissur. 
 

(By Adv.Unnikrishnan) 
 

  
 

 JUDGMENT 
 

 JUSTIC SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT 
 

   
 

  
 

The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.110/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 14.16% from 1.4.05 till realization and cost of Rs.1000/-.

2. The complaint has been filed for return of the amount invested with the opposite party Company  in 10 bonds of Rs.1000/- each.  The maturity date was 15.12.2005.  After surrendering the bonds amounts were not paid.

3. The opposite parties/appellants has only contended that the High Court of  Madras  have formulated a scheme in proceedings  under the Companies Act  and that the complainant have to wait  for the rateable distribution.

4. The evidence  adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P4.

5. It was admitted that scheme formulated by the Single Bench has been set aside by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.  The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court.  The appellant has also produced copy of the order of the Supreme Court directing to issue notice.  Evidently there is no stay.  In the circumstances we find there is no scope for further adjudication in the matter.  The appeal is dismissed.

Office is directed to  return the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

 

  
 

JUSTIC SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU    : PRESIDENT 
 

  
 

  
 

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA              : MEMBER 
 

  
 

ps 
 

    
                                  
                                  
                            
                                  
 			  
 						 
 							 
 							     
 							   
 							     
									 

		Pronounced 
										
									 

		 	 Dated the 17 May 2010 
                                     
                                   
                                   
 							     
           
                            
           
           
                                         
                                            
	                    					  
                     
                     

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT