Delhi District Court
Sh. Anil Kumar vs Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd on 22 March, 2012
In the Court of Sh. Jitendra Mishra: Additional Senior Civil
Judge of New Delhi District at Patiala House Courts, New
Delhi
Suit No. 175/10
Sh. Anil Kumar,
R/o. H. No. 48, Police Line,
Sector-30, Faridabad, Haryana. .......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd.
11th Floor, Arunachal Building,
Barakhamba Building,
New Delhi. ......Defendant
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT :
Vide this order I propose to pass final orders in this suit for recovery and damages.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the month of January 2008 the defendant launched Initial Public Offering (IPO) and the said offering was advertised as a lucrative business proposal and as per advice given by the agent of defendant the plaintiff has applied for the 225 shares on cut of price on 16.01.2008 vide bid cum application no.
Page 1 41982242 of Reliance Power Limited. It is submitted that the plaintiff has also issued a cheque bearing no. 899240 for Rs.25875/- (twenty five thousand eight hundred seventy five only) drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. at Sector-15, Faridabad, Haryana in favour of Reliance Power IPO. It is submitted that the said cheque was duly honoured by the bankers of the defendant. Copy of the bank statement is enclosed with the plaint.
It is submitted that defendant did not allot share to the plaintiff nor the money was refunded to the plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff has several times visited the office of all the defendants at Delhi to enquire as about the status of the plaintiff or whether the company is allotting share to the plaintiff. The office bearers of the defendant did not disclose any information to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has made so many complaint to the defendant but the defendant did not bother to look into the grievances of the plaintiff at last the plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 04.04.2009 to the defendant through his counsel and hence the suit.
3. The defendant Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd. in its W.S. claimed in preliminary objections that the opposite party has raised certain preliminary objections to the effect Page 2 that there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the registered office of the opposite party is situated at Secunderabad in light of provision of Companies Act. The reliance is placed on H.V. Jayaram Vs. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, X (1999) SLT 474 = AIR 2000 SC 579; Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. Vs. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta (HUT) and Others, I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC) = 1996 NCJ 314.
It is also submitted that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under the provisions of the Depository Act 1996 the relevant provision reads as under:-
" 2 3E. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction.
No civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a securities Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."
Page 3 It is submitted that present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. beneficiary whose name was disclosed by the plaintiff himself and balance amount of Rs.18995/- (eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety five only) has been remitted through ECS sequence no. 1036754996 on 09.02.2008 into the bank account no. 003701505341 maintained with the ICICI Bank as available with his beneficiary account no. 1201090001819681 which was provided by plaintiff in bid cum application form in his application which was duly intimated to him vide the defendant's letter dated 23.03.2010 which has been concealed by the plaintiff.
It is submitted that the defendant had informed the plaintiff vide letter dated 23.03.2010 that balance amount of Rs.18995/- (eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety five only) has been remitted through ECS sequence no. 1036754996 on 09.02.2008 into the bank account no. 003701505341 maintained with the ICICI Bank as available with his beneficiary account no. 1201090001819681 which was provided by plaintiff in bid cum application form in his application since the plaintiff had quoted/given incorrect and wrong depository account with a Depository Participant (DP) Page 4 along with a Demat Request Form (DRF)., which was accordingly done by the opposite party as per the details supplied by the applicant/plaintiff in their application form and it is prayed that present suit be dismissed.
4. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed on 18.05.2011 by Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.
25,875/- as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.
10,000/- towards damages as prayed for? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
6. Relief.
7. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions made. My findings issue wise are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1:- Whether this court has no territorial Page 5 jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD.
Onus to prove this issue was on defendant. The defendant has claimed that its registered office is situated at Secunderabad and in view of the same and relying upon H.V. Jayaram Vs. Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, X (1999) SLT 474 = AIR 2000 SC 579; Rajaram Corn Producers Punjab Ltd. Vs. Suryakant Nitin Kumar Gupta (HUT) and Others, I (1996) CPJ 233 (NC) = 1996 NCJ 314 and has claimed that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff had does not denied the contention of the defendant that this Court have the jurisdiction. However the defendant has failed to substantiate his contentions with legal arguments and evidence. In facts of the case the judgmens cited by defendant do not help them and issue is held as not proved.
ISSUE NO. 2:- Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
Onus to prove this issue was on defendant. The defendant has claimed that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. However the plaintiff has denied the same.
It is clear that defendant has failed to lead any Page 6 evidence on the issue and advance any arguments to substantiate its contention and defendant has only taken bald objection. Accordingly issue is decided as not proved. ISSUE NO. 3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 25,875/- as prayed for? OPP. ISSUE No. 4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages as prayed for? OPP.
ISSUE No. 5:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest, if yes, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
Being interlinked and interconnected, these issues are taken up together. Onus to prove these issues were on plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled to recovery of Rs.25875/- (twenty five thousand eight hundred seventy five only) and damages of Rs.10000/- (ten thousand only) along with interest. However defendant has denied the same. However the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence on the issues that he is entitled to recovery and interest as claimed. Accordingly it is clear that plaintiff has failed to prove the issues and accordingly issues are decided as not proved.
RELIEF.
Based on aforesaid, it is clear that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his case. Hence, the suit of the Page 7 plaintiff is dismissed. Let the decree sheet be drawn and file be consigned to record room thereafter.
Announced in the open court JUDGE
on 22.03.2012. Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi
Page 8