TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (10) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. 48 of 1995 which is disposed of before referring to the facts of the case. 2. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay in filing, the appeal was filed. During pendency of the appeal, another application for condonation of delay was filed. The applications have been opposed. As to whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, brief facts of the main case also deserves to be noticed. The complainants applied for 100 shares of the company, Indian Petrochemi-cals Corpn. Ltd., Gujarat. Since after allotment of the shares, the same were not received by the complainant, they filed the complaint before the District Forum. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Written stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants as there existed acknowledgement due receipt on the record. It was asserted in the second application that the certified copy alleged to have been sent by the District Forum was misplaced and did not reach the department concerned of the appellants. The counsel for the appellants visited District Forum on 21-8-1995 and obtained another certified copy from the District Forum which was filed in this appeal and taken on the record. Reference was also made to some of the letters written by the appellants to the District Forum in the meantime intimating non-receipt of certified copy of the order. While opposing these applications the complainants have taken up the stand that there was no sufficient cause shown for condonation of del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for allotment of 100 shares of the appellant-company from Jalandhar where they are residing. The shares were allotted but the same were not received by the appellants that they filed the present complaints. As already stated above, the appellants filed reply by post and inter alia raised preliminary objections that the District Forum, Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and furthermore there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants as they had despatched the shares allotted by registered post and such registered covers were not received back undelivered. Subsequently, share money was called from the com-plainants and duplicate shares were also sent. 5. Since the matter remained pending before the Dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants as after allotment of the shares, the same were sent by registered post to the complainants. However, registered envelops were not received back undelivered. There is force in both these conten- tions. No basis were made in the complaint to indicate any cause of action or part thereof having arisen in the territory within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Jalandhar. The only fact that stands mentioned in the complaints is about the residence of the complainants at Jalandhar and that the applications alongwith some amount for allotment of shares was sent from Jalandhar to the appellant-company which is in Gujarat. Otherwise none of the opposite parties had their registered offices or branch offices in District Jalandhar. Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the share certificates after allotment were sent to the complainants and the registered envelops were not received back undelivered. No rejoinder was filed by the complainants to the written statement filed by the appellant in this respect. The mere fact that the complainants had not received share certificates as alleged by the appel-lant-company per se cannot amount to deficiency of rendering services by the appellant-company. More so, when the alleged shares as per stand of the appellant were despatched by registered post, if there was any fault on the part of the Postal Authorities in delaying the delivery of the letter or the letter was refused by the complainants, no fault lies with the appellant-company. It could not be held th....