1999 (2) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....) MAMATA LAKSHMANNA, MEMBERS   S. Nagesh Reddy for the Appellants. ORDER Rao, President - F.A. Nos. 621 to 626 of 1997 are preferred against the separate orders of the Cuddapah District in O.P. Nos. 355 to 360 of 1996 all dated 4-6-1997, by the opposite parties in those OPs, who are common. The complainants in the OPs are the respondents in these appeals. The complainants approac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... date of payment. The appellants received notice and appeared before the District Forum and filed separate ver-sions/counters. They contented that so far as payments of dividend are concerned, the shareholders were not consumers within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act') because no hiring of services for consideration was involved. They also s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... payment. 3. We are of the view that no hiring of services of the Company for consideration was involved in respect of payment of dividend by the Company to its shareholders. Dividend is declared in respect of any particular financial year at the general meeting - usually at the annual general meeting - and payment of the same is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Companies....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid or unclaimed dividend. In Hanuman Prasad v. Hiralal AIR 1971 SC 206, the Supreme Court has held that section 207 casts an obligation on a Company to pay the dividend declared to the shareholder entitled thereto within 42 days from its declaration and that a dividend once declared is a debt payable by a Company to its registered shareholders and that cause of action for failure to pay the same....