TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the amount of maturity on the scheduled dates and a revised scheme has been worked out for payment of the dues. The relevant portions of that letter are extracted below : "The company had in the month of February, 1997 allotted 17 months and 25 days-19.5 per cent secured redeemable non-convertible private placed debentures of Rs. 1,000 each (debentures) of the series 'A'. These debentures were issued under regular and cumulative schemes. These debentures are due for payment on 14-8-1998. However, due to reasons as explained in the next few paragraphs, the payment terms need to be revised. It is proposed that the payment as per the revised schemes of re-payment shall be made on receipt of your confirmation. In case of debentures issued under the cumulative scheme such payment shall comprise of the interest at the coupon rate. In case of debentures issued under the regular scheme the payment shall comprise of the interest for the period commencing from 21-2-1998 to 14-8-1998. The re-payment plan is as under : 1. Interest up to the date of maturity as per terms of issue by 31-12-1999 2. 50% of principal amount by 31-12-1999 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r cent of the amount due to the appellant. These orders read as under : "29-9-2003 Present: Complainant in person along with counsel Mr. Arya Girdhari. Shri S.C. Verma, an employee of the OP in person. C-255/99 It is stated by the complainant that he has to undergo bypass surgery on priority basis which cannot be postponed and therefore, he requests on the ground of compassion that at least the principal amount be paid to him on priority. Shri S.C. Verma who is appearing on behalf of the OP, is directed to seek instructions on the above point to ensure that in view of the above fact, at least the principal amount, without prejudice to rights and conditions of the parties, is paid to the complainant. A copy of this order be given dasti to the representative of the O.P. to enable him to have suitable instructions the above point. Re-list on 1-10-2003. Sd/- (Justice Lokeshwar Prasad) President Sd/- (Mahesh Chandra) Member 15-7-2004. Present : Complainant present in person. Mr. Rahul Srinivastava, Counsel for the OP. C-255/99 Vide order/proceedings dated 29-9-2003, the OP was directed to ensure that at least the principal amount to the complainant who h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Single Judge without going into the issue whether the cause shown by the appellant for his non-appearance was sufficient. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the outset, we deem it proper to mention that during the course of hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 produced fax copy of letter dated 10-4-2008 allegedly written by the appellant to Shri Kirat S. Nagra, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 admitting that he has received full amount, but learned counsel appearing for the appellant emphatically asserted that the amount due to his client has not been paid. 11. Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the petition filed by respondent No. 1 under Article 227 of the Constitution ignoring that respondent No. 1 had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal. Learned counsel submitted that there was no extraordinary reason which could justify entertaining of a petition by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by making a departure from the settled law that it will not entertain a petition under Articl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or adjudication of consumer disputes, the remedy of appeal available to a person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission cannot but be treated as an effective alternative remedy. 13. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 had availed the alternative remedy available to it under section 21 by filing an appeal against the order of the State Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 1 chose to challenge the order of the State Commission by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was entertained by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the assurance given by the learned counsel that the appeal filed before the National Commission will be withdrawn. The order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21-3-2007 or the one by which the petition filed by respondent No. 1 was finally disposed of does not contain any indication as to why the learned Single Judge thought it proper to make a departure from the rule that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In our view, during the pendency of the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 u....