TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... After retirement from the service of Indian Railways, the appellant invested Rs. 1,90,000 in the fully secured debentures floated by respondent No. 1. The debentures were due for payment on 14-8-1998, but just before that date, respondent No. 1, vide its letter dated 16-7-1998, informed the appellant and other similarly situated persons that due to financial difficulties it will not be possible to pay 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi ('the State Commission') with the prayer that respondent No. 1 may be directed to pay the amount due to him with interest and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it was pleaded that due to financial crunch, it was not possible to repay the amount due to the NCD holders. This is evinced from paragraph 3 of the reply which reads thus : "3. In view of the serious financial crunch and cash mis-match, DCM has prepared a restructuring scheme in active consultation with financial institutions and the same has been filed in Hon'ble High Court at New Delhi. Given the revised arrangement for real estate project, the scheme envisaged interest on the aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve 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 has to go bypass surgery be paid without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... State Commission also awarded Rs. 10,000 as cost of litigation. 8. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the State Commission by filing an appeal under section 21 of the 1986 Act but withdrew the same on 25-4-2007. Thereafter, it filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 11-7-2007 on the premise that in the face of the scheme sanctioned by the Company Judge under the Companies Act, the State Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 9. The appellant, who could not appear before the High Court on the date of hearing, i.e., 11-7-2007, filed an application for recall of the aforementioned order, but the same was dismissed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....007. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, argued that even though respondent No. 1 had availed the statutory remedy of appeal, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by entertaining the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution because counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 had assured the High Court on 21-3-2007 that the appeal pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission will be withdrawn and, as a matter of fact, this was done on 25-4-2007. Learned senior counsel then argued that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by setting aside the order of the State Commission because it was contrary to the scheme sanctioned by the learned Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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....