BHABANI CH.AUDDY vs CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE

THE case of the complainant that he was a registered dealer of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited a statutory body formed to manage, conduct and regulate the State of affairs of Calcutta Stock Exchange of which the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 are the office bearers of the Association. THE petitioner was holding Unit Certificate No. 776 which is his personal name. By virtue of the said Unit Certificate the petitioner used to carry his business of registered broker in the Stock Exchange Market. It is alleged by the complainant that the said Unit Certificate No. 776 was lost in February, 1990 and the complainant accordingly applied to the opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 to isssue duplicate of the said Unit Certificate by his letters dt. 3.5.90, 2.5.90 and 9.3.90. It is also the allegation of the complainant that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 assured to issue the duplicate Unit Certificate by their letter dt. 29.3.91. It was also alleged that as per advice of the opposite party No. 1 & 2 the complainant paid Rs. 300/- to them on account of advertisement cost for public notice and advertisement was published in Business Standard on 26.4.91. THE complainant waited for long time giving repeated demands but all were in vain. Hence, the complaint was lodged before this Commission.

THE opposite party inter-alia in its written statements denied all material allegations and mainly pressed upon the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It was contended by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant sold the Unit Certificate to one Shyam Sunder Singhania of 16, India Exchange Place. It was further contention of the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 that the complaint was trying to practice fraud upon the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. In the aforesaid circumstances we passed an order on 11.5.92 in favour of the complainant on the presumption that really the Unit Certificate had been lost from the custody of the complainant. But our said order dt. 11.5.92 was challenged before the Hon''ble High Court whereby our said order was set aside with the direction to afford an opportunity to Mr. Shyam Sunder Singhania who holds the Unit Certificate in his custody consideration. Accordingly the said Mr. Singhania has been added as opposite party No. 3 in the instant proceeding. The written objection filed by the opposite party No. 3 inter-alia is that the complainant has filed this complaint on false and fictions ground of lost of the Unit Certificate. Actually the Unit Certificate No. 776 for registered broker in the share market was sold to the opposite party No. 3 for valuable consideration. It was also averred that original Unit Certificate signed blank transfer Deed were handed over the opposite party No. 3 and since then the Unit Certificate No. 776 is in lawful custody of the opposite party No. 3. It was also averred by the opposite No. 3 that the complainant practiced fraud upon the Ld. Court as well as upon the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. It was also contended that he is lawful owner of Unit Certificate as such keeping custody of the said Certificate is immaterial as he would by the decision of the Hon''ble State Commission.

It is relevant to point out that original Unit Certificate was produced by opposite party No. 3 before us for our inspection. JUDGMENT

THAT in the facts and circumstances of the case we are unable to hold that original Unit Certificate is missing or lost as it was come out from the custody of the opposite party No. 3. Now if the Unit Certificate was sold by the complainant for valuable consideration or was otherwise acquired by the opposite party No. 3 is the issue for decision in the case and the said issue involves the questions of sale, transfer for valuable consideration, possession or custody and recovery of possession or custody etc. which require to be gone into details through Judicial process and cannot be determined in summary proceeding. More so, that the said questions do not fall within ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Further, it is clear that the Unit Certificate was issued to present petitioner by the Stock Exchange Association to act as a broker on its behalf and that issuance may have been against certain fees, as in a case of a license and on the basis of such Unit Certificate the petitioner is doing his business as a broker for his personal gain and this obviously does not come under the preview of the C.P. Act, 1986.

HENCE, the complaint petition fails and we dismiss it with no order as to cost. Complaint Petition dismissed.