Girdhari Lal Sharma vs INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter, referred to as District Forum-II, for short) dated 17.4.2002 in Complaint Case No. 319 of 1999, Girdhari Lal Sharma v. IFCI Ltd. and Another.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant avers that he is the holder of 100 shares of IFCI Folio No. 1818665 (Transfer No. 2087382 dated 24th April, 1996). He received the dividend on these shares for the year 1995-96 in the month of Nov., 1996. However, the O.Ps. have not paid him the dividend due for the years 96-97 and 97-98 inspite of his sending them reminders, even though in a telephone conversation, he was assured by the Delhi office of the O.P. Company that he will get the dividends in a week''s time due to the non-payment of due dividend, the complainant filed the complaint and prayed for Rs. 600/- to be paid to him as divdend for the two years in question. Both the O.Ps. filed a joint written statement in which it has been pleaded that dividends for the years 96-97 and 97-98 are being kept in abeyance on account of a suit pending in the Ahemdabad City Court filed by one M/s. Tirupati Trade Comm. (P.) Ltd. in which shares held by the complainant form a part of the subject matter. The ownership of these 100 shares is in question and the City Civil Court, Ahemdabad has passed an ad interim injunction restraining the transfer of the shares involved in that suit which is yet not finally disposed off. The O.Ps. contend that under Section 207 of the Companies Act, despatch of devidend can be held in abeyance when there is a dispute regarding the right to receiving the same and this situation was explained to the complainant.

Having perused the photo copy of the interim order dated 3.4.1998 passed by City Civil Court, Ahemdabad in Civil Suit No. 1792 of 1998. Notice of Motion No. 1566 of 1988 titled as "Tirupati Trade Comm. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. and Another" learned District Forum-II held that prima facie, the O.Ps. are justified in withholding the payment of dividend for the aforesaid years to the complainant under Section 207 of the Companies Act and hence dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by this order of District Forum-II, the complainant filed this appeal. Appeal was taken on board and record of the complaint case was summoned from District Forum-II. Notices were served on the respondents. Mr. G.L. Sharma appellant/complainant appeared in person, whereas, Mr. Mukesh Ahluwalia, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents. After hearing the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents, we found that particulars relating to the civil suit, which is alleged to have been filed in the City Court of Ahemdabad in respect of the hundred shares, which are claimed in this complaint, have not been placed on record of District Forum-II. Neither certified copy of the plaint nor certified copy of the writen statement filed by the respondents who are said to be defendants in that case, have been filed. It was also clarified that this Commission requires the certified copy of the interim order duly issued by the concerned Civil Court and a photocopy of the order attested by the Counsel of the respondents provided to the District Forum-II is not sufficient. Hence, the respondents were asked to place these documents on record for perusal of the Commission. These documents were produced before this Commission on 20.8.2002. However, we found that the documents were illegible. These were, therefore, returned with the directions that legible copies be filed. However, on 20.9.2002, learned Counsel for the respondents expressed inability to obtain legible copies of the documents and requested hearing of the appeal on merit.

THE appellant submitted that he is not a party in the civil suit pending in the City Civil Court, Ahemdabad and ownership of his shares is not disputed as he is still being shown as the owner of the aforesaid shares in the records of the O.P. Company. Moreover, the dividends in question pertain to years 96-97 and 97-98 whereas the interim order is dated 3.4.1998. He, therefore, prayed for the appeal to be allowed. Learned Counsel for the respondents reiterated their stand that the title of the shares in question was in dispute and the matter is pending before the City Civil Court, Ahemdabad. He further contended that the O.P. company is semi-Government Company and it will honour its commitments towards the owner of the shares when the Civil Court decides the civil suit. We find that even though the appellant/complainant has claimed that his 100 shars are not the subject matter of the Civil Court case he has not produced any evidence to affirm this nor has he approached the concerned Civil Court to be impleaded as a party or seek a clarification on this isue. On the other hand, we find that there is on record a photo copy of the interim order of the City Civil Court Ahemdabad duly stamped by the Court Stamp, albeit attested by the Counsel of the respondent, restraining any transfer of the share certificates. This when viewed in conjunction with the sworn affidavit of Sh. S.P. Gupta, AGM (Law), IFCI Ltd. wherein it is clearly mentioned that 100 shares of the appellant/complainant are part of the subject matter of the aforesaid Civil Court case, the semi-Government status of the company and the assurance of the respondents regarding honouring their commitment to the rightful owner on finalisation of the Court case does indicate that there is no deficiency on the part of the respondents/O.Ps. in withholding the dividend due for 96-97 and 97-98. The impugned order of learned District Forum-II, therefore, does not call for any interference and is upheld. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of the charges. Appeal dismissed.