S.C.SHARMA vs German Remedies Limited

THIS is a review application preferred by Shri S.C. Sharma, (review applicant hereafter) against the order of this Commission dated 12th August, 97. In this review application filed under Section 13(2) of the MRTP Act (Act for brief), the review applicant seeks revocation of the impugned order dismissing his compensation application. It will be in order to recount the facts of the case leading to the impugned order before taking up the review application for analysis and adjucation.

THE review applicant had moved this Commission seeking compensation under Section 12B of the Act alleging that German Remedies Limited (R1 hereafter) and Sharepro Services (R2 hereafter) had indulged in certain unfair trade practices vesiting him with loss and damage as a consequence. THE review applicant is a registered share holder in the Company R1. He sent 52 shares held in the said Company R1 for consolidation into one certificate of 50 shares and another of two shares. R1 sent the Share Certificates to R2, its share transfer agents. R2 addressed a letter to the review applicant requesting for the original share certificates as there was some discrepancy in its computer files. THE review applicant wrote several letters to R1 and R2 and also made a complaint to the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India. THE review applicant sent photo copies of the shares in question to R2. Alleging that R1 and R2 had not redressed his grievance as he had not received the shares after consolidation, the review applicant lamented that he had been a victim of unfair trade practices attracting Section 36A of the Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 8,840/-. He also claimed compensation towards mental agony undergone by him and cost of litigation. After hearing the parties, the Commission dismissed the compensation application noting that there was no intentional or deliberate unfair method or unfair trade practice on the part of either of the respondents and that the shares had been delivered by the respondents to the review applicant. The dismissal of the compensation application in the impugned order is sought to be revoked in this review application.

The grounds on which the review applicant has based his review application are that the Commission has not dealt with certain issues raised by him like the respondents giving misleading information to the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India, the despatch of Share Certificates, Interest Warrants etc. to a wrong address, the delay in consolidation of shares etc. The remainder of the review application contains by and large the averments made by the review applicant in the original compensation application.

R1 submitted its reply to the review application stating that no new or important matter has been disclosed or for that matter any mistake or error apparent on the face of the impugned order necessitating a review. It has also contended that the review application is baseless and vexatious and has been filed with an ulterior motive of causing inconvenience and expense to the answering respondent. We gave a hearing to Mr. S.C. Sharma, review applicant and Mr. H.D. Pithawala, Advocate for R1.

AT the very out set Mr. H.D. Pithawala, Advocate for R1 contended that there can be no review on the same facts without any new material warranting reconsideration of the impugned order. The ambit and scope of the review power under Section 13(2) of the Act have been succinctly laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited v. The Union of India & Anr., 1993 1 CTJ 182 Supreme Court dated 24th January, 1979. The Apex Court ruled that "however large may (the amplitude of this power, it must be pointed it that it cannot be construed to be so wide as to permit re-hearing on the came material without anything more, with a view to showing that the order is wrong on facts". In the instant review application, the review applicant has mainly intended that the impugned order has not taken into consideration certain facts mentioned in his original compensation application. In fact, in paras 2(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the review application, he has merely listed certain facts and issues which according to him have not been considered by the Commission. There is nothing new by way of facts or circumstances which are subsequent development or which did not find mention in the original compensation application. Thus, what the review applicant wants is a re- hearing on the same material which the Hon''ble Supreme Court has mandated in the Mahindra case (supra) that the Commission has no power to rehear the case on the same material. Even otherwise, we note that the impugned order has dealt with all the points raised in the original compensation application The grievance of the review applicant that the respondents had given a wrong information. The impugned order has also noted that the said consolidation had been completed and that the share certificates delivered to the review applicant even before the impugned order was passed. The arguments advanced by the review applicant during the hearing of review application as well as those advanced in his written submissions are a mere reiteration of his allegations originally averred in the compensation application. As noted earlier in his order, re-hearing of this case on the same material is not permissible under Section 13(2) of he Act following the binding ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Mahindra case (supra). The review application deserves to be and 3 dismissed. Review Application dismissed.