NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 55 OF 2006
With
I.A. NO. 1 OF 2012
(Framing of issues and for permission to cross examination)
Shrikant G. Manti
303, Shyamkamal “A”
Tejpal Road,
Vile Parle (East)
Mumbai – 400 057 …Complainant
Versus
Punjab National Bank
Investment Cell, PNB House,
Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001 … Opp. Party
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Ms. Sunil Gangan & Ms. Suchi
Singh, Advocates
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Rashi Bansal and Mr. Sameer, Advocates
PRONOUNCED ON 18th OCTOBER, 2012
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
Opposite party moved an application and submitted that complainant filed complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency of service by not returning the pledged 3,75,000 shares of ITC Ltd. though, in fact, shares were never pledged by the complainant against the overdraft facility but were given as security in the Arbitrage account. It was further submitted that in this matter issues are still to be framed and as counter reply has been filed by the complainant and evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the parties, and written arguments are to be filed by the opposite party, opposite party may be permitted to cross-examine complainant as he has made contradictory averments in the complaint, written letters and submissions in various cases before courts.
2. Complainant filed reply to this application and submitted that opposite party’s contention regarding pledge of shares for arbitrage portfolio has been rejected by the Arbitrator, Appellate Authorities and also by Hon’ble Apex Court. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit in the year 2006 and opposite party also filed affidavit by way of evidence without making any request for cross-examination of parties, hence, this application which has been filed only with an intention to delay the hearing of the case may be rejected. Opposite party was directed to file written submissions but instead of complying with the directions given by this Commission, he has moved this belated application for the purpose of confusing Commission and delaying disposal of complaint, hence, application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Complainant filed complaint alleging deficiency of service by opposite party by not returning the pledged shares. Opposite party’s main contention was that shares were given as security in the Arbitrage account has been rejected by Arbitration Tribunal and this order was upheld right up to Apex Court. The question of return of alleged pledged shares against the overdraft facility is still to be decided by this Commission and for this purposes parties have filed evidence by way of affidavit. No doubt, evidence was filed by way of affidavit in the year 2006 and this application for cross-examination of the complainant has been filed after 6 years which is very belated application, but in the interest of justice permission for cross-examination of complainant should be given as there may be some contradictory averments in the complaint, written letters and submissions before various forums. Complainant has prayed in his complaint that opposite party may be directed to return 3,75,000 shares of ITC Ltd. along with dividend and in the alternative it has been prayed that in the event shares have been sold by the opposite party, opposite party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.7.50 crores being present market price of the said shares. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has also drawn our attention towards letter dated 30.3.2001 written by complainant to the Chairman of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. which was taken over by opposite party in which this fact has been mentioned that this Company will come with IPO at premium of Rs.90/- per share whereas complainant can sell shares @ 70/- per share. Market rate of shares have changed from the year 2001 to 2012 and in such circumstances, in the interest of justice, permission for cross-examination of the complainant should be given to the opposite party. As the application has been filed after 6 years, exemplary cost should be imposed on the opposite party.
5. Consequently, I.A. No. 1/2012 filed by the opposite party is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. Opposite party is allowed to cross-examine complainant by submitting questionnaire to which reply shall be filed by the complainant on oath.
6. List the matter before the Registrar on 27.11.2012.
..………………Sd/-……………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
..……………Sd/-………………
( SURESH CHANDRA)
MEMBER
k
