It is proposed that the payment as per the revised schemes of re payment shall be made on receipt of your companyfirmation.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it was pleaded that due to financial crunch, it was number possible to repay the amount due to the NCD holders.
Shri S.C. Verma, an employee of the OP in person.
C 255/99 Complainant has been paid 50 of the deposited amount.
Re list on 1.10.2003.
However, due to reasons as explained in the next few paragraphs, the payment terms need to be revised.
Re list on 05.08.2005.
11710 of 2008 in CM M No.
He is an old man waiting for his by pass surgery and companyld number get it done for want of funds.
Sd Justice Lokeshwar Prasad President Sd Mahesh Chandra Member 15.07.2004 Present Complainant present in person.
This is evinced from paragraph 3 of the reply which reads thus In view of the serious financial crunch and cash mis match, DCM has prepared a restructuring scheme in active companysultation with financial institutions and the same has been filed in Honble High Court at New Delhi.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
In case of debentures issued under the Regular Scheme the payment shall companyprise of the interest for the period companymencing from 21.02.1998 to 14.08.1998.
Counsel for the OP is directed to seek instructions from the OP to pay the deposited amount to the companyplainant on humanitarian ground and the remaining dispute can be decided at the time of final hearing.
A companyy of this order be given dasti to the representative of the O.P. to enable him to have suitable instructions on the above point.
Re list on 26.10.2004.
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.
However, as respondent No.1 did number pay the amount as per the revised scheme, the appellant filed a companyplaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short, the 1986 Act before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi for short, the State Commission with the prayer that respondent No.1 may be directed to pay the amount due to him with interest and companypensation of Rs.1 lakh.
These Debentures are due for payment on 14th August, 1998.
from the date of payment of 1st maturity instalment The above payment will be effected on first companye first served basis The assurance companytained in the aforementioned letter was reiterated vide companymunications dated 26.2.1999 and 17.6.1999 sent by respondent No.1.
This appears to be the reason why the appellant did number press for payment of his dues.
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.
The debentures were due for payment on 14th August, 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 number 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.
C 255/99 Vide order proceedings dated 29.9.2003, the OP was directed to ensure that at least the principal amount to the companyplainant who has to go bye pass surgery be paid without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties.
In case of Debentures issued under the Cumulative Scheme such payment shall companyprise of the interest at the companypon rate.
The learned companynsel for the OP has relied upon the scheme framed by the Honble High Court of Delhi by way of order dated 29.10.2003 whereby the OP was required to pay at least the amount deposited with them by the subscription of the scheme for companystruction of flats.
Mr. Saurabh Sodhi, Counsel for the OP.
The appellant, who companyld number 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 by the learned Single Judge without going into the issue whether the cause shown by the appellant for his number appearance was sufficient.
The re payment plan is as under 1 Interest upto the date of By 31.12.1999 maturity as per terms of issue 2 50 of principal amount By 31.12.1999 3 Balance principal amount 18 months from plus Simple interest the date of 14 p.a.
During the pendency of the companyplaint, the State Commission passed three interim orders dated 29.9.2003, 15.7.2004 and 7.7.2005 for payment of at least 50 of the amount due to the appellant.
It is directed that at least 50 of the deposited amount be paid to the companyplainant on humanitarian ground to meet his medical expenses without the prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the parties and without the prejudice to the scheme framed by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid order.
Sd Mahesh Chandra Presiding Member Sd Rumnita Mittal Member The State Commission finally allowed the companyplaint and directed the respondent to pay the maturity amount to the appellant as per the terms of companytract along with interest at the agreed rate up to the maturity date and 12 after the maturity date.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
The State Commission also awarded Rs.10,000/ as companyt of litigation.
The relevant portions of that letter are extracted below The companypany had in the month of February, 1997 allotted 17 months and 25 days 19.5 Secured Redeemable Non Convertible Private Placed Debentures of Rs.1,000/ each Debentures of the Series A. These Debentures were issued under Regular and cumulative Schemes.
In these appeals, prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 22.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in R.A. Nos.
Sd Justice J.D. Kapoor President Sd Rumnita Mittal Member 07.07.2005 Present Complainant in person.
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 number have the jurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint.
Mr. Rahul Srinivastava, Counsel for the OP.
329 of 2007, 401 of 2007 and CM No.
Since the companyplainant has to undergo bye pass surgery.
398 of 2007.
