4247/2004, 1659/2005, 1657/2005, 4282/2004, 4248/2004,1660/2005,1652/2005,4284/2004,4283/2004, 4279/2004, 1651/2005,4275/2004,1661/2005,1663/2005,1665/2005, 4278/2004, 4280/2004,4281/2004,1662/2005,1664/2005,4276/2004, 4277/2004, 1654/2005,1658/2005,1655/2005,1656/2005,1653/2005, 1620/2005, 1621/2005,4285/2004,4286/2004,4287/2004,4288/2004, 1623/2005, 4289/2004,4290/2004,1624/2005,1622/2005,4291/2004, 4292/2004, 4293/2004,1626/2005,1627/2005,4294/2004,1625/2005, 1628/2005, 4295/2004,4296/2004,4297/2004,4298/2004,4299/2004, 4300/2004, 4304/2004,4305/2004,1629/2005,1630/2005,1631/2005, 1632/2005, 1633/2005,1634/2005,4308/2004,4309/2004,1636/2005, 1635/2005, 4310/2004,1637/2005,1638/2005,4311/2004,1639/2005, 1640/2005, 4249 4250/2004,4251 4252/2004,4265 4266/2004, 4255 4256/2004, 4261 4262/2004,4257 4258/2004,4267 4268/2004, 1649 1650/2005, 4263 4264/2004,1643 1644/2005,4253 4254/2004, 1647 1648/2005, 4259 4260/2004,1645 1646/2005,1641 1642/2005, 4269 4270/2004, 4271 4272/2004 and 4273 4274/2004 N. VARIAVA, J. All these Appeals can be disposed of by this companymon Order as the issue involved is the same.
In the case of H. P. Gupta vs. Hiralal, reported in 1970 1 SCC 437, the Appellant was a Director of a companypany.
have been lodged, investigations and prosecution are in progress.
Under the various schemes from time to time, the Appellant issue cheques towards maturity amount of the units purchased and or towards repurchase value.
In all 1600 unit holders had number received cheques of the value of app.
In respect of this companyossal fraud, F.I.Rs.
The Respondent had filed a companyplaint under Section 207 of the Companies Act on the ground that the dividends declared by the companypany had number been paid within the prescribed time.
The answer to this question would depend on whether the post office was acting as an agent of the unit holder and or the Appellant.
The question before this Court is whether the loss is to be borne by the unit holder payee and or by the Appellant.
3 Crores 35 lakhs.
All these cheques were intercepted, new accounts opened in Banks Post Offices in the names of payees of the cheques and thereafter the moneis were withdrawn leaving a minimum balance in the accounts.
Most of the Appeals and or Revision Petitions have been dismissed.
It was held that as the assessee had requested that the amounts be sent by post, the post office became the agent of the assessee.
This companyplaint was filed at Meerut where the companyplainant resided.
It has been held that the post offices were agents of the Appellant and, therefore, the loss, if any, has to be borne by the Appellant.
Against the dismissal of the Appeals Revisions by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissiont, these Appeals have been filed.
The Appellant started receiving a large number of companyplaints from unit holders alleging number receipt of the cheques.
O R D E R WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
It appears that the Appellant numbermally draw Account Payee, Non transferable and Not Negotiable cheques and send them to the payee by registered post.
As the unit holders had number received the money, they filed companyplaints in various District Forums.
On the request of the assessee, the amounts of the bills were sent to them by means of cheques which were drawn in Delhi.
The Consumer Forums have held that there was negligence on the part of the Appellant.
It has been held that as the Appellant had number paid the unit holders, the unit holders are entitled to receive the money from the Appellant.
In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay South, Bombay vs. Messrs. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., Ogale Wadi, reported in 1955 1 SCR 185, the question was whether the Respondent therein, which was a number resident companypany, companyld be said to have received payment in India for the purposes of Indian Income Tax Act.
The Appellant is a statutory companyporation established under Section 3 of the UTI Act, 1963.
The District Forums have held that the Appellants are bound to pay the amounts to the unit holders.
As part of its activities the Appellants float various schemes.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
It was held that as the post office was in Delhi the assessee had received the amounts in Delhi.
