w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bank of Baroda, Through Its Manager, Maharashtra v/s Balaprasad Bansilal Biyani


Company & Directors' Information:- BANK OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1906PLC000243

Company & Directors' Information:- J D BIYANI PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1986PTC040164

Company & Directors' Information:- N BANK LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191WB1924PLC000442

Company & Directors' Information:- P N N BANK LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65921TZ1948PLC000153

Company & Directors' Information:- G BIYANI & CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1949PLC017568

Company & Directors' Information:- CORPORATION BANK LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1972PLC001067

Company & Directors' Information:- K AND C BANK LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U65191KL1928PLC000529

Company & Directors' Information:- THE BANK OF BARODA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1911PLC007676

Company & Directors' Information:- CORPORATION BANK LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1936PTC002552

    Revision Petition No. 2590 of 2013

    Decided On, 29 July 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Praveena Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent: Shirish K. Deshpande, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Oral:

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 9.4.2008 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner bank against the order of the District Forum dated 19.12.2001 was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner bank had not impleaded the legal representatives of the complainant who had expired after the order of the District Forum and during pendency of the appeal before the State Commission.

2. On merits, the case of the complainant/respondent is that he had purchased debentures of a company, namely, M/s Alpic Finance Ltd. which were not redeemed on their maturity. Since the petitioner bank was the trustee appointed by the company for the purpose of the debentures issued by it, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint impleading the petitioner bank as the sole opposite party.

3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank which interalia stated in its reply that it had not guaranteed the redemption of the debentures and its duty was only to hold and if required sell the security offered by a company, as a trustees for the benefit of the denture holder.

4. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed in the manner stated hereinabove, the petitioner bank is before this Commission.

5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner bank is that in its capacity as a trustees, the bank had filed a Civil Suit in Bombay High Court and had been able to realize more than Rs.30 crores by sale of assets of the company, which the bank had deposited that the Official Liquidator attached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the orders had been passed for disbursal of the said amount to the debentures holder. However, no order of the High Court has been placed on record.

6. It is an admitted position that though the deceased respondent expired on 15.9.2002 intimation of the death was not given to the bank prior to 12.7.2007. Therefore, the bank did not come to know of his death and that resulted the bank having not been able to seek impleadment of his legal representatives.

7. The legal representatives of the deceased complainant have already been impleaded in this revision petition.

8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are impleaded in the appeal which the petitioner bank had filed before the State Commission. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal of the petitioner bank on merits, subject to the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

petitioner bank paying a sum of Rs.35,000/- as cost to the respondents within four weeks from today. The parties shall appear before the State Commission on 21.9.2020. Considering the age of the case, the State Commission shall decide the appeal within three months of the parties appearing before it.
O R