2000 (1) TMI 901 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Complaint regarding suspension of Children's Gift Growth Fund scheme.
2. Allegation of deficiency in service by the opposite party.
3. Interpretation of clause (33) of the Scheme under the Unit Trust of India Act.
4. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel.
5. Determination of benefits accruing to the child despite scheme suspension.
6. District Forum's directions for compensation and interest.

Analysis:

1. The appeals involved complaints related to the suspension of the Children's Gift Growth Fund scheme by the opposite party. The complainants alleged deficiency in service due to the suspension of the scheme, which they joined on behalf of their grandchildren or daughter. They sought directions for the scheme to continue and compensation for the inconvenience caused.

2. The opposite party defended their actions by citing clause (33) of the Scheme, which allowed them to terminate the scheme at any time by giving a notice of not less than two weeks in leading English dailies. They argued that the suspension was in line with the scheme's provisions and the Unit Trust of India Act, thus not constituting deficiency in service.

3. The interpretation of clause (33) of the Scheme was crucial in determining the legality of the scheme suspension. The clause granted the opposite party the right to terminate the scheme without assigning any reason if deemed necessary in the interest of unit holders. The public notice of suspension published in a leading daily was considered consistent with the clause, allowing the opposite party to exercise their rights.

4. The application of the principle of promissory estoppel was considered in light of the suspension of the scheme. The National Commission's decision in a similar case held that when a scheme is framed under statutory powers, the principle of promissory estoppel does not apply, supporting the opposite party's actions.

5. Despite the scheme suspension, the benefits accruing to the child under clauses (A) and (B) of the Scheme were deemed to continue. The benefits included dividends and bonuses, which were assured to the child even if the scheme was suspended, ensuring that the child's interests were protected.

6. The District Forum had directed the opposite party to refund the contributions with interest and award compensation for mental agony. However, upon finding that the scheme suspension was consistent with the scheme's provisions, the appeals were allowed, and the directions for compensation were set aside, leading to the dismissal of the complaints.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legality of the scheme suspension, upheld the opposite party's actions as per the scheme's provisions, and dismissed the complaints alleging deficiency in service.