9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Consideration of interest on dividend in the application 2. Non-dealing with the prayer in the impugned order 3. Interpretation of the consent order terms 4. Jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 5. Appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequent application dismissal Analysis: 1. The senior counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider the prayer for interest on dividend made in the application. The application specifically demanded interest on the admitted amount deposited before the Court, citing provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The grievance was that the impugned order did not address this prayer, leading to dissatisfaction with the judgment. 2. The impugned order focused on a clause from a previous agreement recorded in a Company Petition, which outlined conditions for refunding interest in case of a decree against a party. Since no such decree had been passed, the Court found no further orders necessary. This led to a perception of non-application of mind initially, but upon closer analysis, it was deemed appropriate in the context of the facts of the case. 3. The consent order resulting from the winding-up petition detailed the terms agreed upon by the parties, including the deposit of a specified amount and conditions for withdrawal and settlement of claims. The appellants' attempt to demand additional interest through subsequent legal proceedings was deemed a misuse of the Court's process, as the consent order had already settled all claims, including any interest due. 4. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appellants' complaint, emphasizing that the dispute over interest on dividend dating back to 1986 was beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission advised seeking relief in a more appropriate forum, highlighting the limitations of their jurisdiction in addressing such long-standing financial claims. 5. Following the dismissal by the Commission, the appellants pursued the matter in the Supreme Court, seeking liberty to approach the High Court again. Subsequent applications were dismissed, leading to the filing of the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, upheld the previous judgments, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeal and dismissing it accordingly.
|
