9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing the two complaints and directing opposite parties to refund the various amounts of deposit made by the respective complainants with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from various specified dates with costs of Rs. 500 to each complainant but disallowing the claim of exemplary damages. 2. Since the appellants do not question the quantum determination, it is not necessary to notice facts in detail. The appellants herein who were opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 in the complaint had only contested the claim mainly on the ground that they were not partners of Vijaya Credit Corporation, and their names had been included fictitiously and under forged signatures and that there was collusion between the complainants and the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot substantiated before the State Commission. The State Commission evaluated the material on record in respect of each complainant of the quantum of deposit made and due as also the date of payment of interest and granted the reliefs to each of the complainants with interest. 3. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the appellants herein are and/or were partners of Vijaya Credit Corporation at the relevant time. Photo copies of the respective agreements of fixed deposits in Vijaya Credit Corporation are on record. These have been executed by the complainants between 1988 to 1991 and Vijaya Credit Corporation, Regd. No. 3610, represented by its Managing Partner, Smt. P. Bhramaramba dealing in money-lending business, constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistrar records an entry in the register of firms. The proof of the registration of the partnership firm and the names and particulars of the partners is by tendering a certified copy of the Form "A" by which the complainants had established on record that the appellants were partners at relevant time. The State Commission rightly held that fraud and forgery was not established before it. Neither particulars/details of fraud had been mentioned in the reply version, nor any proof was tendered of the alleged fraud. The appellants' version that some fraud was committed and their signatures were forged by the other partners, is not established by any evidence on record. The presumption of correctness of the entries contained in Form "A" is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
