Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: debentures companies act Court: delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc new delhi Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.031 seconds)

Aug 01 2000 (TRI)

C.B. Aggarwal Vs. Central Bank of India

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Decided on : Aug-01-2000

..... time deposit account (fixed deposit account) at the time of opening the account with the respondent bank for the purpose of issue of stock investment for investing in shares/debentures of various companies and as the appellant chose to open a savings bank account with the appellant, he was entitled only to interest as applicable to the savings bank account deposits, which ..... above finding has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant with costs. 5. feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, before this commission under section 15 of the act. notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent, who has entered appearance through its advocate. 6. we have heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent at ..... , janakpuri, new delhi. 2. the facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. the appellant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the act before the district forum and, in that complaint, the main grievance of the appellant was regarding non-payment of proper interest by the respondent. it was stated by the appellant ..... lokeshwar prasad, president: 1. the present appeal, filed by the appellant, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ??the act) is directed against order dated 2nd june, 1995, passed by district forum-i, in complaint case no. 1789/93, entitled shri c.b. aggarwal v. the manager, central bank of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2000 (TRI)

Santosh Kumari Vs. the Chairman, M/S. Ispat Alloys Ltd. and Others

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Decided on : Aug-08-2000

..... it was clearly mentioned in the option form that unless the same is delivered at or reaches the correct address within the appointed time, the company would proceed to allot equity shares in lieu of convertible debentures. it was further stated by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that the option form of the appellant did not reach the respondents by the ..... 2.1993 as well as admission by the respondents regarding receipt of the said letter, that the option containing the request of the appellant, to convert her convertible debentures into non-convertible debentures must have reached in time, in the absence of anything to the contrary on record and as such the respondents have been deficient in not complying with the option ..... brief, the facts, relevant, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ??the act), stating therein that the appellant/complainant was the holder of 100 part b secured fully convertible debentures of m/s. ispat alloys limited (respondent) @ rs. 160/- each. in the month of december, 1992, the appellant ..... received a letter of option dated 24.12.1992 alongwith consent form, from the respondents for conveying her consent for conversion of part b 14% convertible debentures .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 09 2000 (TRI)

Canbank Mutual Fund Vs. R.N. Mittal and Another

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Decided on : Apr-09-2000

..... number of schemes, floated by canbank and as such was authorised to handle all the work relating to the said schemes including redemption of shares, debentures etc. it was further averred by the shareholders, in their respective complaints, filed before the district forum that in june, 1991, canbank had floated ..... of bombay v. municipal corporation of the city of bombay, reported as air 1951 sc 469. in case m/s. moti lal padampat sugar mills company limited v. the state of uttar pradesh (supra), their lordships of the honble supreme court while considering the doctrine of promissory estoppel have held : ?? ..... and the doctrine of promissory estoppel would probably give rise to a cause of action before a civil court but not under the consumer protection act. even otherwise the said plea has been raised for the first time, in appeal. 10. furthermore, the plea of the shareholders that relying ..... the shareholders to claim the benefit on the grounds of promissory estoppel so as to afford it a cause of action for compensation under the act. the facts of the decisions relied upon by the shareholders, mentioned above, are on an entirely different footing from the facts of the present ..... the respondents, shri r.n. mittal and eight others (hereinafter referred to as ??the shareholders) had filed separate complaints under section 12 of the act, before the district forum, averring that, canbank was carrying on the business of floating mutual fund schemes and managing them in accordance with the terms .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //