1996 (8) TMI 383 - Commission - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application based on legal observations.
2. Allegations of unfair/restrictive trade practices by respondents.
3. Determination of loss or injury suffered by the applicant and entitled compensation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the application
The applicant filed a compensation application under section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, against the respondent, seeking redress for non-receipt of shares and refund orders. Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 raised objections to the maintainability of the petition, citing legal precedents such as the Supreme Court verdict in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das. The Commission noted that the shares in question had been issued to the applicant during the proceedings. Relying on previous judgments, the Commission held that the application was not maintainable as it pertained to raising capital through shares. Consequently, issue No. 1 was decided in favor of the respondent, leading to the dismissal of the application without costs.

Issue 2: Allegations of unfair/restrictive trade practices
As the first issue was decided in favor of the respondent, the Commission did not delve into the discussions regarding whether the respondents had engaged in unfair or restrictive trade practices, as alleged by the applicant.

Issue 3: Determination of loss and entitlement to compensation
The applicant had initially sought relief in the form of share certificates and redemption amounts, along with a refund of the application money with interest. However, subsequent developments, including the issuance of share certificates by respondent No. 1, led to the applicant dropping proceedings against them. Therefore, the grievances of the applicant were deemed fulfilled, and the issue of determining compensation for the alleged loss or injury was not addressed due to the dismissal of the application.

In conclusion, the Commission dismissed the application based on the lack of maintainability, following legal precedents and previous judgments. The issues related to unfair trade practices and compensation entitlement were not discussed in detail due to the dismissal of the application.