KAMTA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. VISHAL INVESTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the judgment in appeal suffers from inherent defect of there being no categorical finding about the date from which limitation was reckoned to have commenced, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. As the appeals are old and still held up at the admission stage, we deem it appropriate to dispose them of at the admission stage.

(2.) SRI Sanjay Kumar, who has on 9.4.2009 requested for adjournment, is not present today. However, Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, the son of the appellant Kamta Prasad Sharma, father of the appellants Akash and Naman and brother of appellant Poonam, maternal uncle of Deepak and Sapna and son of appellant Smt. Hemlata is present. He has argued on behalf of all the appellants. We permitted him to make his submissions as the appeals were more than three years old.

(3.) ALL these 16 appeals have arisen out of the common facts and circumstances. By means of the three separate judgments in appeal the complaints of the 16 appellants were dismissed mainly on the ground of all the complaints being barred by time. The complainants are members of one and the same family. They had deposited various amounts with respondents, Vishal Automobiles, Malik Ram Financiers and Vishal Investments as fixed term deposits and obtained the requisite fixed deposits receipts. As per terms of the scheme, the respondents paid monthly interests to all the depositors. However, no payment on account of the interest was made after 30.11.2000. The complainants approached the aforesaid firm for payment of their principal amount as also interest accrued thereupon after 30.11.2000 but they refused to oblige the complainants, as a consequence the complainants were compelled to file their complaints. Whereas the complaint Nos. 501/2001, 691/2001, 695/2002, 703/2002, 696/2002 and 700/2002 were decided by one judgment dated 30.1.2006, complaint case Nos. 688/2002, 689/2002, 690/2001, 697/2001, 499/2001, 687/2002, 701/2002 and 694/2002 had been disposed of by means of a separate judgment of the same date as mentioned above. The two remaining complaint case Nos. 500/2001 and 702/2002 had been decided vide third judgment of the same date, i.e. 30.1.2006.