Decided on April 29,2003

Talluri Ananda Kumar Appellant
D.PALLAVI Respondents


P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant. The case of the complainants is that the appellant who is common in all the appeals started real estate business under the name and style of œSri Pardha Real Estates  and floated a scheme under which each member had to contribute Rs. 350/ - p.m. for 66 months and he also announced incentives and prizes and the lucky winners in the draws could get plots early while others would be given plots at the end of the scheme. The complainants paid between 39 and 52 instalments. They came to know that it was a bogus scheme and the appellant had no land as he had no title to any land to allot to the subscribers. Hence they filed the complaints.
(2.) THE District Forum found that it was a bogus scheme and the appellant in order to escape liability played unfair trade practice by collecting huge amounts. In similiar matters when directions were given for payment of the amounts collected by him, he approached the State Commission wherein the appeals were dismissed upholding the order of the District Forum.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not one of the partners and he has nothing to do with the partnership that did the business. In order to show that the appellant is not a partner the learned Counsel filed a copy of the partnership deed. The District Forum found that the appellant was responsible for starting the scheme and collecting the deposits from the subscribers under a bogus scheme. In order to escape the liability he played unfair methods and collected the amounts and so he is responsible to pay back the amounts collected on behalf of Sri Pardha Real Estates. It also referred to FA Nos. 562/1998 to 567/1998 wherein this Commission while dismissing the appeals held that Mr. T. Anand Kumar must have collected the deposits from the subscribes in the name of Sri Pardha Real Estates. Thus the District Forum concluded that the appellant is alone liable to refund the amount.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.