UNISCANS AND SONICS LTD Vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this complaint filed, under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a public limited Company claimed a sum of Rs. 3,36,60,556/- as damages in addition to interest @ 18% per annum. It is stated that complainant had taken a term loan from the Punjab Financial Corporation and also from the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. Working capital loan was obtained from State Bank of Patiala and Punjab National Bank. Term loan was obtained against deposit of title deeds and hypothecation of the titles of plant and machinery and the working limit was obtained from the Banks by way of hypothecation of materials and stocks. It is then alleged that opposite party took possession of the unit of the complainant on account of default of payment and did not restore the possession even after all the dues were paid. Possession of the factory of the complainant was taken on 23.3.1991 under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. When the possession was taken, inventory was prepared by the officers of the Punjab Financial Corporation and those of the complainant. It is then alleged that final settlement both with the Punjab Financial Corporation and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation was made on 16.12.1992 and all payments due to these institutions were made. Yet Punjab Financial Corporation did not restore possession of the industrial unit back to the complainant. Then the complainant states as to how the efforts were made by it to get back the possession and ultimately writ petition was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court it being No. Writ Petition No. 18941/1998. In the counter affidavit filed to this writ petition it was the stand of the Punjab Financial Corporation that the industrial unit had been forcibly occupied by the Police and the Guards deployed by them had no access to the premises. It is then submitted that under the orders of the High Court a Local Commissioner was appointed who visited the site and made a report on 24.4.1991. Thereafter, an inventory was also prepared under the supervision of the High Court by the Local Commissioner. That was by the order of the High Court dated 22.2.1999.

(2.) THIS complaint was filed on 7.2.2001. Claim has been made for loss on account of gross deficiency in service leading to devaluation of land and the assets of the complainant amounting to Rs.

(3.) COMPLAINT raises complex questions of law and facts and evidence will have to be led and we do not find any admission on the part of the opposite party to accept the stand of the complainant. In the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) = I (2002) SLT 214 = (2002) 2 SCC 1, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed as under :