J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) HAS the Unit Trust of India acted illegally and unfairly in terminating the Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme 1992? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of 11 petitions. The facts as relevant for the decision of these cases may be briefly notice.
(2.) IN October 1992 the trust floated a scheme. It was intended to "meet the social and economic needs of women in the country through investment in the scheme by any person on behalf of a girl child not exceeding five years of age, which could be repurchased, by the child on completion of (the) lock in period." The amount invested in favour of the child was "irrevocable in nature." and could be claimed only by the child. The Trust invited investors. It promised that the "investment will grow 21 times in 20 years. Thus, Rs. 1000/ - invested in the name of a female child up to and including the age of one years will become rupees 21000/ - after 20 years and Rs 5000/ - thousand will become over one lakh. It was also stated that the trust may periodically declare bonus which shall be payable on maturity. The face value of each unit was fixed at Rs. 10/ -. Minimum investment was to be in a hundred units. There was no limit on the maximum amount that an individual could invest. On maturity the child who would then be an adult could withdraw the maturity amount by returning the Unit Certificates. Various tax benefits and exemptions were also announced.
(3.) IN pursuance to the announcement, the Petitioners invested in the scheme. The units were issued by the trust. Photocopies have been produced as annexures with the petitions.;