Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1443 (MP)

Ankit Upadhyay v. IDBI Limited

2008-12-16

PRAMILA S.KUMAR, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Heard. AppealNo. 1920/2008 filed by complainants Ankit Upadhyay and Ankur Upadhyay while Appeal No. 2648/2008 has been filed by IDBILimited through its Senior Branch Manager and by Investor Service of IndiaLimited, Mumbai. Since both appeals assail the same order, they are beingdecided by this order. Though elaborate arguments were advanced by Counsel forparties, the crux of the matter appears to be that in respect of the bondsissued by the opposite party called IDBI Deep Discount Bond, the complainantNo. 1 Ankit Upadhyay andcomplainant No. 2 Ankur Upadhyay both subscribe respectively a sum of Rs . 5,300/- and Rs . 10,600/- and one bond as required was issued to Ankit Upadhyay while two bondswere issued to Ankur Upadhyay . 2.Perusal of bond bears testimony to the fact that IDBI shall have the option toredeem the bonds on any of the following dates as per deemed face value mentioned : - (1)From August 1 ,2000 at Rs . 10,000/- (2)On December 1 ,2006 at Rs . 25.000/- (3)On September 1 ,2011 at Rs . 50,000/- and (4)On June 1 ,2016 at Rs . 1,00,000/- 3.It was in keeping with this scheme, both the complainants made application tothe IDBI on 7-6-2007 forpremature encashment of their bonds. It was at this juncture that the twosubscribers were apprised that the company had already redeemed the bond on August 1 ,2000 and only a sum of Rs . 10,000/-per bond was payable.This amount was however not released in favour of thesubscribers. 4.The main thrust of the arguments of the Counsel for IDBI is that in the IDBIDeep Discount Bond Scheme, it was mentioned that the bank had the option toredeem the bonds on the dates mentioned including August 1,2000 at Rs . 10,000/-. It was in adherence to this provision thatwhen the complainants (subscribers) came to the bank, they were offered thesaid value of Rs . 10,000/-per bond but it was notacceptable. It was also stated that vide publicity was given in newspapers suchas Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar and it is unlikely that the said advertisements went unnoticed. The Counselalso urges that the reminders were also sent by UPC. 5.It is not the case of the subscribers that they were not aware of the power ofthe bank to redeem the bond when it is mentioned in the bond. The Counselalso urges that the reminders were also sent by UPC. 5.It is not the case of the subscribers that they were not aware of the power ofthe bank to redeem the bond when it is mentioned in the bond. Under thesecircumstances, it is likely that the advertisement issued in Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar had come tothe notice of the subscribers as they were directly concerned. They shouldtherefore have obtain the redemption value in the year 2000 itself instead ofwaiting till 2006 and claiming amount of Rs .25,000/-. A scheme which has a clause for redemption will make the holder ofthe bond quite wary and vigilant to see what is the provision made by the bank. Under these circumstances, notwithstanding; that the twosubscribers plead complete ignorance, we are of the view that notice must havetaken by them of the paper advertisement. The bank has also sufficientlydemonstrated that a letter under UPC was sent to the individual subscribers andall received except, allegedly, the present two subscribers. Though in the caseof UPC there is no warrant for supposing that the letter sent by UPC reached tothe addressee, other advertisements and publications, it was quite likely thatit must have come to the notice of the subscribers that the bank had redeemedthe bond. 6.Learned Counsel for complainants submits that though the District Forum hasawarded Rs . 10,000/- the redemption value of one bondto each. Ankit Upadhyay hadone bond while Ankur Upadhyay had two bonds, but still the amount of Rs . 10,000/-has been provided to each whereas Ankur Upadhyay should have been provided Rs .20,000/- as redemption value. We find substance in the argument of the learnedCounsel. We find that as per redemption of IDBI, the amount of Rs . 10,000/- per bond as on August 1, 2000 was payable. Ankit Upadhyay should have been awarded Rs .10,000/- while Ankur Upadhyay should have been awarded Rs . 20,000/-. The abovecomplainants (subscribers) are also entitled to interest (a? 12% p.a. for theperiod commencing from August 1 ,2000 till the payment of the amount. TheDistrict Forum has awarded only Rs . 1000/- towardscost which we find reasonable. 7.In the result, Ankit Upadhyay should be paid a sum of Rs . 10,000/-plus interest @12% p.a. from August 1, 2000 while Ankur Upadhyay shouldbe paid a sum of Rs . 12% p.a. for theperiod commencing from August 1 ,2000 till the payment of the amount. TheDistrict Forum has awarded only Rs . 1000/- towardscost which we find reasonable. 7.In the result, Ankit Upadhyay should be paid a sum of Rs . 10,000/-plus interest @12% p.a. from August 1, 2000 while Ankur Upadhyay shouldbe paid a sum of Rs . 20,000/- with interest @ 12%p.a. from August 1, 2000 .The cost may be given to the subscribers in equal amounts. 8.With the above modification in the order of the District Forum, these appealsare disposed of. 9.This order be retained in Appeal No. 1920/2008 and acopy be placed in Appeal No. 2648/2008.