' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.---- The petitioner was paid the principal amount of his investment with a defunct CFC by the name Prime Industrial Co-operative Development Society in the amount of Rs,8,87,597/- in the year 2004. It is complained that the said refund of principal amount took 14 years and the petitioner was not paid any profit on the said amount by the PCBL. The petitioner further maintains that there are assets of the defunct CFC available with its sponsors and the PCBL should realize those assets in order to pay profit to the investors like the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for PCBL has explained that the defunct CFC in the present case was a small entity which did not have sufficient funds in the year 1991 when initial action under the Undesirable Co-operative Societies Act was taken to pay the principal amount plus profit to the investors. In the present case it took 13 years for the PCBL to organize repayment of the principal amount to the petitioner. In case of the said defunct CFC payments of additional compensatory dues have been made to investors to an amount less than or equal to Rs,25,000/-. The petitioner was a big investor who deposited an amount of Rs,8,87,597/-. There are no funds available with the PCBL to pay compensation to large investors of the said CFC.
3. The PCBL performs public service by collecting funds from realization of different hidden and known assets of the defunct CFCs. Under ordinary circumstances and in the manner such defunct CFCs were functioning it is quite likely that even principal amounts have not been retrieved for the investors. The petitioner cannot treat the PCBL as a guarantor of the obligation of the defunct CFC.
The role of PCBL is that of a liquidator. As a liquidator the primary responsibility is to generate funds that meet the original obligation of the investors. In the present case, according to the learned counsel for the PCBL such funds have been exhausted. Accordingly, payment of compensation to the petitioner is not possible in any event the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of nearly 9 years from the date of receipt of principal amount of his investment from PCBL. It appears that demand for compensatory/profit amount is not related to any rules or regulations but an afterthought seeking payment under, original obligation assumed by the defunct CFC in favour of the petitioner.
4. As noted above such obligations cannot be enforced against the PCBL. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.