The case is scheduled for hearing on August 19 in the court of Justice Satyabrata Sinha.

The petitioner, Sanjiv Kumar Tulsian, has sought court directions to the effect that Canara Bank or its mutual fund arm has no "power to take the unilateral decision as contained in the letter dated June 28, 1999" of Canbank Investment Management Services Ltd (CIMS).

He has also sought that the scheme be declared ultra vires the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations of 1993 and claims that Sebi is "obliged to take appropriate steps (including winding up)" to safeguard the interest of the unit holders of Cantriple Plus scheme.

The response of CIMS to letters sent by the petitioner to Sebi makes interesting reading. In aletter dated July 10, 1998, CIMS stated the "object" of Cantriple Plus, as stated in the offer memorandum would mean "end aimed at, a thing sought to be accomplished".

The letter added that "it cannot constitute any assurance, promise or guarantee as to the return on redemption." It quotes from the offer memorandum where the risks perceived by the trustees stated: "As with any investment in stocks and shares, the net asset value of units of Cantriple Plus and income, if any, can go down as well as go up and it is possible that the value may fall below that of original investment."

On July 9 this year, solicitors of the petitioner claimed that the refusal of Canbank Mutual Fund to pay the "assured" return was "unjustified, wrongful, fraudulent, mala fide, illegal and in violation of the Cantriple Plus scheme.''

Victor Moses & Co, solicitors of Canbank Mutual Fund and CIMS, responded in the letter dated July 19, by stating: "Our clients had never agreed nor promised to redeem (the scheme) for an amountequivalent to three times of the investment or more. (It) was merely an objective sought to be achieved at the initiation of the scheme, but there was no commitment on the part of our client to pay such amount on the redemption of the scheme."

Victor Moses also refuted the claim of the petitioner that CIMS or its representatives had given any assurances on the scheme. Denying all charges made by the petitioner, the letter pointed out that a writ petition no. 1401 of 1999 was pending before the Bombay High Court and "the conversion of the scheme into open ended scheme by our clients is subject to the outcome of the writ petition."