Thousands of investors who had turned up from across the country had to go back disappointed as the shoddy organisation of the meeting resulted in it being adjourned without any business getting done. A future date was also not announced.

It was not clear whether any company official was present at the venue. A senior police official said that a representative of the company did turn up but `ran for his life' on seeing the huge crowd. Both the Court appointed chairman of the meeting, A K Mylsamy, an advocate, and N Mohan Das, a retired district judge who was to have substituted for Mylsamy, simply failed to turn up.

After several hours, an unidentified woman, reportedly a lawyer representing the Anubhav group, then abruptly declared the meeting `adjourned' andleft.

The way the meeting was organised left a lot to be desired. Having posted thousands of notices, a marriage hall capable of seating 500 people simply collapsed under the influx, estimated at over 5,000.

The crowd of investors spilled over to the adjacent roads creating traffic snarls. Police officials were worried and felt that such a meeting at this point of time (close to Babri Masjid demolition annivarsary) needed more preparation on their part. But they said that the department was informed only at 10.30 pm on Tuesday.

The investors were given a ballot paper and asked to choose between two options. One, that all interim payments payable in the third and fourth quarters of 1998, 1999 and the first three quarters of the year 2000 will be paid in the first quarter of 2000 with interest at 12 per cent. Instalments from the first quarter of 2001 will be as per the agreed terms of investment.

The second option offered allotment of agricultural land at a location of their choice equivalent to theirclaim immediately upon the scheme coming to effect. The investor, however has to bear the stamp duty and registration charges.

When the meeting was adjourned, the investors became restive and held their own meeting where they vented their rage and frustration. Many investors charged that a company official closing a court-ordered meeting without offering any explanations amounted to contempt of court.