TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Consumer appeal dismissed due to lack of entitlement as prospective purchaser</h1> The appeal was dismissed by the City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, as the complainant's claim for allotment of shares and compensation was denied. ... Consumer Issues:1. Dismissal of complaint by City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.2. Claim for allotment of shares and compensation.3. Consumer status of the complainant.4. Liability of the bank as a collecting agent.5. Applicability of previous judgments.Analysis:1. The appeal arose from the dismissal of the complaint by the City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, where the complainant sought allotment of shares and compensation for a failed share application process. The Forum dismissed the complaint citing the complainant's status as a prospective purchaser of shares and an honest error by the bank in not forwarding the application to the company.2. The complainant's claim for allotment of shares and compensation was based on the failed share application process. However, the Forum found that the complainant, as a prospective purchaser, was not entitled to the claim against the company. The complainant's request was further denied due to the shares' current market value being below face value, making the claim irrelevant.3. Regarding the consumer status of the complainant, it was established that the complainant would not be considered a consumer in relation to the company based on the decision in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund's case. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case determined that the complainant did not have a valid claim against the company.4. The liability of the bank, acting as a collecting agent, was also considered. The Commission found that the bank, as a collecting agent of the company, did not owe any duty or liability to the complainant. The bank's responsibility was solely to the company, and there was no deficiency in service towards the complainant.5. The Commission referred to previous judgments, including the decision in Smt. Kailash Rajanikant Shah's case and Anilkant Gajendrarai Buch's case, to support the dismissal of the appeal. The complainant's case was deemed to be covered by these precedents, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the claims made in the complaint. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in line with the previous decisions, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
