Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The SC held that the complainant, a corporate entity, was not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the purchase of a software license was for commercial purposes to automate operations and maximise profits, not for self-employment or personal livelihood. The Court distinguished self-employed individuals from corporate entities, observing that the Explanation excludes only goods/services used exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment. Both the State Commission and the National Commission correctly found lack of maintainability of the complaint on the consumer law forum. Consequently, the complaint was non-maintainable under the Act and the appeal was dismissed.
The SC held that the complainant, a corporate entity, was not a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the purchase of a software license was for commercial purposes to automate operations and maximise profits, not for self-employment or personal livelihood. The Court distinguished self-employed individuals from corporate entities, observing that the Explanation excludes only goods/services used exclusively for earning livelihood by self-employment. Both the State Commission and the National Commission correctly found lack of maintainability of the complaint on the consumer law forum. Consequently, the complaint was non-maintainable under the Act and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
