https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103234 The Supreme Court determined that the complainant, in a dispute with a share broker, was not considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act due to the nature of the agreement being akin to a void forward contract. Consequently, the complainant was not entitled to shares, price differences, or compensation but was awarded a refund of the advance payment based on principles of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The opposite party was ordered to refund the advance amount with interest, while other claims by the complainant were dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs. en-us Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103234 The Supreme Court determined that the complainant, in a dispute with a share broker, was not considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act due to the nature of the agreement being akin to a void forward contract. Consequently, the complainant was not entitled to shares, price differences, or compensation but was awarded a refund of the advance payment based on principles of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The opposite party was ordered to refund the advance amount with interest, while other claims by the complainant were dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 12 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103234