https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106925 The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the lower forum's order, and dismissed the complaint regarding alleged deficiency in service for non-allotment of shares. The Commission held that the complainant's claim did not constitute a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as an application for share allotment did not fall under the Act's definition of 'goods.' The judgment emphasized that until shares are allotted, the applicant cannot be considered a consumer, following the precedent set in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das II. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106925 The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the lower forum's order, and dismissed the complaint regarding alleged deficiency in service for non-allotment of shares. The Commission held that the complainant's claim did not constitute a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as an application for share allotment did not fall under the Act's definition of 'goods.' The judgment emphasized that until shares are allotted, the applicant cannot be considered a consumer, following the precedent set in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das II. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106925