<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (8) TMI 316 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110883</link>
    <description>A consumer complaint was held liable to dismissal where resolution depended on disputed and complicated facts that could not be satisfactorily determined without impleading necessary and proper parties. The Commission found that persons involved in the share transaction, the alleged real owner of the shares, and the stock exchange through which the shares were returned were essential to decide whether the shares were stolen shares, who the introducing member was, and whether the complainant had actually suffered loss. In their absence, the controversy could not be properly adjudicated in summary consumer proceedings, so the complaint failed for non-joinder of necessary parties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 316 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110883</link>
      <description>A consumer complaint was held liable to dismissal where resolution depended on disputed and complicated facts that could not be satisfactorily determined without impleading necessary and proper parties. The Commission found that persons involved in the share transaction, the alleged real owner of the shares, and the stock exchange through which the shares were returned were essential to decide whether the shares were stolen shares, who the introducing member was, and whether the complainant had actually suffered loss. In their absence, the controversy could not be properly adjudicated in summary consumer proceedings, so the complaint failed for non-joinder of necessary parties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>