https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412812 The Supreme Court held that the complaint filed with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was not maintainable as the complainant did not meet the defined criteria under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. Additionally, the court clarified that in a sole proprietorship consultancy, the liability for investments rests with the proprietor and not the employees, absolving the appellant of personal liability solely based on employment status. The court ordered the refund of the deposited amount with accrued interest. en-us Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412812 The Supreme Court held that the complaint filed with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was not maintainable as the complainant did not meet the defined criteria under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. Additionally, the court clarified that in a sole proprietorship consultancy, the liability for investments rests with the proprietor and not the employees, absolving the appellant of personal liability solely based on employment status. The court ordered the refund of the deposited amount with accrued interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412812