<?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>Sole Proprietor Liable for Cheque Payments Under Consumer Protection Act, Not Employee Consultant, Rules Court.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=59849</link>
    <description>Liability to pay the amount of certain cheques signed by him (as employee consultant) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Since the opposite party is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja, therefore, the liability of payment of investments would be that of Mr. I.J. Aneja and not of the employees who were engaged by Mr. Aneja at different places such as Nehru Place, NOIDA and Ghaziabad - Since, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appellant is an employee engaged by the sole proprietorship consultancy, there cannot be any personal liability which can be inflicted upon the appellant by virtue of only being an employee of a sole proprietorship. - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:36:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:36:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=656986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Sole Proprietor Liable for Cheque Payments Under Consumer Protection Act, Not Employee Consultant, Rules Court.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=59849</link>
      <description>Liability to pay the amount of certain cheques signed by him (as employee consultant) - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Since the opposite party is a sole proprietorship consultancy of Mr. I.J. Aneja, therefore, the liability of payment of investments would be that of Mr. I.J. Aneja and not of the employees who were engaged by Mr. Aneja at different places such as Nehru Place, NOIDA and Ghaziabad - Since, the complaint itself was not maintainable and the appellant is an employee engaged by the sole proprietorship consultancy, there cannot be any personal liability which can be inflicted upon the appellant by virtue of only being an employee of a sole proprietorship. - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:36:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=59849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>