9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this set of 22 connected appeals. 2. First Appeal Nos. 486 to 507 of 1993 are all directed against the same order of the District Forum, Hissar dated 30-9-1993 declining to inter- vene and grant any relief and dismissing the three connected sets of complaints before it. 3. At the very threshold learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Suman Jain took up the categoric stand that the appellants did not even remotely come within the definition of a consumer under the Act and consequently neither the complaints nor the present appeals are at all maintainable. It was highlighted that the District Forum in para 7 of the order had in terms noticed that the status and the locus standi of the complainants was challenged on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) was sought to be distin-guished on the ground that the present was a case of completed allotment of shares and not merely one of an application therefor. It was tenuously argued that non-delivery of shares was triable within the consumer jurisdiction and reliance was vaguely placed on clauses (b), (c), (d ), (e), (g), (i ) and (o) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act'). Support was sought from the observations of the Rajasthan State Commission in Ram Kumar Ashwani v. A.K. Structural Foam Ltd. I [1993] CPJ 25. 5. To cut the Gordian Knot of the rival submissions we may record at the very outset that we are firmly inclined to the view that the threshold objection of non-maintainability by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were wrongfully retained to the detriment of the complainants. The details of the respective sums allegedly deposited by numerous complainants with San Tubes Ltd.; San Electronics Ltd.; and Panson India Ltd. ranging around Rs. 50,000 and above were given in the relevant complaints. It was the case of the complainants that the allotment of shares should have been made in favour of the complainants immediately on the receipt of the money, but the same were neither allotted nor delivered despite the passage of considerable time. Appre-hensions were expressed in the complaints that the shares had in fact not been allotted or in the alternative they had never been despatched or received by the complainants. Further claim was that in any case r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants' case was that the amounts were deposited with the respondent-limited companies for allotment of shares either out of the promoters' quota or otherwise. It was the complainant's own case that either the shares had not been allotted at all and the money misappropri- ated or in any case the said shares were not despatched or delivered to the complainant-appellants. The core question, therefore, is whether on these facts of appellant's own showing they would be consumers in the eye of law. 9. Since we are of the view that the matter is covered by precedent it is unnecessary to launch on any exhaustive dissertation on principle and the language of the statute. Herein there is no dispute that according to the definition in the Sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es deeply in aid of the stand taken by the respondents. The appellant-complainant's own tenu- ous case was that they had merely deposited the money and the shares perhaps were not even allotted to them. That being so they would come close if not totally kin to applicants seeking allotment of shares in public issues floated by the incorporated companies barring the distinction that whether the shares were by allotment of shares out of the promoters' quota or otherwise. The earlier view of this Commission, thus, tilts strongly in favour of the respondent's stand. 11. However, what seems to conclude the matter is the binding force of the observation of the National Commission in Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh's case (supra) whilst reversing the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no cause of action for the complainants to launch proceedings under the Act in respect of the alleged transaction of shares. Even placing the case of the appellants at the highest, the aforesaid ratio sees to category-cally negative the same. 13. In all fairness we might as well notice Mr. Mutneja's ingeneous argument that non-delivery of shares would be a defect in the goods and, therefore, it would raise a consumer dispute. Since this issue is also covered against appellants by analogy, reference may be made to the decision of this Commission in Dr. B.S. Gaba v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. I [1991] CPJ 631. Therein the said question had fallen for consideration and it was concluded as under: "To conclude on this aspect, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
