9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 3-9-1993 in Canara Bank, Abid Road Branch, Hyderabad, which was a collecting Banker for the company. In spite of several reminders, the opposite parties did not allot any shares to her or refunded the amount. 2. On a notice issued by the District Forum the first opposite party, i.e., Tatatimkin Limited submitted a written version raising preliminary objections that there was no sale of any goods or hiring of service by paying consideration that the claim of the complainant does not fall within any of the clauses ( a ) to ( d ) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that therefore the complaint is not maintainable. 3. The second opposite party remained absent and was set ex parte. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the circular was not approved by the SEBI and there are several irregularities in the same and the basis of the allotment is arbitrary, unfair and unjust. The Calcutta Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed ad interim order 'opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 and its men, agent, collecting banks not to proceed any further with the issue of Morgan Stanley Growth Fund units due to be opened on 6th January, 1994' until further orders. 7. These orders and the order passed on a writ petition by a High Court were questioned before the Supreme Court of India. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India that till the allotment of shares takes place, the shares do not exist. Therefore they can neve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as their Lordships have not considered the definition of clause ( iii ) of section 2( c ) after its amendment by the Amending Act, 1993 which came into force with effect from 18-6-1993. But the Supreme Court of India rendered its decision on 28-5-1994 subsequent to the amendment. Moreover the amendment does not in any way affect the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision. As it also observed that the complainanant in that case could not be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. Even after the amendment, clause ( iii ) of section 2( c ) reads that there must be hiring of services or availing of the services or agreement to hire or avail the services. In the instant case, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
