9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 11-7-1997 rendered by the learned City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad, in Complaint No. 1066 of 1994, dismissing the complaint. The grievance of the complainant was that he had applied for 100 shares of opponent No. 1 Orient Press Limited on 11-11-1993 and submitted the application form with application money of Rs. 3,500 with opponent No. 2 bank. In the ultimate analysi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Commission in State Bank of India v. Smt. Kailash Rajanikant Shah [Appeal No. 44 of 1996 dated 11-12-1996], the learned City Forum dismissed the complaint. 2. The complainant is before this Commission and we have heard him. It may be noted that as on today the price of the shares is much below the face value and in no case the complainant would be ready to take the shares even if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agent of opponent No. 4. It did not owe any duty, responsibility or liability to the complainant. It was answerable or accountable only to opponent No. 4 as its agent. There was, therefore, no question of deficiency in service on the part of opponent No. 3 so far as complainant was concerned." 4. At this stage, we would like to refer to the order passed by this Commission in the case of Anilk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove view of the matter, as the present case is squarely covered by aforesaid two decisions, namely, decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund s case ( supra ) and Kailash Rajnikant Shah s case ( supra ), the appellant being the complainant will not be entitled to the claim set out in the complaint. We find that the complaint had rightly been dismissed by the learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
