Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1994 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1994 (5) TMI 168 - SC - Companies LawWhether the prospective investor could be a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Whether the appellant-company "trades" in shares? Does the Consumer Protection Forum have jurisdiction in matters of this kind? What are the guiding principles in relation to the grant of ad interim injunctions in such areas of the functioning of the capital market and public issues of the corporate sectors Whether certain "venue restriction clauses" would require to be evolved judicially as has been done in cases such as State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha and Sanchaita Investments [1982 (2) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT]? What is the scope of section 14 of the Act? Held that:- The appellant has suffered immensely because it has not even been served with a copy of the order of injunction. The application of the respondent is clearly actuated by mala fides. The Forum should have examined whether ex parte injunction without notice to the opposite side could ever be granted at all. The grounds urged in the injunction application were insufficient for the grant of such a relief. There is an increasing tendency on the part of litigants to indulge in speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism which the for a seem readily to oblige. We think such a tendency should be curbed. Having regard to the frivolous nature of the complaint, we think it is a fit case for award of costs, more so, when the appellant has suffered heavily. Therefore, we award costs of ₹ 25,000 in favour of the appellant. It shall be recovered from the first respondent. the writ petition has rightly come to be rejected though, in our view, it would have been better had the High Court given reasons instead of dismissing it summarily
|