9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jay Almoula for the Respondent. ORDER Parikh, President.--This appeal arises from impugned 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 applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and transmitting the application to the opponent No. 1 Company. Relying on the decision 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 3 for consideration. Opponent No. 3 was merely a collecting 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the concerned bank in that case. 5. In above 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
