Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.26 seconds)Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994
11. On the other hand, Shri. S.M. Singhbal, the lr. advocate of OP
No. 1, and Shri. M.S. Joshi, joining him, would submit that the
complainant is a partner of the duly registered firm M/s. Harmony
Associates and that the said firm had taken a loan from OP No. 3 for
the purchase of the said vehicle as can be seen from the very
document produced by the complainant, namely receipt dated
28/3/10 issued by OP No. 3 in the name of the borrower M/s.
Harmony Associates. Lr. advocates also point out to letter dated
11/5/10 addressed by the complainant to OP Nos. 1 and 2 in the name
of the said firm M/s. Harmony Associates Builders and Developers,
and submit that in case the complainant had purchased the vehicle in
his own name the complainant would not have addressed the said
letter in the name of the firm. Lr. advocates submit that the purchase
receipt was issued in the name of the said firm and not in the name of
the complainant and vehicle also stands registered in the name of firm
and not in the name of complainant, but concede that documents to
that effect have not been produced by OP Nos. 1 and 2 due to
oversight. Lr. advocates submits that the problem started when the
said firm stopped making payments of monthly instalments to OP
No. 3 towards the loan taken and to evade the payment that the
complainant filed the present complaint. Lr. advocates submit that
job cards produced by the complainant were also issued in the name
of M/s. Harmony Associates and not in the name of the complainant.
Shri. M.S. Joshi has placed reliance on Morgan Stanley vs. Kartick
Das, 1994(4) SCC 225 wherein the Apex Court has held that:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S. Cholamandalam D.B. S. Finance vs Jogender Singh on 8 October, 2010
In the case of M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance
Ltd vs. Jogender Singh (supra) it has been stated that unless the goods
were purchased or services were availed by a person exclusively for
purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such
purchase or availment of service will be for commercial purpose.
1