Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (1.60 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994
In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das [1994] 81 Comp Cas 318 it was observed by the apex court that at the stage of application it is not good and after allotment different considerations may prevail. It is after allotment that rights may arise as per the contract (article of association of company) but not certainly before allotment. At that stage, he is only a prospective investor of future goods. There is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. There must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under Clause 2(i) of the Act. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, has defined consumer as a person who buys any goods for a consideration as also who hires any service for consideration. Taking this premise into consideration it was observed that "there is no purchase of goods for a consideration nor again could he be called the hirer of the services of the company for a consideration. In order to
satisfy the requirement of the above definition of consumer, it is clear that there must be a transaction of buying goods for consideration under Clause 2(i) of the said Act. The definition contemplates the pre-existence of a completed transaction of sale and purchase. If regard is had to the definition of complaint under the Act, it will be clear that no prospective investor could fall under the Act."