SERVICE STOCKS & ANR Vs. CHANDRA BHUSHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners present. He submits that the State Commission had no inherent jurisdiction to try this case because this case pertains to shares.

(2.) The Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, 1994 4 SCC 225 made this position clear. That judgment was passed even prior to the amendment in respect of definition of 'consumer' in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 w.e.f. 15.3.2003. It was held:

(3.) This Commission also took the similar view in "Vijay Kumar Vs. Indusind Bank, 2012 2 CPJ 181 (NC)", Som Nath Jain Vs. R.C. Goenka & Anr, 1994 1 CPJ 27 (NC), 1992 Consumer Protection Judgments page 75 (NC), II 1993 Consumer Protection Judgments Page 216 (NC) and I (1994), Consumer Protection Judgment Page 27 (NC). See also Krishan Lal Kalra vs. M/s Religare Security Ltd. and Ors., First appeal No. 6 of 2011 decided on 30.1.2015 upheld by Supreme Court in appeal civil No. 23717 of 2015 dated 14.8.2015.