w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Surinder Kumar v/s Managing Director, Reliance Consultancy Services Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025420

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A SERVICES AND CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140OR2012PTC015010

Company & Directors' Information:- L M B CONSULTANCY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KL2002PTC015318

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120UP2010PTC042726

Company & Directors' Information:- Y V R CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098309

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000HR2011PTC043455

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND S CONSULTANCY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KL2005PTC018496

    Appeal Case No. 65 of 1997

    Decided On, 24 November 1997

    At, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. GARG
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SADA NAND
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. P. OJHA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: P.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, None, R2, Ashok Bector, Advocate.



Judgment Text

J.B. Garg, President:

1. Surinder Kumar purchased 400 shares from a right-holder and in this regard, the price was deposited by him on 3.8.1993 through the Oriental Bank of Commerce. Since the shares were not transferred, he instituted a complaint for transfer of the shares and also claimed the profit at a supposed rate of Rs. 240/- per share. On 24.9.1996, the District Forum ordered regarding transfer of the shares, but declined the claim of probable benefit. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.

2. During the course of arguments, it transpired that by now the shares have been transferred by the Reliance Consultancy Services, respondent-1, in favour of the appellant. The plea that there was a chance of probable benefit because the prices of the shares did go up for some time before filing of the claim, was rightly disallowed by the District Forum holding it entirely speculative.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to N. Maduram Financial Services (P) Ltd. v. Modem Woollens Ltd., Jaipur, II (1992) CPJ 756. In the aforesaid case, the direction issued by the Consumer Commission, Madras, was that the share certificates shall be transferred in favour of the complainant or in the alternative, a particular amount shall be pai

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d together with interest. It was not a case where probable profit was awarded. The conclusion is that the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.
O R