ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS AS RAISED IS, AS TO WHETHER THE SHARES OF A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ARE GOODS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(1)(I) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

2. WE FIND THAT THE CONTROVERSY IS ALREADY COVERED BY A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUND V. KARTICK DAS1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THEN SUBMITS THAT THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED QUITE LONG BACK BUT SHARES WERE NOT HANDED OVER FOR QUITE SOMETIME. FROM THE RECORD, IT IS TO BE FOUND THAT DUPLICATE SHARES WERE OFFERED TO THE APPELLANT BUT THE APPELLANT HAD REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF ANY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT PAID FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES DOES NOT ARISE. OTHERWISE ALSO, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO ALLOW INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT PAID FOR SHARES PURCHASED FOR THE APPELLANT.

3. HENCE ON MERITS, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER.

4. THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.