J.M.MALIK, S.M.KANTIKAR
Manu Talwar – Appellant
Versus
BPTP Limited – Respondent
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The term “…… services availed by him, exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment”, occurring in definition of ‘consumer’, in Explanation appended thereto, cannot be equated with extension of business activities, which are already in existence. Those are as different as ‘chalk and cheese’. The main controversy revolves around the question, “whether, the complainants, Manu Talwar Mand Smt. Reshma Talwar, complainant Nos. 1 & 2, respectively, who transact business in partnership, under the name and style of “Objects D’ Art India”, are ‘consumers’?”.
2. The present complaint was filed by the above said complainants. They made the following averments. Smt. Saroj Talwar, mother of complainant No.1 is the third partner. The partnership creates art and decoration pieces at its factory situated on Rampur Road, Moradabad. Smt. Saroj Talwar looks after the production at Moradabad and complainant No.1, also looks after production business for 3-4 days in a week, at Moradabad. The turnover of the business in the year 2013-14 was approximately Rs.29.00 crores, similar to the last year’s turnover. The entire products of bus
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.