SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

J.M.MALIK, S.M.KANTIKAR
Manu Talwar – Appellant
Versus
BPTP Limited – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Rahul Madan, Advocate

ORDER

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



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top