Skip to main content

When does trading in shares become a commercial purpose

In VAMAN NAGESH UPASKAR vs INDIA INFOLINE LTD., complaint was originally filed by the Applicants before the District Forum alleging trading in shares without consent by the Respondent 3 following which was allowed by the forum. On appeal filed by the Respondent 1, the State Commission  allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the complainants were not consumers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Respondent No. 3 was an employee of Respondent No. 1.

The NCDRC on appeal being filed before it, referred to the three-Members Bench of this Commission recently in CC No. 349 of 2017 - Springdale Core Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. where on the question of  whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose while referring to decisions such as Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S. G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ I (SC), Cheema Engineering Services V. Rajan Singh VI (1998) SLT 20, Kalpavruksha Chairtable Trust V. Toshniwal Brothers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., III (1999) CPJ 26 (SC)  Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Greaves Cotton & Company Ltd. (1991) 1 CPJ 499, and Paramount Digital Colour Lab.Vs. Agfa India Private Ltd., III (2018) CPJ 12 (SC), held that it is true that the aforementioned decisions were rendered in the context of deciding whether the goods or services availed of in the facts of those cases were for a commercial purpose or exclusively for the purpose of self-employment.  This does not mean, however, that in every case a negative test has to be adopted wherein any activity that does not fall within the ambit of ‘earning livelihood by means of self-employment’ would necessarily be for a commercial purpose. To summarize from the above discussion, though a strait-jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is ‘for a commercial purpose it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, ordinarily ‘commercial purpose’ is understood to include manufacturing / industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities. In Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the expression ‘consumer’ inter-alia observed that where a person purchases goods ‘with a view to using such goods for carrying on any activity on a large scale for the purpose of earning profit’ he will not be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d(i) of the Act. With a view to obviate any confusion – the expression “Large scale” is not a very precise expression – Parliament stepped in and added the explanation to Section 2(d)(i) by Ordinance / Amendment Act, 1993. The explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression “commercial purpose” – a case of exception to an exception. Let us elaborate : a person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others’ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter / car for a commercial purpose. The explanation however clarifies that in certain situation, purchase of goods for ‘commercial purpose’ would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’.

In the present case, there is no evidence of the complainants trading in the shares on a large scale. They are stated  to be in service though in the account opening form, they had claimed to be in business. That, however, would be insignificant,  the material aspect being the scale of the trading if any, carried out by them in the shares. There is no evidence or even allegation of the complainants carrying out large scale trading in stocks and shares. If a person engaged in a business or profession other than regular trading in shares, open a Demat Account and occasionally carries out trading in shares, it cannot be said that the services of the broker were hired or availed by him for a commercial purpose, the scale of such trading by a casual investor being very low. Such a person cannot be said to be in the business of buying and selling shares on a regular basis. Therefore, there can be no hesitation in holding that the complainants were consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act.

Though respondent No.1 has alleged a private agreement between  the complainant and  respondent No.3, there is no evidence of any such private agreement. NCDRC that respondent No.3 having caused loss to the complainant by unauthorized trading in his Demat Account, he is responsible to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by them. Being the employer of respondent No.3 and being the broker with whom the Demat Account was opened, respondent No.1 is equally liable to compensate the complainants.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more