In Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pass an order of injunction came up for consideration. This court having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein formulated the following questions:
“(1) Whether the prospective investor could be a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
(2) Whether the appellant company ‘trades’ in shares ?
(3) Does the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum have jurisdiction in matters of this Kind?
(4) What are the guiding principles in relating to the grant of an ad interim injunction in such areas of the functioning of the capital market and public issues of the corporate sectors and whether certain ‘venue restriction clauses’ would require to be evolved judicially as has been done in cases such as State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others,
(5) What is the scope of Section 14 of the Act?”
46. This Court held that a prospective investor like the respondent therein is not a consumer. The question of the appellant-company trading in shares does not arise and in that view of the matter the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass an order of interim injunction.
47. Having regard to Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, it was held:
“44, A careful reading of the above discloses that there is no power under the Act to grant any interim relief of (sic or) even an ad interim relief. Only a final relief could be granted; If the jurisdiction of the Forum to grant relief is confined to the four clauses mentioned u/s 14, it passes our comprehension as to how an interim injunction could ever be granted disregarding even the balance of convenience.”
