1. WE do not find any substance in the contention of the appellant that because the respondent company had extended the then current year uptil December 31, 1986 by a period of three months from September 30, 1986 and thereby deprived the shareholders of full dividend for a period of three months, there was either ''deficiency'' in service or indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent company.
2. THE decision relating to the declaration of dividend must have been taken by the General Body of Shareholders of the company and the appellant being admittedly a shareholder has to be treated as a party to the said decision.
The State Commission has also found that the respondent company is an undertaking, Part ''A'' of Chapter III of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 applies and hence any complaint of unfair trade practice will not lie against the respondent company under the Consumer Protection Act
In view of what is stated above we are unable to find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the State Commission. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
