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

2011 Supreme(SC) 1072

CYRIAC JOSEPH, S.S.NIJJAR, ALTAMAS KABIR
Citicorp. Maruti Finance – Appellant
Versus
S. Vijayalaxmi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Ashok Desai, R.S. Suri, Atul Nanda, Sr. Advocates, Rahul Malhotra, K.S. Prasad, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Prashant Kumar, Ms. Triveni Potekar, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Amit Singh, Amarjit Singh Bedi, Rameeza Hakeem, Amol N. Suryawanshi (for M/s Law Associates & Co.), J.K. Mittal, Vishnu Sharma, Brajesh Pandey, Anupam Sharma, Ms. Vibha Narang (for Respondent - In - Person), Advocates.

Judgment :

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. SLP(C)No.19314 of 2007, which is being heard along with SLP(C)No.3119 of 2008, SLP(C) Nos.9550, 10544, 11696 and 10547 of 2009, is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2007, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, hereinafter referred to as the “National Commission”. By the said order, the National Commission dismissed Revision Petition No.737 of 2005, filed by the appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2005, passed by the State Commission, Delhi. By its order dated 27th July, 2007, the National Commission modified the order of the State Commission and set aside the part of the order directing the Appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of punitive damages and further directed the appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant Respondent.

3. From the materials on record, it appears that on 4th April, 2000, at the initiative of the Respondent, a Hire-Purchase Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent herein, to enable the Respondent to avail the benefit of hire-purchase in respect of a Maruti Omni Car. In accordance with the terms





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Based on the provided list of case laws, the primary subject is the Supreme Court of India's ruling in **Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi (2012) 1 SCC 1**. The documents exclusively discuss how this specific precedent is interpreted, applied, or cited across various judicial forums.

None of the provided documents indicate that *Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi* has been overruled, reversed, or declared bad law. On the contrary, multiple documents cite it as binding precedent and a governing authority.

**1. Followed/Applied/Relied Upon as Precedent:**

The vast majority of the provided documents (e.g., INDIA BULLS VS KEDAR DUTT BHATT - 2012 0 Supreme(UK) 261, Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited Rep By Its Legal Manager R. Kumaran VS Jaffer Khan - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1522, Citicorp finance (India) Ltd Rep By Its Manager Chennai VS Padmanabhan Nair - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1554, Sundaram Finance Limited VS P. C. Benny - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1563, Hinduja Leyland Finance Rep By Its Authorised Representative R. Kumaran VS Kailash Chandra Sethi - 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1564, Director, Berar Finance Ltd. VS Satishkumar Prabhakarrao Borker - Consumer (2014), BINOD KUMAR PANDEY VS TATA MOTORS LIMITED - Consumer (2015), STIFAN Tigga VS Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2015), Arpit Jain VS Vijay Sisodiya - 2015 0 Supreme(MP) 592, Jawahar Singh VS United Bank of India - 2015 0 Supreme(Cal) 481, Jawahar Singh VS United Bank of India - Dishonour Of Cheque (2015), Magma Fincorp Limited VS State Of Bihar - 2016 0 Supreme(Pat) 1582, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. VS Ramesh Sawant - Consumer (2017), SOMESHWER LAL CHOUDHARY VS SHAGUN FINANCE INVESTMENT (P) LTD. - Consumer (2017), Jaleshwar Shah VS Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. - Consumer (2017), Ramdas Urkudaji Gajbhiye VS L&T Finance Ltd - Consumer (2018), Sri Kant Singh, S/o Late Nand Kumar Singh VS Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Near Income Tax Golamber - 2018 0 Supreme(Pat) 624, Binod Tater S/o Dedraj Tater VS Veerabadra S/o Siddappa - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 857, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services VS State of J&K - 2018 0 Supreme(J&K) 766, O.P. No. 1 vs Complainant - 2019 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 484, Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. VS Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2210, Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. VS Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1964, MAGMA FINCORP LTD. VS RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI - 2020 6 Supreme 257, Jitendra Singh Dhillon VS State of M. P. - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 1106, Adapa Durga VS HDB Financial Services Ltd. - 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 931, Balram Bari @ Balaram Barick VS State of Jharkhand - 2023 0 Supreme(Jhk) 165, Gursharan Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3055, Pabitra Das S/o Late Dhaneswar Das vs General Manager Indian Bank - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1185) rely on *Citicorp* to establish legal principles regarding motor vehicle repossession under hire-purchase agreements, the role of recovery agents, and section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. These cases treat the judgment as current, binding law. **2. Clarified as Binding Precedent:**

**H.D.F.C. Bank Limited vs State of Rajasthan - 2014 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 449 and H. D. F. C. Bank Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 522:** These documents explicitly state that the judgment rendered by the three-judge bench is a "binding precedent" and should "hold field," indicating that it supersedes conflicting or unnoticed lower bench views.

- **Prinsu Kumar S/O Ram Naresh Singh VS State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 310:** This document notes that a case called *Anup Sarmah* "clearly contradicts the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Citicorp." This implies a conflict between jurisprudence but does not explicitly state that *Citicorp* has been overruled. It highlights a tension in existing law rather than a resolution of the *Citicorp* precedent.

**Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2015 0 Supreme(HP) 269:** This document discusses "promissory estoppel and interpretation of fiscal legislation" in relation to a Himachal Pradesh Electricity Act case. It provides no information on its relation to, or treatment of, *Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd.*

**Zahir Abbas VS State of Bihar - 2016 0 Supreme(Pat) 1055:** The text is fragmented and frequently refers to "Maruti Finance Ltd. case (supra)" without providing sufficient context to determine the specific legal treatment occurring within the document.

**SUDHA KHEMKA VS CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - 2012 0 Supreme(Cal) 817:** The text is fragmentary. It mentions the case but does not clearly articulate whether it is being followed, distinguished, or used as a point of reference for RBI guidelines.

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