D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE
MAGMA FINCORP LTD. – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Indira Banerjee, J.
This appeal is against an order dated 2nd August, 2018 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’], dismissing Revision Petition No.5 of 2018, filed by the Appellant [hereinafter referred to as the Financier], under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against an order dated 31st August, 2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh [herein after referred to as the ‘State Commission’], dismissing Appeal No. 1704 0f 2008 filed by the Financier, and affirming the order dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’], whereby the District Forum allowed Complaint Case No. 105/2005 filed by the Respondent, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’], and directed the Financier to pay Rs. 2,23,335/-to the Complainant, along with interest at 10% per annum, Rs 10,000/-towards physical and mental injury and Rs 1000/- as litigation expenses.
2. On or about 2nd August 2002, the Complainant entered into a hire-pu
Charanjit Singh Chadha & Ors. v. Sudhir Mehra
K.L. Johar & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore
Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma and Others
Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh and Another
K. A. Mathai alias Babu & Anr. v. Kora Bibbikutty & Anr.
Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan v. S.K. Saraf
Smt. Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. The State of Kerala & Anr.
None of the provided case excerpts indicate that the primary case analyzed (*Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari*, (2020) 10 SCC 399) has been overruled, reversed, or declared bad law. It is consistently cited as a governing precedent.
* **Textainer Equipment Management Limited VS Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1053:** Explicitly states "In Magma Fincorp, the Supreme Court followed the law on a hire-purchase agreement, as laid down in K.L.Johar and Co.," indicating alignment with established legal history.
* **Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) LTD. VS Jagmander Singh - 2006 1 Supreme 708:** Reinforces the lack of legal impediment forrepossession if the agreement permits it.
* **Manager, ICICI Bank LTD. VS Prakash Kaur - 2007 2 Supreme 422:** Sets limitations on repossession, explicitly stating banks cannot use "goondas" or "strong arm tactics."
* **Jagdish Chandra Nijhawan VS S. K. Saraf - 1998 9 Supreme 24:** Discusses the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings in employment-based housing, consistent with the civil-remedy focus of the *Magma* line of cases.
* **Pabitra Das S/o Late Dhaneswar Das vs General Manager Indian Bank - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1185:** Mentions "[2013] 1 SCC 400" alongside *Magma Fincorp*. The fragment is incomplete and does not clearly state whether the 2013 case is being distinguished, followed, or overruled.
* **P. Vimalchand Bokadia vs Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 40304 and P. Vimalchand Bokadia vs Regional Transport Officer - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46198:** These excerpts link "(2001) 7 SCC 417" and *Magma Fincorp*. While they suggest the cases are being cited together, the relationship between these two specific precedents (whether one modifies the other) remains ambiguous due to the truncated nature of the snippet.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.