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

2020 Supreme(SC) 570

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE
MAGMA FINCORP LTD. – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Kunal Cheema, Advocate

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


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

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.

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. VS Nikil Patra - Consumer (2021), Mr. Paras Jain vs Amazon Seller Service Private Limited - 2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4557, Paras Jain VS Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. - Consumer (2021), Kripa Shanker Singh VS Lucknow Development Authority - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1017, Daya Anil Motors v. Mukesh Kumar - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7428, Daya Anil Motors VS Mukesh Kumar - Consumer (2022), Textainer Equipment Management Limited VS Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1053, Vellanyan Subbiah VS State of Haryana - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3474, Dhananjay Seth VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 368, Gursharan Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3055, Tata Capital Ltd. VS Umeshkumar Hanumandas Goyal - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1617, Prinsu Kumar S/O Ram Naresh Singh VS State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department - 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 310:** These cases all cite *Magma Fincorp* (2020) 10 SCC 399. The language used, such as "Hon’ble Supreme Court has held," "The ratio of the judgment... is relevant," and "As observed in," confirms these courts are following the 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.

Charanjit Singh Chadha VS Sudhir Mehra - 2001 7 Supreme 239:** Summarizes the rule that a leasing firm can repossess a car per agreement terms without it constituting criminal offenses.

* **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.

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