Seema Jeetendra Longani VS Citicorp Finance India Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BINOY KUMAR
Seema Jeetendra Longani – Appellant
Versus
Citicorp Finance India Ltd. – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Samarth Agrawal and Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate (VC)
For the Respondent No.2:Ms.Vidushi Jain, Advocate (VC)

ORDER

The present Revision Petition Nos.4133 and 4134 of 2014 are filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) by Mrs.Seema Jeetendra Longani (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner/ Complainant) against M/s Citicorp Finance India Ltd. and M/s Sterling Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 1/ Finance Company and Respondent No. 2 respectively) challenging the Impugned Order dated 22.08.2014 of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in FA No.408 of 2009 and FA No.457 of 2009. FA No.408 of 2009 filed by the Complainant was disallowed whereas FA No.457 of 2009 filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed. Further, the State Commission had dismissed the Order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in CC/32/2009.

2. Since the facts and question of law involved in both the Petitions are similar, therefore, these two Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No.4133 of 2014 is treated as the lead case.

3. Brief facts of the case

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

[No cases identified as bad law. None of the provided case law snippets contain keywords or phrases indicating that any case has been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law.]

Cited: [Sher Singh VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - Consumer (2024)]

**Explanation**: This case explicitly uses the phrase "Also see citations," followed by listings of cases including "Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi 2012 (1) JCC (SC) 613" and "CitiCorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S.Vijaylaxmi III (2007) CPJ 161." This indicates positive referencing or citation as relevant precedent, with no negative treatment indicated.

Incomplete/Fragmentary Reference: [HDFC Bank Limited VS Syed Mushir Abbas - Consumer (2024), Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. (Formerly Equitas Finance Ltd. ) VS Buta Singh - Consumer (2024), Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. VS Paddam Srinu - Consumer (2025)]

**Explanation**:

HDFC Bank Limited VS Syed Mushir Abbas - Consumer (2024): Describes factual details from "SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin International Ltd. Reported in : [LL 2021 SC 544]" without any treatment keywords (e.g., followed, distinguished). Appears as a neutral summary or quote.

Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. (Formerly Equitas Finance Ltd. ) VS Buta Singh - Consumer (2024): Contains fragmentary references like "Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. in Revision Petition No. 778 of 2011" and "Ltd. Vs.," with no treatment indicators.

Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. VS Paddam Srinu - Consumer (2025): Details factual elements like invoice amounts and hypothecation agreements with "Indusind Bank Ltd," presented as evidence (e.g., "Ex.A2," "Ex.B9") without any judicial treatment language.

These lack explicit treatment patterns and appear as descriptive or evidentiary excerpts rather than analyzed precedents.

[HDFC Bank Limited VS Syed Mushir Abbas - Consumer (2024), Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. (Formerly Equitas Finance Ltd. ) VS Buta Singh - Consumer (2024), Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. VS Paddam Srinu - Consumer (2025)]

**Explanation**: Treatment is unclear for these cases due to absence of any standard treatment keywords (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized). They consist primarily of factual narratives, invoice details, or incomplete references without context on how they were judicially treated. Categorized cautiously as uncertain per instructions, also noted in other_categories for completeness where fragmentary.