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

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1585

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, J
SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. – Appellant
Versus
VIJAYA BANK – Respondent


Table of Content
1. consumer complaint dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on maintainability. (Para 7 , 9)
3. commercial purpose defined. (Para 10 , 30)
4. deficiency in service clarified. (Para 11 , 32)
5. final verdict dismissed. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This statutory appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, NCDRC, dated 13.03.2023, in Consumer Complaint No. 2866 of 2017, whereby the consumer complaint of the inter alia appellant was dismissed, , on the ground that the complainant (i.e., the appellant herein) is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , 1986 Act.

FACTS

2. The appellant, a company incorporated, filed a consumer complaint against Vijaya Bank, Bank (the respondent), inter alia, alleging that it had invested a sum of Rs. 9,00,00,000 (Rs.9 Crores), by way of a fixed deposit, with the Bank, for a period of one year, w.e.f. 28.02.2014, and evidencing the transaction a fixed deposit receipt, FDR dated 03.03.2014 was issued to the appellant and even interest payable on the said FDR was credited in the account of the appellant on 26.03.2014 after deducti

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

[None identified. The case law excerpts provided contain substantive holdings regarding the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but do not contain any language explicitly indicating that these cases have been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law in subsequent decisions.]

Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited Earlier Known As Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. VS Raghachand Associates - 2024 4 Supreme 693: The principle that the burden to prove a commercial purpose rests on the service provider appears to be a standing rule, as no contrary treatment is indicated in the list.

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust VS Unique Shanti Developers - 2020 5 Supreme 497: The holding that purchasing flats to provide hostel facilities is not a commercial purpose and the principles for determining "commercial purpose" are still referenced without any noted negative treatment.

Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. VS Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 1 Supreme 762: The interpretation that a company is a "person" under Section 2(1)(d) & 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is presented without any indication of reversal or questioning.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS HARSOLIA MOTORS - 2023 3 Supreme 300: The clarification that insurance hiring lacks a profit-generation element and thus is not a commercial purpose is listed without any subsequent adverse treatment noted.

[No cases in the provided list contain language that is unclear regarding their judicial treatment. The excerpts are statements of holdings rather than citations of subsequent decisions, so no uncertain treatment can be identified.]

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