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,
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
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs Unique Shanti Developers
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors & Ors.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Another v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.
Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another
Shriram Chits (India) Private Limited v. Raghachand Associates
[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.]
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.