National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pankaj Sinha vs Hdfc Bank Through The Managing ... on 24 March, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT NEW DELHI
NC/CC/55/2024
WITH
NC/IA/13641 & 16866/2024
(Directions, Exemption from filing typed copies of documents)
Pankaj Sinha ... Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank
Through Managing Director & CEO Mr. Sashidhar Jagdishan ... Opposite Party
NC/CC/1/2025
WITH
NC/IA/105/2025
(Exemption from filing typed copies of documents)
Ashutosh Tiwary ... Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank
Through Managing Director & CEO Mr. Sashidhar Jagdishan ... Opposite Party
DIARY NO. 13448/NCDRC/2024-CC
Narendra Shreenath Singru & Anr. ... Complainants
Versus
HDFC Bank & Ors. ... Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For the Complainants : Mr. Debesh Panda, Advocate
Mr. Komal Kaushal, Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate
Ms. Vasudha Arora, Advocate
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate
Pronounced on 24th March, 2026
ORDER
PER A.P. SAHI, J., PRESIDENT
1. These three complaints have been preferred with reliefs seeking redressal of their grievances alleging deficiency in service against the opposite CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 1|Page party Bank and its unfair trade practices in respect of the deposits and investments made on being represented by the Bank officials offering a lucrative opportunity for investing their savings in different schemes. The allegations are that the complainants in their trust and confidence being long standing customers of the Bank were lured into the promises made which were ultimately found to be hidden with concealments and lack of transparency, as a result whereof the complainants became victims of mis-selling and their investments in the high risk AT1 bonds ultimately ended up in a financial disaster.
2. All the complainants have alleged that they had their foreign currency deposits with the opposite party Bank in India, and at the time of the investments that were made the complainant Pankaj Sinha was working as a high executive in the Coca Cola Company stationed at Colombo in Sri Lanka. Similarly, the complainant Narendra Shreenath Singru was working as a Country Director of Asian Development Bank and living with his wife in Manila, Philippines. The complainant Ashutosh Tiwary was working in South Africa, the address whereof is given in the memo of parties but in para-1 of the complaint he has described himself having his current residence at Alto Bandim Bissau, Guinea Bissau. All the complainants are similarly situate having long standing customer relationship with the HDFC Bank and they have come up with similar allegations that the opposite party Bank taking advantage of this long standing customer relationship lured them for making investments which was an ultimate investment into offshore AT1 bonds. The bonds which were ultimately purchased were Standard Chartered Bank Perpetual Bonds and Credit Suisse CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 2|Page Bonds. The transactions had their genesis in the deposits that were lying with the HDFC Bank in India. The schemes under which the investments were to be made had to be transacted through offshore accounts of the Bank in Bahrain, UAE. The investments had to be made in US$ in these AT1 bonds, for which the money had to be transferred to an offshore account in Bahrain.
3. In order to facilitate such investments, the first transaction entered into was the filling up of the relationship opening form with documents and formalities of KYC verification etc. With the aforesaid formality, the next step was the opening of the Offshore Bank account with the HDFC Bank at Bahrain. The complainants received welcome letters and the welcome letter of the complainant Pankaj Sinha dated 20.08.2021 is on record as an illustration. The Bank accounts were then opened at Bahrain and then the complainants got their money transferred through FCY inward remittance from India to Bahrain.
4. The complainants thereafter made their investments afresh in Max Yield Scheme and the amount stood deposited in the Bahrain accounts. It is then that new agreements were entered into for investments with the Bahrain HDFC Branch known as the Master Investment Service Agreement, Agreement for Fax and Email Indemnity, Master Facility Agreement against Deposits and Master Service Agreement. The signing of these agreements have been mentioned in the documents as unfolded hereinafter.
5. Against the deposits made, the investments in AT1 bonds was offered to all the complainants and they accordingly agreed and confirmed the investments offered. Simultaneously, the complainants also made additional investments after taking loans against their deposits into the said AT1 CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 3|Page (Additional Tier 1) bonds which was for earning higher profits out of their investments. This is how the loans were sanctioned and a lien was also created on the deposits.
6. After the bonds were offered, the same as per the choice of the complainants were transacted by the complainants themselves and the Bank only charged processing fee for such services.
7. The investments were to yield certain maturity value and returns which are reflected for some period and all the investments were given effect to and the contracts were concluded.
8. The Bank was entitled only to the payment of interest on the loan advanced and had no share in the profits to be earned by the complainants against their investments.
9. It is in this background that the investments were made but ultimately all the investments ended in failure that has given rise to this controversy. The complainants alleged that the losses suffered by the complainants are on account of the deficiencies and unfair trade practices of the opposite party Bank, therefore, they deserve to be compensated for this deficiency in the terms prayed for in their respective complaints.
10. The complaint CC/55/2024 was instituted first by the complainant Pankaj Sinha, where-after the complaint was filed by Narendra Shreenath Singru and the last complaint in the line was that of Ashutosh Tiwary. However, when the first complaint was filed by Pankaj Sinha, issues of pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability were raised.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 4|Page
11. The office report tendered by the Office in relation to the complaint filed by the complainant Pankaj Sinha is extracted hereunder:
―Diary No. 25396 dated 31/07/2023/CC Shri Pankaj Sinha has filed the present Consumer Complaint against HDFC Bank & Ors. Claiming a sum of Rs. 25 Crores.
The facts in brief are that the Complainant was enticed by the officers of the Opposite Party to invest 2,49,500 USD and suffered heavy loss. Hence, he has filed the present Complaint before this Commission claiming 25 Crores.
At the time of filing of this complaint, the Registry has raised an objection with regard to pecuniary Jurisdiction.
The Complainant states that the value of 2,49,500 USD, at the time of filing of this Complaint is Rs. 1.82 Crores in Indian rupees.
Since the consideration paid is less than Rs. 2 Crores the Registry has intimated the Complainant that this complaint cannot be filed before this Commission.
The Complainant insisted that this matter may be listed before the National Commission ―as it is‖. This complaint is not registered. Hence, it is assigned with the Diary No. 25396 and listed for directions.
The matter is placed before the Hon'ble Bench with the Office report today, the 4th September, 2023.‖ On 04.09.2023, the Bench passed the following order:
―Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. From the scrutiny of the documents, it is seen that the Office report indicates an objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of this complaint.
Learned counsel prays for two weeks' time to file an appropriate affidavit explaining the said stated deficiency in the pecuniary jurisdiction.
List on 27.10.2023.‖
12. In compliance of the same, an additional affidavit was brought on record through Diary No. 34665 dated 11.10.2023 with the following Indexed documents:
―S.No. Particulars Pages
1. ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT 1-3
2. A true copy of the Bank statement of the complainant 4-9
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 5|Page
account is herewith as ANNEXURE - C/33.
3. A true copy of the offshore field max deposit receipt 10-10 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE - C/34.
4. A true copy of the Bond Holding report is annexed 11-15 herewith as ANNEXURE - C/35.
5. A true copy of the STAN LN investment holding 16-23 statement is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE - C/36.
6. A true copy of the email dated 23.08.2023 is annexed 24-25‖ herewith as ANNEXURE - C/37.
13. The complaint CC/55/2024 in the case of Pankaj Sinha Vs. HDFC Bank & Ors. was proposed to be amended through an application filed vide Diary No. 34664 dated 11.10.2023 praying for taking the amended complaint on record.
14. The matter was directed to come up once again and on 22.11.2023 when the following order was passed:
―Heard learned counsel for the complainant at length. Prima facie, this case is arising out of an investment made by the complainant in an Offshore Account Deposit of the HDFC Bank. The present transaction has broadly three facets as disclosed in the complaint. The three facets are correlated to each other, namely, the investment which the complainant alleges he was allured to make and then the loan extended by the opposite party bank, and then followed by the issuance of the bonds which the complainant alleges had not actually been negotiated by him. The said bonds, according to the complainant, were supposed to be an investment of 5 years' duration with maturity thereafter and with definite earnings of interest on the said bonds, which, according to the complainant, were reflected in the emails that have been brought on record.
Learned counsel submits that later on the complainant realized that the value of these bonds started diminishing inasmuch as one set of bonds reached a zero value and the other set have been reduced by more than half. This alerted the complainant and the facts which have been narrated in the complaint allege an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party bank. The manner in which the transaction has not been transparently conducted diverting the investment is a serious deficiency in service. Consequently, the complainant urges that this complaint deserves to be entertained and the opposite party bank should be called upon in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to answer the same.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 6|Page Another issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction also emerges and on an analysis in the event if it is only the initial paid consideration, which according to the complainant was of an amount of 2,52,000 US Dollars, the calculation thereof in terms of Indian money on the date of the investment and transfer may or may not touch the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Learned counsel however submits that keeping in view the rates of Dollars as existing in March, 2023, the value would exceeds Rs.2.00 Crores and therefore this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction. In addition thereto the amount of interest which is being paid as against the loan transacted and the burden of the loan would also form part of the claim petition and hence the pecuniary jurisdiction would be very clearly met.
There are other issues also but in order to understand as to whether the investment involved in this complaint is a pure commercial transaction or is otherwise a consumer protected transaction, the nature of the negotiations, including the ultimate bonds, the proposal forms or the agreements that govern the transaction will have to be examined. The terms and conditions of the opening of the offshore bank account, the terms and conditions of the loan and then finally the terms and conditions of the two types of bonds which are involved herein will have to be examined before coming to the conclusion as to whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission or otherwise.
Consequently, in order to ascertain the same and after having heard the learned counsel for the complainant, it would be appropriate that the aforesaid three sets of documents referred to above are brought on record for which the complainant shall be at liberty to apply before the opposite party bank and the bank shall be under an obligation to supply the same to the complainant for the purposes of its assessment by this Commission. It shall be open to the complainant to produce a copy of this order before the opposite party bank.
The said documents may be produced within six weeks. The complainant may bring on record these documents by way of an affidavit and may also indicate any development, which may have occurred with regard to or in relation to the said transaction by the opposite party bank.
List for considering admission on 16.01.2024.‖
15. By this order, the issue as to whether the investment complained of and the deficiencies regarding the same was a commercial transaction or otherwise amenable to the jurisdiction of this Commission was noted. CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 7|Page
16. The complainant was given the liberty to move before the Bank for supply of appropriate documents regarding the nature of investments and it was also observed in the said order that the opposite party Bank shall be obliged to supply the documents for an assessment by this Commission.
17. The complainant came back intimating that the Bank had asked for further time to supply the documents and the following order was passed on 16.01.2024:
―Learned Counsel for the Complainant states that an affidavit has been prepared in compliance of the order dated 22.11.2023. The said affidavit could not be filed before the Registry. Learned Counsel is permitted to file the same within three days.
Learned Counsel informs that mails were dispatched to the respondent Bank for furnishing the documents and information that was needed as per the order dated 22.11.2023. The response received by mail on 12.01.2024 is to the effect that the Bank has asked for time till 16.01.2024 to respond to the same. In view of the said information having been tendered the Complainant's Counsel will have to accordingly furnish the information in order to meet and satisfy the queries raised in 22.11.2023, in case the documents are supplied by the Bank. Consequently the case is adjourned for 07.03.2024. The said documents be filed by the next date fixed.‖
18. In compliance thereof the complainant Pankaj Sinha in CC/55/2024 filed an affidavit through Diary No. 13060 dated 03.04.2024 bringing on record the affidavit extracted hereunder:
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 8|Page CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 9|Page CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 10 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 11 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 12 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 13 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 14 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 15 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 16 | P a g e
19. The said affidavit is accompanied by 8 Annexures, the Index whereof is as follows:
―S.No. PARTICULARS Page no.
1. Affidavit on behalf of the Complainant for 1-9
compliance of the Order dated 07.03.2024 passed
by this Hon'ble Commission.
2. ANNEXURE-A 10-11
A copy of the email dated 16.01.2024 sent by the
Sudhir Sreekumaran
3. ANNEXURE-B 12-13
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 17 | P a g e
A copy of the email dated 07.02.2024 sent by the
Sudhir Sreekumaran
4. ANNEXURE-C 14-33
A complete copy of the Master Service Agreement
as provided by the Bank
5. ANNEXURE-D 34-36
A copy of the sanction letter dated 05.10.2021 and
the Bond Holding Statement as provided by the
Bank
6. ANNEXURE-E 37-39
A copy of the sanction letter dated 06.10.2021 and
the Bond Holding Statement as provided by the
Bank
7. ANNEXURE-F 40-42
A copy of the sanction letter dated 07.10.2021 and
the Bond Holding Statement as provided by the
Bank
8. ANNEXURE-G (Colly) 43-61
A copy of the Glossary of defined terms, Client
profiler form, relationship opening form along with other documents
9. ANNEXURE-H 62-231 A copy of the prospectus of the bonds as now provided by the Bank
20. Taking notice of the said affidavit, notices were issued to the opposite party Bank at the pre-admission stage to answer the complaint on the issue of maintainability and pecuniary jurisdiction and file their affidavit within six weeks. The order dated 16.04.2024 is extracted hereunder:
―This is a fixed term maturity investment dispute, the amount whereof is stated to have been deposited by the complainant and which according to the complainant has resulted in a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the HDFC Bank and its functionaries. The deposits were in the shape of bonds and were investments made through an offshore account of the complainant but were transacted by the Bank. Learned counsel submits that this was a deposit and services were rendered by the Bank, which according to the complainant would fall within the ‗services' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The question as to whether the nature of investments/ deposits would amount to a commercial venture or not shall be open to a contest, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 18 | P a g e Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2022) 5 SCC 42.
In terms of the order dated 22.11.2023 and the order dated 16.01.2024, the complainant has proceeded to file an affidavit and the office report dated 20.11.2023 states that the amount in dispute is more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- and therefore the Commission will have the pecuniary jurisdiction over the same. This question will also be determined along with the issue of maintainability after the opposite parties respond to this.
Let this complaint be registered and an appropriate number be given to it.
Notices are issued at this pre-admission stage itself, calling upon the opposite parties to answer the complaint particularly the issue of maintainability and pecuniary jurisdiction referred to above and file their affidavit within six weeks.
The matter shall be listed for admission on 27.06.2024.‖
21. The opposite party Bank put in appearance through Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate, and sought time on 27.06.2024 to comply with the order dated 16.04.2024. Further adjournment was sought for the same purpose on 06.08.2024.
22. Another complaint by Mr. Narendra Shreenath Singru & Anr. of a similar nature bearing Diary No. 13448/NCDRC/2024-CC was filed on 05.04.2024.
23. IA No. 13641 of 2024 in CC/55/2024 and IA No. 30891 of 2024 in Diary No. 13448/NCDRC/2024-CC were filed on 11.09.2024 and 06.09.2024 respectively seeking directions against the Bank commanding it to desist from charging any interest or penal interest from the complainants and to release the deposits that were held in lien by the Bank.
24. The file of Diary No. 13448/NCDRC/2024-CC also proceeded along with CC/55/2024 and orders were passed therein on 06.08.2024 to list it along with CC/55/2024.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 19 | P a g e
25. The matter was adjourned on 26.09.2024. The Bank filed its affidavit in compliance of the order dated 27.06.2024 on 21.11.2024 through Diary No. 38455.
26. Thereafter another complaint being CC/1/2025 (Ashutosh Tiwary Vs. HDFC Bank) was filed raising similar issues.
27. All the three matters were taken up on 23.04.2025 when the following order was passed:
"Dated: 23.04.2025 ORDER
1. In all these three cases the issue of maintainability of the Petitions is to be considered keeping in view the nature of the transactions about which deficiency is complained of by the Complainants against the Respondent - HDFC Bank. Arguments were advanced in the lead case of CC No. 55 of 2024, Pankaj Sinha vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. on 22.11.2023 with directions issued on 16.01.2024 and on 16.04.2024. The Complaint was directed to be registered with notices issued at the pre-admission stage, calling upon the Respondent Bank on the issue of maintainability and pecuniary jurisdiction. On 27.06.2024, Mr. Rishab Raj Jain appeared for the HDFC Bank - Opposite Party and prayed for time to file a response on the issue of maintainability of the Complaints. Further time was granted on 06.08.2024 and the case was directed to come up on 20.01.2025. The matter could not be taken up on that date and was directed to come up today. The other two petitions also raise the same issue of maintainability and have been connected together.
2. We have heard Mr. Pattjoshi, learned senior Counsel along with the assisting Counsel, who advanced his submissions contending that there is no want of territorial jurisdiction as the transfer of the funds from the HDFC Bank in two of the cases are from the Saving Bank accounts of the complainants at Gurgaon to Bahrain, and in the third case from Nagpur to Bahrain that establishes that such transactions, about which deficiency has been alleged, fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction has also been explained in the affidavit filed in the case of Pankaj Sinha, indicating that the deficiency alleged is in respect of the amount invested by the applicant in that case to the tune of 2,56,841 US$, which in converted Indian currency exceeds Rs. 2 Crores. For this, reliance has been placed on the Bank statements to urge that this CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 20 | P a g e Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction in all three matters which are based on similar footings.
3. He has then proceeded to contend that the main issue with regard to the maintainability of the Petition, the nature of the transaction about which the Complaint has been made is a pure banking financial transaction service availed of by the complainants which falls within the definition of the word ‗service' as defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He submits that any facility in connection with banking / financing is clearly covered as a service, the dispute whereof amounts to a consumer dispute and a complaint regarding the same can be filed by a consumer of such services. He contends that the Complainants had hired the services of the Opposite Party Bank on their offer for availing the financial facilities as entailed in the Petition and, therefore, all the Complainants are consumers, who have alleged deficiencies in the services of the Bank and hence the Complaints are very much maintainable.
4. Mr. Pattjoshi commenced his arguments by pointing out that it was Ms. Deepika Khanna, the Customer Relation Officer of the HDFC Bank, who contacted the Complainant, and he has invited the attention of the Bench to the whatsapp messages from 18.05.2021 to 23.06.2021 sent to Mr. Pankaj Sinha, the Complainant in CC No. 55 of 2024. Similar contacts are alleged to have been made with the other complainants.
5. He then submits that this was followed by a proposal noted by the Bank itself captioned as an Investment Proposal filed on record as Annexure - C2, dispatched by Mr. Sudhir Sreekumaran of the Respondent Bank with a copy to Ms. Deepika Khanna, inviting the Complainant Pankaj Sinha to make investments that was available for NRI Customers through offshore private banking services. Mr. Pattjoshi submits that this investment proposal dated 25.06.2021 entails the list of the bonds offering the option to the Investors, some of which are without fund leverage and some of which are with fund leverage. He submits that on such representation by the Bank and its officials that the Complainants transfer their funds to an offshore account of the Opposite Party Bank in its offshore branch at Bahrain. He submits the head office of this branch is at Mumbai.
6. He points out that the Complainants were given to understand that they were being offered investment for deposits in the offshore account at Bahrain with a further facility for investing in bonds, the list whereof was provided in the Bank proposal itself dated 21.06.2021. According to Mr. Pattjoshi, the offer was for deposits to the tune of five years, refundable on CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 21 | P a g e maturity and with promises of substantial returns. The Complainants, therefore, on such representation, transferred their money from their Savings Bank Account in Gurgaon and Nagpur respectively to Bahrain.
7. This facility was available to NRIs like the complainants for investing their foreign currencies in the offshore accounts by making deposits in ‗yield max' accounts in term deposits. Accordingly, all the Complainants deposited their money in US dollars in the HDFC branch at Bahrain and invested them in Fixed Deposits, keeping in view the promises made by the bank.
8. Mr. Pattjoshi submits that the offer made for the deposit was also coupled with the facility offered by the Bank for investment in offshore bonds and fund leverage, which was nothing else but a transaction for a simple investment for deposits to earn interest and returns which was a banking facility, the services whereof were financial in nature.
9. He submits that the amount which was transferred, as in the case of Pankaj Sinha, from his Savings Bank Account, Gurgaon was a salary account and it is this earned salary by the Complainant that was transferred to the offshore account at Bahrain and was, therefore, a clear banking facility that was availed as a service for investing the money in order to receive returns as is usual with banking facilities for all customers. He submits that the nature of transaction was thus a pure banking facilities service availed of by the Complainant for investing his hard earned money from his salary account in deposits and that is in no way a commercial transaction.
10. He submits that availing of such services was under the offer made by the Bank itself that was pursued by the officials, and after the Complainants had invested their money in the bonds as suggested and advised by the Bank itself, they suffered losses on these investments, and since the losses suffered were on account of the incorrect advice and investments prompted, negotiated and guided by the Bank, the same is a clear deficiency on the part of the Bank.
11. Mr. Pattjoshi relied on the whatsapp chat communications, which have been filed along with the Complaint as well as e-mails to demonstrate that the Bank officials were continuously fostering hope inspite of clear queries being made by the Complainants and kept on informing that there was nothing to worry about the investments made by them. The information gathered by such mails and whatsapp messages was clearly to the effect that the investments made by the Complainants, on the asking and the CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 22 | P a g e guidance as well as the offer of the Bank, ultimately suffered losses for which the Bank and its officials were responsible. He, therefore, submits that these communications also indicate that these were Banking services and facilities that were availed of by the Complainants for making the deposits and purchasing the bonds on the asking of and the guidance of the Bank itself. The losses suffered, therefore, were clearly because of the acts and omissions of the Bank and not only this, the Complainants have also now been informed that the Fixed Deposits made by the Complainants in the offshore account at Bahrain are under lien as against the loan advanced for the purchase of the bonds by the Complainants. This is therefore an unfair trade practice and a clear deficiency on the part of the Bank.
12. It is also urged by Mr. Pattjoshi that Master agreements were entered into that are all clearly tailored to suit the best interest of the Bank and the investments towards which the Complainants were guided were diverted as against the initial investment proposal. Hence, this was an unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank which grievances are also amenable under the Consumer Protection Act. He, therefore, submits that the deficiencies in the Banking services is a financial transaction covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Complainants are clearly Consumers within the definition of the Act, hence their Complaints are maintainable in respect of the deficiencies alleged about the transactions in question.
13. He has urged that there is nothing commercial in nature about these transactions nor is it a commercial venture and there is neither any pleading nor any evidence led on behalf of the Opposite Parties through the affidavit filed by them on record so as to substantiate their objections regarding the transactions being a commercial venture for some commercial purpose. The submission in essence is that it was a mere deposit service facility availed from the Bank on the offer made by it and since the losses have been incurred on account of the representation and the facilities and services offered by the Bank, the present Complaint is maintainable.
14. Mr. Pattjoshi has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Raghachand Associates, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 851 to urge that the burden lay on the Bank who is the service provider of showing that the services availed of are of a commercial nature and of a commercial purpose, which they have failed to demonstrate and accordingly in the absence of any such pleadings or proof, the objection raised by the Opposite Party deserves to be rejected. He has further CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 23 | P a g e relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Bhatiya vs. HDFC Bank and Ors., (2022) 17 SCC 229 to urge that the Apex Court has considered the expression ―service‖ holding that service of any description which is made available to potential users would allow a Complaint to be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, thereby allowing a Consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the Act. The said case was in relation to a joint Fixed Deposit Account with the Bank and a dispute relating thereto and, therefore, the word ‗services' is wide enough to also include the nature of the transactions presently involved.
15. Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party Bank has advanced his submissions controverting all allegations and vehemently opposing all the three Complaints by urging that in fact the present Complaints and the nature of the dispute raised therein are about a pure commercial venture that falls within the definition of ―commercial purpose‖ as understood in terms of Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in as much as all the Complainants in the three Complaints are persons who have availed of services for a pure commercial purpose and, therefore, they are not Consumers.
16. He submits that the facilities of Banking and financial services as involved in the present case are not related to simple deposits by customers in banks and the grievance raised is about an alleged deficiency and deception in services regarding trading of bonds under a debt, the loan whereof was sanctioned by the Bank on the voluntary request of the Complainants for the purpose of investing in certain listed bonds, the option whereof was entirely the choice of the Complainants. The Bank had never compelled or induced the Complainants to make any such investments in the bonds that was a voluntary exercise by the Complainants for trading in order to gain higher profits through such investments.
17. Mr. Hooda, while explaining the sequence of the transactions, submits that all the Complainants are NRIs, who had parked their money in US$ with the HDFC Bank in the branches at Gurgaon and Nagpur respectively. Such investments on foreign currency and trading thereon in the nature of investments on account of the status as NRIs was possible only through offshore foreign bank accounts. Even otherwise, the Complainants were possibly not getting higher dividends and interest in the Savings Bank Accounts where the money was deposited in India or possibly for better returns, all the Complainants expressed their desire and voluntarily opened their offshore accounts in the offshore branch of the HDFC at Bahrain. The Complainants CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 24 | P a g e transferred their money in US$ to their accounts in Bahrain. They then invested their money in Fixed Deposits that are termed as ―yield max‖ deposits.
18. The management officials of the Bank seem to have intimated the Complainants about investment proposals as against their deposits and an offer for loans to invest through a bond leverage fund scheme. Explaining the same, Mr. Hooda submits that under the said proposal, if the Investors so choose, they can apply for a loan and the Fixed Deposits made by them in the ―yield max investment‖ would stand as a collateral security for extending loans. The loan disbursed would be available for the purchase of bonds. Since the bonds are to be purchased against a debt for which a loan was given by the Bank, the Bank informs a list of bonds with an open choice to any investor to choose for himself the bonds in which an Investor chooses to trade in and purchase such bonds. It is submitted that there is no compulsion on any Investor for purchasing any particular bond out of the choice indicated in the list of the bond as intimated in the proposal.
19. His submission is that the contention of the Complainants that they were guided by the Bank on its representation to purchase a particular type of bonds is absolutely incorrect nor there was any compulsion on the Complainants to make an investment through bond leverage funding financial facilities.
20. He submits that all the Complainants are well read and well qualified persons and he points out that Mr. Pankaj Sinha, the lead Complainant is heading the Coca Cola organization who was previously posted at Colombo in Sri Lanka and is now incharge of the Indian affairs of the Company in India. He is a highly qualified management professional, well versed in financial investments and all the Complainants were fully aware of the investments that they intended to make. They had themselves acted upon the invitation proposals voluntarily offering investments of their own free choice and will, in the bond leverage funds and purchase of bonds.
21. It is urged that the picture painted that the Complainants were duped to make these investments with an absolute protected capital investment is a totally misrepresented averment in as much as the Complainants had made commercial investments knowing fully and being completely aware about the nature of the investments and the consequences thereof. The Bank had facilitated the loan availed of by all the Complainants and then it was open to the Complainants to make investments from amongst the bonds that were referred to in the invitation. As CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 25 | P a g e against the loan, the Fixed Deposits of ―yield max‖ of the Complainants was to be retained as a collateral security which is available with the Bank even today. The Complainants were well aware and had accepted the terms of the collateral security of their deposit as against the loans availed of by them for the purpose of trading in bond leverage funds and investing it by purchasing bonds of their choice.
22. Mr. Hooda submits that the bank charges only nominal commission for this facilitation of the loan and the securing of the bonds, but the investment and its profits arising from the dividends of the bonds is entirely a profit for the investor. He submits that such investments are made in order to earn dividends to make good the payment of the interest of the loan and then also secure profits in the event the bonds yield higher returns. The Bank only gets the interest which is payable on the loan extended by it and nothing beyond that. Any profits arising out of the bonds are, therefore, the asset of the investors exclusively.
23. He then contends that the choice of purchase of bond is exclusively of the investor and the Bank nowhere controls the said choice. Once the choice is expressed, it is the decision of the investor at his own risk and out of his own free will about which clear terms and expressions have been used in the agreements that have been signed.
24. In the case of Mr. Pankaj Sinha, learned Counsel has invited the attention of the attestation and signing of four agreements, the papers whereof were processed through the son of Mr. Pankaj Sinha, namely Mr. Tanay Sinha. The agreements are the Master Investment Services Agreement, the Agreement for Fax and e-mail Indemnity, a Masters services agreement and a Master Facilities agreement dated 22.06.2021 as is evident from the documents filed at page no. 82 of the reply of the Opposite Party Bank. The contention of Mr. Hooda is that all the terms and conditions contained in these agreements which have been duly signed and attested by all the three Complainants in the three cases, spell out all the conditions clearly and transparently which broadly and specifically intimate the investor that the investments are at his risk in the bonds purchased under the leverage fund scheme.
25. Coming to the facts, while refuting the submissions on behalf of the Complainants, Mr. Hooda submits that the impression given about the investment having been procured by the Bank itself, as if the Complainants were unaware of any such risk, is absolutely misleading and he submits that the investment CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 26 | P a g e proposal filed as Annexure C-2 to the Complaint of Mr. Pankaj Sinha is only an invitation to the offer between the Bank official and the Complainants informing them about the scheme without there being any compulsion on them to make any such investment. It is urged that after the Complainants had opened their Bank accounts and transferred their money from India to Bahrain in the offshore accounts by depositing it in the ―yield max‖ account. They themselves volunteered to make these investments.
26. Taking up the case of Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Mr. Hooda invited the attention of the Bench to the mail message received through whatsapp from Mr. Pankaj Sinha dated 20.09.2021 that has been filed as Annexure OP-1/8 along with the reply by the Bank. Mr. Hooda submits that it is the Complainant, who has spelt out the reason for opening the offshore investment account that the Complainant himself intended to make leveraged investment in the bonds. He submits that this message is clearly a message covered under the definition of virtual instructions tendered by the Complainants, which also finds mention in clause 14 of the Master Investment Services Agreement filed as Annexure OP-1/2. The contention is that this was a clear voluntary instruction and desire of the Complainant that he had deposited the money in the offshore account in ―yield max‖ to further make leverage investments in bonds. Mr. Hooda submits that this submission also dispels any doubt about the terms and conditions of the investment in as much as the Complainant himself had indicated that the deposit was made in the offshore account on the basic premise that the Complainant would further be investing in the leveraged bonds. He, therefore, submits that the Complainant was well informed at each and every stage of the signing of the documents, whereafter he proceeded to make the investments after having accepted all the terms and conditions of the risk.
27. The disclosure of the risks regarding the investments ccording to Mr. Hooda is clearly spelt out in the various clauses including clause 5 and its sub-clauses read with clause 7 of Representations and Warrantees and its sub-clauses as well as the other terms and conditions that leave no room for doubt that the Complainants went ahead for investments after having been informed of all the pros and cons of the said transaction which was purely a commercial venture of trading in bonds.
28. He then went ahead to contend that on the aforesaid instructions, the loan was sanctioned to all the Complainants and the term loans were disbursed which fact is not disputed. In the case of Mr. Pankaj Sinha, the Bank released a term loan of 2,07,730 US$ on 28.09.2021, another term loan of 1,05,027.08 CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 27 | P a g e US$ on 14.10.2021 and the third term loan of 1,07,138.75 US$ on the same date. Thus a total loan of 4,19,973.26 US$ was sanctioned and released to the Complainant and on 14.10.2021 itself, the bonds were purchased.
29. Mr. Hooda, however, submits that these bonds were not purchased in haste or under any compulsion. The Bank sanctioned the loan on the choice of the bonds purchased as expressed by the Complainants. In the case of Mr. Pankaj Sinha, the Complainant was offered the purchase of the bonds through fund leverage and they selected two bonds of HSBC 4.6 PERP and AdaniG, for which a sanction letter was issued on 05.10.2021. This sanction letter is appended as Annexure - OP1/10.
30. Mr. Hooda points out that through a telephonic communication, Mr. Pankaj Sinha informed the concerned officer dealing with it that he has changed his mind and he had then selected a combination of HSBC PERP and HBSPIN bonds. Consequently, the earlier sanction letter dated 05.10.2021 was modified and a fresh sanction letter dated 06.10.2021 was issued as per the new choice and the selection made by the Complainant himself of his own free will. This acceptance was also communicated by Mr. Sinha on the same day vide a mail.
31. The Complainant, Mr. Pankaj Sinha, again changed his mind and selected two different bonds namely STANLN PERP bonds and CREDIT SUISSE, for which the Bank again revised and sent a fresh sanction letter on 07.10.2021.
32. The said sanction was finally confirmed on 12.10.2021 by a mail issued by the Complainant. The documents of final confirmation of the purchase of these two bonds have been filed as Annexure OP1/3 alongwith the reply. It is this final expression of choice which led to the sanction of the loan and in the case of Mr. Pankaj Sinha, the OP Bank in paragraph 40 has detailed the interest / coupon earned by him upto 21.08.2024 to the tune 41,265 US$.
33. Mr. Hooda submits that no complaint or demur was ever raised about any deficiency in service against the Bank about the investment in the bonds and the returns received by the Complainant.
34. Unfortunately, with the passage of time and for circumstances with which the OP Bank had no concern, on account of the CREDIT SUISSE Bank having failed, the bonds of CREDIT SUISSE stood reduced to zero value. The bonds of STANLN PERP also fell substantially and as a natural consequence CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 28 | P a g e thereof, without any default or deficiency on the part of the Bank, the Complainant and other investors did suffer losses as their investments had sunk due to the failure of the Bank and the dropping of their trade investments.
35. The Complainants long thereafter having realized their losses have made an attempt to retrieve back his ―yield max‖ deposits and also claiming damages from the Bank for which there is no justification in as much as the deposit made by the Complainants in the offshore account at Bahrain is still with the Bank as it is a collateral security against the loan taken by the Complainant.
36. The services, therefore, availed of by the Complainants is that of taking loans from the Bank for the purpose of trading in leverage bonds, which is a pure commercial venture and, therefore, the Complainants, having made the investments for purely commercial purposes, are not Consumers within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the Complaint is not maintainable. He, therefore, submits that the story set up through the mails on which reliance has been placed that were exchanged from November, 2021 to October, 2022 is a conversation that does not dilute the nature of the transaction as that of a commercial transaction and even otherwise, does not reflect any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank.
37. However, coming back to the issue of the subject matter of the dispute, Mr. Hooda maintains that it is a pure commercial transaction for trading in bonds after taking a loan and creating a voluntary debt for the purpose of earning higher profits through investment in bonds. The submission is that merely because it is a leveraged fund banking facility, the same does not diminish the nature of the transaction to a simple banking deposit facility and, therefore, he submits that decision of the Apex Court in the case of Srikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank, 2022 5 SCC 42 squarely applies on the facts of the present cases where the investments are commercial in nature for a commercial purpose, hence a Complaint would not be maintainable under the 2019 Act.
38. While advancing his submissions, Mr. Hooda urged that in view of the nature of the transactions, the judgment in the case of Arun Bhatiya vs. HDFC Bank and Ors. (supra) would not be attracted in as much as in that case, the banking services were of a joint Fixed Deposit Account with the Bank and, therefore, it is clearly distinguishable on facts as well as on law. He further submits that the OP Bank has already filed its reply along with evidence to demonstrate that the transactions are purely for CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 29 | P a g e commercial investment purposes and hence, the burden and the onus by the OP-1 has been discharged and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd.) vs. Raghachand Associates in SLP (C)-15290/2021, relied on by learned counsel for the Complainant has been fully satisfied, as not only the facts but all preponderance of probabilities on the facts of the present case lead to the conclusion that the transactions in question are for a commercial purpose venture and, therefore, all the three Complainants are not Consumers within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
39. The arguments could not conclude today and, therefore, as agreed, let the matter be listed for proceeding further on the issue of maintainability on 13.08.2025 at 2.00 pm.‖
28. The case came up once again and arguments were advanced that were supplemented keeping in view the submissions that had been raised by Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party Bank. The order dated 13.08.2025 is extracted hereunder:
"Dated: 13.08.2025 ORDER
1. These three matters were taken up earlier and arguments were heard on the maintainability and admission of the Complaint on 23.04.2025 when Mr. Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel had advanced his submissions, to which a response was given by Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel for the Bank. Today, however, Mr. Debesh Panda, learned Counsel for the Complainants supplemented the arguments on behalf of the complainants with regard to the five objections taken by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties in his reply affidavit filed on the said issue.
2. Mr. Panda has proceeded to urge that there is no want of territorial jurisdiction, in as much as, the Master Facility agreement dated 22.08.2021 in clause 15.22 categorically provides for disputes to be resolved in India at Mumbai. He therefore submits that since the pecuniary value of the complaint is within the limits of this Commission according to the Complainant, therefore the complaint has to be instituted before this Commission which has complete territorial jurisdiction within the territory of India, subject of course to the pecuniary limits as defined in the Act. He therefore submits that the dispute relating to the Banking facilities that were availed of by the Complainants is all within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 30 | P a g e hence the bundle of causes of action having its origin in India, the complaint has been rightly instituted before this Commission and the objection taken in this regard deserves rejection.
3. He further points out that the money was transferred from the Gurgaon Account of the Complainant with the Opposite Party Bank with which the Complainant has almost a 24 years of customer service provider relationship. The money was transferred to the offshore Account at Bahrain from Gurgaon and the transaction therefore giving rise to this controversy had commenced within the territory of India. He has referred to the relevant paragraphs in the pleadings including the reply of the Opposite Parties and also the relevant paragraphs of the rejoinder affidavit particularly paragraph 4(iii) and paragraph 7, paragraph 8 and paragraph 9.
4. He has then urged that the entire communications with the Relationship Manager Ms. Deepika Khanna, through whom all the transactions were mooted and communications were received, are all communications from the office of the Opposite Parties HDFC Bank in India. These facts are therefore composite and intertwined with the ultimate loss suffered by the Complainant on account of the misselling of the bonds by the Opposite Parties Bank and therefore this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
5. It is also urged that the mails received from Mr. Sridharan and also Mr. Gupta from India clearly indicate a continuity of the communications with the officials in India and Bahrain that establishes that there is no lack of territorial jurisdiction and therefore the complaint cannot be thrown on this allegation.
6. He then contends that there is no want of pecuniary jurisdiction keeping in view the amount invested by the complainants which according to them cross the pecuniary barrier of this Commission and hence it is only the National Commission which can only proceed with the matter. He urges that the consideration amount would not be limited only to the process fee charged by the Bank for extending the loan benefits for investment, but it is the entire amount of money transferred by the Complainants to the Bahrain Account coupled with the loan extended by the Bank that were invested in bonds that is the actual consideration paid to avail the services from the Opposite Party Bank, and therefore it is this consideration which exceeds the pecuniary limit of Rs. 2 Crores. Mr. Panda submits that these facts and figures are clearly available in the affidavits that have been filed supported by the Bank statements indicating the transfer of the Complainants' money and its subsequent utilization CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 31 | P a g e for extending the loans benefits for ultimately purchasing the bonds as suggested by the Bank itself. He therefore submits that the pecuniary jurisdiction limit is also met. To elaborate his submissions, he has also attempted to explain it with the definitions contained in Section 2(6)(iii) and Section 2(42) read with Section 39 and Section 58 of the Act to urge that the price which has been paid by the Complainants for the purchase of the bonds is the pecuniary value on the basis whereof this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction. He points out to the sanction of the loan vide a letter dated 10.10.2021 referring to the sanction given for the amount to be invested in the bonds. He therefore submits that the contention of the Opposite Parties on this ground is also untenable.
7. Replying to the contentions regarding the Complainants not being a consumer, he has cited three decisions in the case of Cheema Engineering Services vs. Rajan Singh, (1997) 1 SCC 131, Paragraph ‗6'; Sanjay Bansal vs. Vipul Ltd. & Anr., (2019) 15 SCC 568; and Shriram Chits (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand Associates, (2024) 9 SCC 509 to urge that whether the complainants are consumers or not for the services availed by them will have to await the arrival of any evidence and the same cannot be taken as a preliminary objection to dislodge the complaints. He submits that the allegations have been clearly made about the purpose for which the loan had been taken, which is not a commercial purpose. To overcome this arguments, the Opposite Parties will have to lead evidence and establish after the complaint is admitted, and if they are able to discharge that burden, then only such an argument can be entertained, but not at the preliminary stage. It is urged that even otherwise one of the complainants namely Pankaj Sinha has categorically stated that the loan was being taken to facilitate the educational carrier of the children of the complainant and meeting other family needs which was not for a commercial purpose. It is therefore urged that it would be too early to nonsuit the complainants at this stage without there being any evidence to disbelieve the claim of the complainants regarding the utilization of the said funds for purely individual purposes and not for any commercial purpose. He therefore submits that the complaint deserves to be entertained and proceeded further on merits.
8. The Opposite Parties have also raised an objection in their reply regarding misjoinder of parties as the complainants have arrayed three of the officials of the Bank as the Opposite Parties Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the complaints. The Opposite Parties allege that this is a clear misjoinder and consequently their names deserves to be struck off even otherwise if the complaint is held to be maintainable. While the aforesaid arguments was being advanced CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 32 | P a g e by Mr. Panda, Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel for the Bank intervened and stated that at this stage, when the complaint is being heard only on maintainability, he does not propose to press this argument to be dealt with in the event the complainants cross the barrier of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. It is therefore not necessary to record any further arguments in relation thereto.
9. The concluding argument advanced is that the objection of the Opposite Parties regarding the matter being a subject of a Civil Suit, as it involves complicated questions of facts, Mr. Panda submits that on the plain demur in the complaint and the reply of the Opposite Parties, it is abundantly clear that every aspect of the matter is documented and therefore it is on these documents that the complaint can be decided as it involves neither any complicated question of facts nor any such complex question that may require the complainants to be relegated to the Civil Court.
The submission of Mr. Panda is that the complaints in the form as pleaded along with the rejoinder affidavit deserve to be admitted for consideration on merits as the fact of the transactions having negotiated by the Bank and then ultimately informing the complainants that their entire investment has been xeroised, is definitely a determinable claim before the Consumer Commission and therefore the complaints deserve to be entertained.
10. The arguments could not conclude today as Mr. Hooda made a request for a response to these submissions, for which he prays for some time.
As agreed, let the matters be listed on 03.10.2025 at 2.00 pm.‖
29. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the arguments on behalf of the complainants had been concluded and Mr. Hooda sought time to respond to the said submissions.
30. The case was heard on 10.02.2026 and Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the complainants, advanced his submissions in detail, to which Mr. Hooda, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party HDFC Bank, responded by raising his objections to the maintainability of the complaint as follows:
(i) The complainants are not consumers as the investments are capital investments clearly intended to generate profits and CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 33 | P a g e therefore the complaints should not be entertained. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC
225. To substantiate the said contention, reliance has been placed by the Apex Court in the case of Annapurna B. Uppin & Ors. Vs. Malsidappa & Anr. (2024) 8 SCC 700. With the aid of the said judgment and the ratio thereof, it has been urged that the basic premise of opening the Offshore Investment Account was for further leveraged investment that is investment in a foreign currency for gains. Other judgments have also been relied on in support of the submission.
(ii) The second objection taken is that the Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction, inasmuch as, for availing the services of such investments there is no amount paid as consideration except a processing fee of 2,250 US$ only which in Indian Rupee comes to about 1,68,000. It is therefore submitted that in view of the legal position as explained by this Commission in the case of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 845, decided on 28.08.2020, and the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 974, the aforesaid processing fee is the only consideration paid and hence this Commission will have no pecuniary jurisdiction.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 34 | P a g e
(iii) The third submission of the learned counsel for the Bank is that the Master Facility Agreement for facilities and the Master Service Agreement clearly spell out that any dispute in respect of the same shall be governed by English laws and the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of Courts in Bahrain in all matters pertaining thereto. Clause 23 of the said Agreement has been relied on. It has also been urged that the relationship opening form that was executed at the time of the opening of the Offshore Account on 21.02.2020 categorically indicated in Clause 4.22 that all claims, matters and disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Competent Court at Bahrain only.
In addition thereto, it has also been urged that the permission of leverage AT1 bonds investments is not allowed within India and such services are available in Offshore Accounts only. Consequently there being a prohibition on investments in AT1 bonds in India, the complainants have willingly and voluntarily made these investments under Agreement that are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Bahrain and the services were provided to the complainants. Merely because the foreign currency of the complainants was transferred from India to Bahrain, the territorial jurisdiction cannot be construed to be within India.
(iv) The next objection raised is that there are complex factual issues including the allegations made over the communications both formal and informal which require proof and such complex CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 35 | P a g e question cannot be gone into in the summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act.
31. Mr. Panda raised and reiterated his submissions along with a note running into 79 paragraphs and cited decisions in support of his contentions. He however primarily raised the issue that the objection of the Bank that the nature of the investments and the reliefs prayed for being alleged to be a commercial transaction has to be supported by way of an affidavit after the complaints are admitted. He submits that this Commission had issued notices only at the pre-admission stage and therefore there are no formal pleadings nor have the parties exercised their rights to lead evidence, as such the issue of maintainability cannot be entertained and therefore the complete procedure of admission, filing of written statement and evidence should be allowed to be completed in order to determine the nature, the purpose and the intention of the transaction before the issue of a commercial purpose can be decided. His submission is that this Commission will have no jurisdiction to proceed to decide this question unless the evidence is led and the onus is discharged by the Bank by leading evidence to demonstrate that the nature of the transaction is a commercial purpose. In the absence of any such procedure adopted, the complainants cannot be non-suited at this stage on the ground of maintainability. He also submits that the issue of pecuniary and territorial jurisdictions also deserves to be entertained and the complaints deserve to be admitted and the jurisdiction of this Commission cannot be influenced by any affidavit filed by the Bank at this stage. It is neither a pleading nor evidence as this Commission itself has treated the exchange of these pleadings at a pre- CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 36 | P a g e admission stage. He has urged that the impact of the agreements and the other documents cannot be considered as they do not form part of any evidence at this stage.
The note of 79 paragraphs is extracted hereunder:
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 37 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 38 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 39 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 40 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 41 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 42 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 43 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 44 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 45 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 46 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 47 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 48 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 49 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 50 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 51 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 52 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 53 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 54 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 55 | P a g e
32. This has been supplemented by a supplementary note, which is extracted hereunder:
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 56 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 57 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 58 | P a g e
33. The Opposite Party/ Bank has tendered the written submissions alongwith the judgments relied on, which are extracted hereunder:
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 59 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 60 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 61 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 62 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 63 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 64 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 65 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 66 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 67 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 68 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 69 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 70 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 71 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 72 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 73 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 74 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 75 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 76 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 77 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 78 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 79 | P a g e
34. The contentions have been raised on the basis of the allegations made in all the three Complaints and referring to the facts stated in CC/55/2024 ‗Mr. Pankaj Sinha vs. HDFC Bank', which discloses the following facts:
According to Mr. Sinha, one Ms. Deepika Khanna, Relationship Manager of the HDFC Bank approached him by promising significant growths in respect of his deposits. The allegation is that with the trust and confidence that built up CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 80 | P a g e between them, the same led the Complainant to consider investing in offshore bonds which according to the Complainant was secured and profitable option.
This led to the introduction of the Complainant to Mr. Sudhir Sreekumaran who later became the Relationship Manager for the offshore account of the Complainant at Bahrain. The Complainant has alleged that Yield Max Proposal was made with guaranteed high returns and maturity dates in 2026 and 2030. This proposal was negotiated and the Complainant alleges that he was enticed into investing in Leverage Investment Bonds. The allegation is that some blank forms were signed but the filled up forms were not shared with the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant Mr. Pankaj Sinha authorized the remittance of 2,49,500 US$ from his foreign currency non-
resident deposit at HDFC Bank, Gurgaon to the newly opened offshore account in Bahrain.
The Complainant alleges that he never went to Bahrain and all the formality were completed by the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 from the Gurgaon Bank Branch.
Upon transfer of the said amount which was approximately 1.82 crores in 2021, the same was invested in the Yield Max Forward contract with guaranteed returns on with maturity. The guaranteed returns against this investment were indicated to the tune of Rs.2,55,895.67 US$ upon maturity in 2026.
On 21.06.2021, the Master Facility and Services Agreement was signed by the Complainant and the same was acknowledged as having received on CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 81 | P a g e 27.08.2021. According to the Complainant this agreement was never shared with him till March, 2023.
On 27.09.2021, bonds from HSBC and Adani were offered to the Complainant with a fixed maturity rate and the offer of leverage according to the Complainant was reflected upto three times on the investment. It appears that the Complainants altered their option and another sanction letter on 5th/ 6th October, 2021 were issued for the bonds from the CREDIT SUISSE 4.5 perpetual and standard chartered 4.3 perpetual bonds. The Complainant was also offered a loan of 2.10 Lakhs US$ and for investment in these leverage bonds and consequently this lead to a total investment of 4.15 Lakhs US$ in the AT-1 bonds of CREDIT SUISSE and Standard Chartered Bank.
According to the Complainant in spite of specific queries irresponsible and unprofessional treatment was given and ultimately in May/ June, 2022 he was informed by the Bahrain Branch that his investments were down by 70,000 US$. This repeated erosion of capital and rise in interest rates ultimately led to the announcement on 19.03.2023 that the CREDIT SUISSE bond investment was zeroized as it was an AT-1 Bonds. It is then that the Complainant alleges that he started corresponding and after numerous attempts, a complaint was registered against the Bank before the Economic Offencing Wing, Gurgaon. However, all these communications in between the Complainant felt defrauded and the present Complaint by Mr. Pankaj Sinha was filed on 20.07.2023.
35. After the complaint was filed the Registry pointed out that the pecuniary limit of this Commission is being above 2 crores, the allegations about investment was of 2,49,500 US$ which was approximately 1.82 crores and CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 82 | P a g e therefore less than the pecuniary limit. With the said Report the matter was listed on 04.09.2023 when after hearing the Learned counsel for the Complainant, the Commission had passed the order on 04.09.2023 calling upon the Complainant to file the appropriate affidavit explaining the stated deficiency, the matter was adjourned on the request of the Complainant on 02.09.2023 and on 17.09.2023 an affidavit was filed alongwith a Bank Statement and the documents regarding the investment and the alleged loss where upon the matter was remitted to the Registry for giving a fresh report. On 22.11.2023, the matter was taken up and the orders were passed that have already been extracted hereinabove.
36. A perusal of the said order would indicate that since the proposal forms/ bonds and agreements governing the transactions were not on record, the Complainant was called upon to file the same after obtaining it from the Bank. On 16.01.2024, it was informed that the Bank has not responded to the request and therefore further time was sought, whereafter on 16.04.2024 notices at the pre-admission stage were issued and the Bank put in appearance on 27.06.2024. The Bank took further time to file a reply whereafter the affidavit alongwith IA/16866/2024 was filed another affidavit was filed by the Opposite Party No.1 on 14.01.2025 to which the rejoinder was filed by the Complainant. It is with these documents that arguments were advanced and stand recorded on 23.04.2025 when Mr. Pattjoshi, Sr. Counsel was heard however the arguments could not conclude on that date, as such the matter was once again adjourned and was heard on 13.08.2025 when Mr. Panda, Advocate on behalf of the Complainant advanced his submissions to which the reply was given by CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 83 | P a g e Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Counsel. Accordingly, the arguments were heard on 10.02.2026 and the written submissions were exchanged that have already been extracted hereinabove.
37. Apart from Mr. Pankaj Sinha, two other Complainants have also come up thereafter namely, Mr. Narendra Shreenath Singru and another in Dy. No.13448/NCDRC/2024/CC and one Mr. Ashutosh Tiwary in CC/1/2025, their submissions which had been earlier advanced by Mr. Choudhary, Advocate are similar and the nature of the transactions being same, the same have also been heard alongwith the leading case in CC/55/2024.
38. In the case of Narendra Shreenath Singru, the investments are in the same nature of AT-1 bonds of CREDIT SUISSE, in that case the Bank has charged a commission of 2,800 US$ on the said investments. The same nature of the agreements including the Master Service Agreement are set to have been executed. The loss suffered by the said Complainant is of a similar in nature and the root of the investment is also the same except the officials involved in this case. Where the Relationship Managers who are set to have carried out the investments are different. Mr. Narender Shreenath Singru along with his wife who is the Complainant No.2 have filed this complaint with an affidavit which indicates that they are the residents of Metro Manila, Philippine and are also investors of the same nature as the first complaint. The affidavit filed in response to the orders passed by this Commission by the Complainant Mr. Narendra Shreenath Singru is to the following effect:
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 84 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 85 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 86 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 87 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 88 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 89 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 90 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 91 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 92 | P a g e CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 93 | P a g e
39. Similarly in the case of Mr. Ashutosh Tiwary we find that he is the resident of Setperk Road Randpark, Randburg, 2125, South Africa. He has also invested in the same nature of the bonds and the Complaint is supported by his affidavit which discloses that he also was residing in South Africa. His investments are also in AT-1 bonds of CREDIT SUISSE who also makes similar allegations as in CC/55/2024 with the same Relationship Managers referred to in that case.
40. In CC/55/2024, the Bank has filed an affidavit through Ms. Naini Gandhi along with Power of Attorney bringing on record the Master Investment Services Agreement. The facts and email indemnity dated 22.08.2021, a copy CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 94 | P a g e of the Relationship opening form the guidelines issued by the Bank at Bahrain alongwith the details of the offshore bank statement of the Complainant at Bahrain. The facility request letter, the sanction letter and the email confirming the terms of the sanction of investment together with the subsequent sanction letter have all being brought on record.
41. We have considered the allegations contained in all the three Complaints and the documents filed as well as the documents which have been procured through the Bank on the orders passed by us. It may be pointed out that such a procedure is permissible where under Section 38, the Commission can call upon the parties to produce the documents that are necessary for the adjudication of the controversy. The Bank has responded and has filed its affidavit on 21.11.2024 vide diary no. 38455 and a copy of whereof has already been served on the complainant's counsel in CC/55/2024.
42. A rejoinder to the same has been filed by Mr. Pankaj Sinha vide diary no. 1333 on 14.01.2025. This exchange of affidavits therefore is a compliance with the principles and procedure of natural justice as contemplated under Section 36(2) read with Section 38(9) of the 2019 Act.
43. It has been revealed that the Complainant Mr. Pankaj Sinha was the Managing Director of the Coca Cola, Sri Lanka and was residing in Sri Lanka when all these transactions were entered into. Similarly, Mr. Narender Shreenath Singru and Mr. Ashutosh Tiwary have made these investments and they are not novices inasmuch as they are heading concerns and are themselves highly paid executives who out of their earning have opted for CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 95 | P a g e investments through these offshore accounts by investing in leverage bonds transacted from the account at Bahrain.
44. The Master Investment Services Agreement duly signed by the complainants contains clause 23 which categorically recites as follows:
―23. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be governed by English Laws and the parties submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Bahrain in all matters pertaining thereto."
45. The agreement for fax and email indemnity entered into between the complainant and the Bank in Clause 7.1 to 7.4 recites as under:
―7.1 In relation to a dispute pertaining to a matter of Transaction, the dispute resolution clause of the relevant Principal Agreement shall be applicable and shall govern such dispute, and accordingly the said dispute shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the place mentioned in its respective underlying Principal Agreement pertaining to such a matter or Transaction, which place for ready reference is also mentioned in Schedule 2 hereto. The parties agree that subject to Clause 7.2 below, if the process of courts is required to be invoked for enforcement of Clause 7.2 below, including for seeking any interim relief prior, during or after invocation of Clause 7.2 below, the competent courts and tribunals at the place as mentioned in the respective underlying Principal Agreement pertaining to such matter or Transaction, which place for ready reference is also mentioned in Schedule 2 hereto, shall have exclusive jurisdiction and both the Parties hereto submit to the same.
7.2 Provided that, in the event of dispute/claim does not pertain to any Transaction or relates to any matter not specifically covered CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 96 | P a g e by any Principal Agreement ("Other Dispute(s)"), such Other Dispute shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with English laws. Further, for such Other Dispute, the Parties agree that subject to Clause 7.2 below, competent courts and tribunals of Bahrain shall have exclusive jurisdiction and both the parties submit to the same.
7.3 All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of these presents or as to the construction, meaning or effect hereof or as to the rights and liabilities of the Parties in relation to a Transaction hereunder, shall be settled by arbitration to be held in the place mentioned in the respective underlying Principal Agreement pertaining to such Transaction, which place, for ready reference is also mentioned in Schedule 2 hereto in accordance with the provisions of law applicable at the place as mentioned in the respective underlying Principal Agreement pertaining to such a Transaction, which place, for ready reference is also in Schedule 1 hereto (or any statutory amendments thereof or any statute enacted for the replacement thereof) and shall be referred to the arbitration of an arbitrator to be nominated mutually by both the parties. In the event of death, refusal, neglect, inability or incapacity of the person so appointed to act as an arbitrator, the parties may appoint a new arbitrator within 60 days. The language of arbitration shall be English. The cost of such arbitration shall be borne by the losing party or otherwise as determined in the arbitration award. The award including interim awards of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitrator may lay down time to time the procedure to be followed by them in conducting the arbitration proceedings and shall conduct arbitration proceedings in such manner as the arbitrator considers appropriate.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 97 | P a g e 7.4 Provided that, for the Other Dispute(s), the process of arbitration as mentioned in Clause 7.2 herein shall be held in Bahrain in accordance with the provisions of the English Laws."
46. A combined reading of this along with the Master Investment Services Agreement leaves no room for doubt that the parties had expressly entered into a contract in respect of territorial jurisdiction for contesting any matter within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Bahrain. Even the seat of Arbitration has been mentioned as Bahrain in accordance with the provisions of the English Laws.
47. Learned counsel for the complainants however urged that the said agreement recording transactions allowed through virtual instructions under Schedule 2 mentions offshore and leverage services and in the last column of the said schedule refers to jurisdiction and place of arbitration as Mumbai. It may be pointed out that the jurisdiction part stands specifically covered by the Master Investment Services Agreement under clause 23 referred to above. Consequently, any such reference to the jurisdiction at Mumbai will not govern territorial jurisdiction in this matter.
48. The contention raised by the complainant, Mr. Pankaj Sinha in his rejoinder that the head office of the Bank is at Mumbai is of no consequence, in as much as, the Master Services Agreement was filled up by the complainants with open eyes for transacting from their Offshore accounts at Bahrain and they cannot now turn around and say that it is an one sided agreement. The contention that the cause of action arose and originated in India is also misplaced, in as much as, it is the consequences of investments at Bahrain which is the cause of action complained of. There is no dispute with regard to CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 98 | P a g e the initiation of the transfer of the money from India to their Offshore accounts. The services were undertaken voluntarily by the complainants from the Bank whereafter the investments were made through negotiations and transactions from the offshore account itself. As already pointed out by the learned counsel for the Bank such investments in AT1 bonds were available outside India and were not permitted under the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in India. This stands confirmed with the submissions recited in paras 68 to 76 of the written notes quoted above filed by the learned counsel for the complainants. A financial transaction meant to operate only outside India, cannot be brought within the territorial jurisdiction only for the convenience of the complainants. It is for this reason that the agreement for investment is replete with risk warnings which are explicitly recited in the agreements on record with clarity on English Laws applicable to be dealt with exclusively by Courts in Bahrain.
49. Apart from this the nature of the transactions clearly indicate their dominant purpose to generate profits. All the three complainants are investors for earning profits out of the investments in these bonds of Standard Chartered Bank and Credit Suisse. The contention that they cannot be compared with share investments does not appear to be a correct contention, in as much as, the financial investments that too even after taking loans for earning profits has the tenor of investments of the nature of an investment in a share market. The investments made are not simply Fixed Deposits in a Bank earning simply interest. The investments are of the nature as has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Shrikant G. Mantri vs. Punjab National Bank, (2022) 5 SCC 42.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 99 | P a g e
50. A perusal of the terms of the several agreements on record clearly forewarn of investments about the risks involved. Clause after clause of the documents clearly narrate that these are high risk investments with a clear disclaimer by the Bank that it shall not be responsible for variations in the returns of such investments and it shall be the sole decision of the complainants to venture into these investments.
51. With the aforesaid caveats in the agreement itself it is evident that the complainants voluntarily with open eyes chose to make these investments and have come forward complaining after these investments have failed to give expected returns.
52. The contention of the complainants is that being a long standing customer of the Bank, the complainants relied on the officials of the Bank namely Ms. Deepika Khanna who was in constant conversation with the complainant informing about the nature of the investments that were to be made. It is urged that this communication was being exchanged in respect of the offshore accounts and the offer of leverage on some of the bonds that were to be transacted for investments. All these promises were being communicated and the offer was received by the complainant Mr. Sinha from Mr. Sudhir Srikumaran stationed in UAE. These offers were made as is evident from the mails of July/August/September of 2021. One of the mails dated 09.07.2021 has been placed on record and the documents which were required along the application form were called for from the complainant. The communication dated 12.07.2021 indicating the request for printouts and other formalities followed by the mail dated 14.07.2021 is on record. The mail dated 20.08.2021 CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 100 | P a g e addressed to the complainant requested him to sign the forms to be dispatched by courier. This was followed by the request of account details that were forwarded of the Account in the HDFC Bank at Bahrain. The amount was transferred to the Bahrain branch to be invested in Offshore Yield Max Deposit for five years. The total deposit made was 2,49,500 US$ and the maturity amount projected was 2,55,895.67 US$. This is clearly reflected in the mail dated 01.09.2021. All these documents were being exchanged from the complainant from Colombo, Sri Lanka where the complainant Mr. Sinha was then working.
53. On 05.10.2021, the declaration of understanding and acceptance of the sanction for investment in the Offshore bonds and funds leverage was sent to the complainant along with the sanction letter of the facilities of the loan. This communication is from the HDFC Bank Bahrain Financial Tower, Manama, Bahrain and addressed to the complainant at Columbo, Sri Lanka. This loan sanction letter is for 4,00,000 US$ on the investment of the margin money of 2,00,000 US$. The total investment was therefore to cover the sanction of 6,00,000 US$. This sanction was pursuant to the Master Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The terms and conditions in the sanction letter of the loan cum investment services is explicit and the option given for investment that was indicated in the sanction letter was for bonds of HSBC 4.6 Perpetual and Adani G4 bonds.
54. It may be pointed out that the leverage bond list had been sent by a separate mail requesting the complainants to select any two bonds and accordingly the aforesaid two bonds were selected by the complainants. CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 101 | P a g e
55. The complainant Mr. Sinha seems to have later selected two other bonds instead of the earlier option offered and therefore a fresh sanction letter was issued on 06.10.2021 for the new bonds selected by the complainant, who furnished his acceptance through the mail dated 06.10.2021. The said fresh sanction was confirmed by the complainant on 07.10.2021.
56. However, a third option was exercised by the complainant himself, who selected Stan LM 4.3 Perpetual bonds and Credit Suisse Perpetual Bonds. Thus the final selection made were two bonds in which Mr. Sinha invested his funds namely the Standard Chartered and the Credit Suisse Bonds. The sanction letter dated 07.10.2021 is on record. The complainant Mr. Pankaj Sinha has himself narrated these facts in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the complaint which are extracted hereinunder:
15. After transferring 2,49,500 USD (approximately 1.82 Crores) from OP No.2 branch at an interest rate of 0.5% from FCNR-B with a forward cover of 90.65 RS/USD, the amount was invested in YieldMax Forward Contract with Guaranteed returns. An acknowledgement was shared by OP No.4, along with a calculation chart outlining the investment details. The chart indicated a guaranteed return of USD 2,55,895.67 (approximately 2.32 Crores) upon maturity in 2026. The Complainant expressed concerns about the potential depreciation of the Rupee in comparison to the USD to which the assurance from OP No.4 was given, promising the high returns mentioned in the chart, in case of any eventuality. A copy of the correspondence pertaining to the sharing of the calculation chart of investment and return dated 01.09.2021 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE -
C/8. The OP, right from the 1" proposal, suggested that the Yield Max deposit be leveraged to invest in Bonds.
16. That the OP No. 5 sent an email on 07.09.2021, execution under witness attestation and confirmed that the OP had received the documents vi courier number 27777279 (Sky net worldwide Express) dated 27.08.2021 and confirmation for transactions. A copy of execution under witness attestation is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-C/9.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 102 | P a g e
17. That in the initial sanction letter dated 27.09.2021 which was handed over by the OP No.4 to the Complainant, bonds from HSBC and Adani were offered with a fixed maturity date. A copy of the correspondence pertaining to the sanction letter dated 27.09.2021 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE- C/10. (Not available)
18. That the complainant was further enticed by the offer of leverage upto 3 times on the investment. However, it is important to note that the risk associated with leverage was never clearly explained to the complainant, and there was a consistent assurance of a safe investment with capital protection. As a result, a revised sanction letter replacing the initially offered bonds with Credit Suisse 4.5 Perp and Stan Chart 4.3 Perp bonds were issued without proper explanation about the true nature of the bonds. A true copy of the confirmation of revised sanction letter dated 05.10.2021 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C/11.
57. The complainants have however time and again pleaded that the complainant was enticed with the said offer and that documents were created by the Bank in order to somehow or the other bag the investments from the complainant. The loan was disbursed for the purchase of Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered Perpetual Bonds that stood confirmed in October, 2021 itself.
58. The complainant Mr. Pankaj Sinha while volunteering to deposit in the Max Yield Account got his funds transferred from India to Bahrain on 26.08.2021. For this, he had entered into the Master Investment Services Agreement dated 22.08.2021, the Agreement for Fax and E-mail indemnity dated 22.08.2021, the Master Facility Agreement against Deposits dated 22.08.2021 and the Master Service Agreement dated 22.08.2021.
59. On 20.09.2021, the complainant sent the following mail:
"Hi Sudhir, CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 103 | P a g e The reason we had gone for yield max was further leveraged investment in bonds. That was the basic premises for opening the offshore investment account.
Please share and update on the leverage against the deposit and bond investment.
Regards Pankaj Sinha"
60. The aforesaid facts indicate that the complainant on his own volition had opened the Offshore Bank Account to make a deposit in the Max Yield Facility. He further wanted leverage against the said deposits and for that he applied for the loan facility, for which a facility request letter was sent on 27.09.2021 against which the sanction was issued for loan amount of 2,07,730 US$. This amount was disbursed with the facility request letter, sanction letter and the mail dated 27.09.2021 by the complainant who confirmed the sanction. The amount was accordingly disbursed at Bahrain on 28.09.2021.
61. The OPs in their response in paragraph 40 have further indicated that after the investment and purchase of the bonds the complainant Mr. Sinha had also enjoyed receiving interest / coupons against the said investments in the following manner:
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 104 | P a g e The same argument has been advanced in respect of the other complainants.
CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 105 | P a g e
62. It appears that the said bonds which are AT1 bonds faced a decline and during 2021-2022, it became a matter of concern and then finally on 19.03.2023, the complainant Mr. Sinha was informed about the news of Credit Suisse Bonds investment having been zeroised. Similar is the response to the other complainants.
63. The complainant thereafter has referred to communications levelling allegations against the HDFC Bank and then a complaint was also filed before the Economic Offences Wing at Gurgaon, Haryana. The complainant alleged that he was misled all the time and that he was duped of his entire money through this method by the OP.
64. We have gone through the arguments as also the agreements with regard to the nature of the investments and the reliefs claimed and we find that the main relief claimed is on the allegations of the Bank having enticed the complainant in making the investments where the complainant has suffered a loss. The prayer is to pay the entire principal amount along with appropriate interest. This entire claim of the amount is not only with regard to the investments made, but is also a complaint about the losses suffered due to the loaning facilities that was availed of by the complainant for making investments on the ground that the losses had been suffered on account of misleading and surreptitious offers having been made by the Bank.
65. We are unable to agree with the submission in as much as the entire investments have been made through the Offshore Account at Bahrain. They have been made by the complainants who are well versed with the nuances of the investments as they themselves are heading multi national organizations CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 106 | P a g e and have been posted internationally. The complainants are no layman to the field of investment and had ventured into the investments on their own. They are not ordinary Bank depositors who can claim ignorance about investments.
66. Having considered all the documents as available in the complaint and the averments referred to above as also the manner in which the complainants have opened their accounts and made investments as is evident from their own allegations in the complaint, stand supported by the submissions raised on behalf of the OP Bank. There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that apart from the other contentions raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint, we do not find any scope for assuming territorial jurisdiction in view of the explicit provisions in the respective agreements as pointed out by the learned counsel of the OP Bank that the Courts in Bahrain will have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of any dispute regarding the investments in question or any aspect related thereto.
67. A Supplementary Note has also been preferred on behalf of the Complainants praying that the Complaints be admitted and the Opposite party be called upon to complete the pleadings so that the Complaints be not dispensed with midway when the issue of territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction already stand satisfied. The written submissions on behalf of the Opposite Party Bank to supplement the submissions advanced by Mr. Narender Hooda, have also been filed along with the compilation of judgments. The said written submissions on behalf of the Bank in response to the arguments advanced have been perused by us along with the written submissions as well CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 107 | P a g e as the Supplementary Note tendered by the learned counsel for the Complainants.
68. We may at the outset clear the decks regarding any doubts of the nature of the power to be exercised by this Commission at this stage of admission as per the provisions of Section 36 (2) of the 2019 Act read with Section 59 thereof. The Section 36 (2) is extracted herein under:-
―(2) On receipt of a complaint made under section 35, the District Commission may, by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with or reject the same:
Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant:
Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed.‖
69. This issue with regard to the admissibility of the Complaints keeping in view the peculiar nature of the dispute and the arguments advanced has been dealt with by us at the previous hearings at the pre-admission stage itself which is evident from the queries raised and the orders passed quoted herein above. The queries raised were not only about pecuniary jurisdiction, but also regarding the maintainability of the Complaint given the subject matter as also the issue of territorial jurisdiction. To examine the same, we had called upon the learned counsel for the Complainant to file appropriate affidavits and since the complete documents as desired were not available, we had also called upon the Bank at the pre-admission stage through the order dated 16.04.2024 to provide the material to enable us to proceed further in the matter. The arguments on behalf of the Complainants were also noted on 23.04.2025 that was responded to by the learned counsel for the Bank, but the arguments could CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 108 | P a g e not conclude on that day and therefore, as agreed the matter was again adjourned for 13.08.2025 and was heard finally on 10.02.2026. It is because of these extensive arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the Complainants and its response as well as the time taken for filing of the documents that the question of admissibility and the related issue of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction had to be heard.
70. Thus, a full opportunity of being heard has been given to the Complainants as well as the Opposite Party relating to the admissibility of the Complaints on the question of subject matter, pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction as well.
71. The contention of the learned counsel for the Complainants was that without admitting the Complaints and completion of pleadings as well as evidence on record, the three issues could not be decided and therefore, the Complaints should be admitted and then proceeded with. Consequently, the submission is that the Complaints should be compulsorily admitted and then orders be passed thereafter.
72. We do not agree with the aforesaid submission on behalf of the Complainants inasmuch as even though there is a time line provided for the admissibility of the Complaint, but the said time period is prefixed by the word ‗ordinarily' and the same therefore, in our opinion does not denude this Commission to determine the question of maintainability on the issues raised, more so in the present case when a full opportunity has been given to the Complainants to address on these issues on the basis of the documents that are on record. The Complainants counsel urged that these documents do not CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 109 | P a g e amount to exchange of pleadings or filing of affidavits and as a matter of fact it is only after the written version of the Bank is filed that evidence has to be adduced, and only then the issues raised can be appreciated which opportunity cannot be diluted by passing any order on these issues at the admission stage.
73. We may point out that the discretion to admit a complaint in an ordinary course is recognized under the Act, but it is subject to the limits of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, limitation as also jurisdiction over the subject matter. In our considered opinion, such issues should be resolved at the threshold of the admission stage itself and therefore the argument of the learned counsel for the Complainants that the complaints should be formally admitted and then affidavits should be allowed to be exchanged with evidence does not appear to be compatible with the provisions referred to above and would also be running counter to the summary procedure under Section 38 of the Act, 2019 and jurisdiction of this Commission.
74. We may point out that the learned counsel for the OP has correctly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anjaneya Jewellery vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 337, paragraphs 9 to 12 to urge that the Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and decline admission having regard to the facts of each case in an appropriate case.
75. It may be reiterated that orders can be passed at the admission stage as observed hereinabove and the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the OP on the decision cited by him to that effect in the case of Anjali Jewellers (supra) is squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 110 | P a g e
76. As would be evident from the facts of this case the Complainants had not filed the Complaints with all the relevant contractual documents which the Complainants allege to have been withheld by the Bank. However, with the intervention of our orders the said documents have been brought on record pertaining to the proposals, the agreements and the signing of documents by the Complainants while opting for the investments the dispute whereof has been raised in the present Complaints.
77. We may point out that there is no vested right for getting a Complaint admitted unless the same meets the threshold of such issues relating to jurisdiction and limitation that have been addressed to before us exhaustively. As we shall shortly record herein-under, the Complaints has to fail on all counts on the disclosed material on the issues of maintainability and jurisdiction and, therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel that these issues should be withheld for being answered after admission is legally untenable.
78. We may also mention about the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction. It may be pointed out that the definition which governs the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission is contained in Section 58 which recites that the value of goods or services paid as consideration should be above Rs.2,00,00,000/-.
79. The contention of the Complainants is that the huge investments made on the promises of the Opposite Party Bank which include the FNAC deposits of the Complainants as also the loan advanced by the Bank, that was invested on the guidance and proposal of the Bank itself amounts to the consideration paid by the Complainants to the Bank for receiving the benefits out of deposits made by them. It is also urged that treating the said value as consideration paid, the CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 111 | P a g e Bank had also initially intimated about the returns on maturity. The amount lost by the Complainants is huge which exceeds the limit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in CC No.55 of 2024, Pankaj Sinha Vs. HDFC Bank. The losses have been claimed to the extent of Rs.2,56,841/- US $ which on conversion according to the Complainant comes to about Rs.2,10,60,962/- At first flush, the arguments appear to be attractive, but on this issue one has to go by the definition that has now being interpreted by this Commission in the decision of Pyaridevi Chabiraj Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. reported in 2020 SCC online NCDRC 845, decided on 28.08.2020, which is extracted herein under:-
―M/s Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., Howrah, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as ―the Complainant‖) have approached this Commission by filing a Complaint being Consumer Complaint No. 833 of 2020 against National Insurance Company Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal and three other Parties seeking the following reliefs:
―91. That the Complainant seeks financial reliefs on account of financial loss and detriment to the life and livelihood of its stakeholders and for the restoration of the Company. The total sum claimed for the restoration of the Factory Premises being Rs.28,23,05,135/- and relief from NPA which includes:
a. The sum of Rs.9,96,50,500/- for the restoration of damaged and tilted buildings.
b. The sum of Rs.73,03,656/- for the expenditure already incurred in CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 112 | P a g e restoration and replacement of Plant and Machinery. c. The sum of Rs.9,92,12,841/- for the loss of stocks. d. The sum of Rs.86,38,138/- for restoration and replacement of Plinth and foundation.
e. The sum of approximately Rs.6,75,00,000/- for relief from NPA Other Reliefs and compensation sought:
f. Interest at the rate of 18% from the date of occurrence of the event. g. Rs.1,00,00,000/-for mental pain and agony of the stakeholders. h. Rs.2,72,00,000/- (Approx.) towards compensation on account of loss of business. As Prior to the incident the business of the Company was growing at the rate of 25% every year.
i. An amount towards ante lite, pendent lite and future interest as the Hon'ble Commission deemed fit.
j. Cost of the litigation as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Commission; X. Prayer Clause In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be pleased to grant:
a. The above mentioned Compensation/ relief sought. b. Compensation for deficiency in service on account of wrongful CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 113 | P a g e repudiation of the Claim in its entirety in contravention of the terms and conditions of the ‗Standard Fire and Special Perils' Policy of Insurance, delay caused by the Respondents in settlement of the claim and non- determination of the estimate of loss sustained by the manufacturing unit of the Complainant;
c. Any order(s) which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good faith.‖
2. From a perusal of the averments made in the Complaint, we find that on 2nd June, 2016 the Complainant had taken Insurance Coverage from National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal under its Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy initially for a total sum of Rs.28,00,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty eight crores and twenty thousand only) by paying a premium of Rs.3,20,525/- (Rupees Three lac twenty thousand five hundred and twenty five only) only. The Complainant further took an additional security coverage of Rs.13,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirteen crores only) on 25th August, 2020 by paying a premium of Rs.1,23,037/- (Rupees One lac twenty three thousand and thirty seven only). According to the Complainant, Howrah Region where the Factory Premises of the Complainant is situated was severely hit by heavy rainfall, storm and river water flooding causing extensive coverage of water logging of Howrah Region for several days. Flood water had risen 4-5 feet inside the factory premises of the Complainant, which is abutted by banks of the river Ganga on two sides causing considerable damage to Buildings, Plants and Machinery and Stocks of the Complainant. It caused tilting and partial collapse of Factory CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 114 | P a g e Building, damaged several machines and electrical installations and damaged stocks, which was buried under a pile of concrete debris from the collapsed roof of a covered loading/ unloading area. The Complainant informed the National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata on 05.09.2020 about the loss suffered and for making the payment of the loss suffered by estimating it.
3. After exchange of correspondence and personal interaction the National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 29.11.2018 repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant sought the Survey Report from the Opposite Party No. 1 and finally in January, 2020, the Complainant through J Mukherjee & Associates, Advocates and Solicitors sent a letter to the National Insurance Company Limited calling upon the Insurance Company to withdraw the letter of Repudiation for making payments under the Insurance Policy.
4. The Consumer Complaint was sent by Ajinkya Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Complainant via Gmail only on 31.07.2020. The Office had registered the Complaint on 05.08.2020. Therefore, this Complaint is to be considered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act of 2019‖) which had come into force with effect from 20.07.2020/ 24.07.2020.
5. In the present case a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ―the National CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 115 | P a g e Commission‖) because the value of the consideration paid in the present case i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance Policies was only Rs.3,20,525/- and Rs.1,23,037/- the total of which comes to Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees Four Lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores) as provided under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019.
6. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Complainant submitted that under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act of 1986‖) the National Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the good or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore), whereas under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores). According to the learned Senior Counsel only the value of the compensation claimed has been omitted from Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 and the present Consumer Complaint is maintainable and this Commission will have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. He further submitted that a liberal view should be taken as if ―the word value of consideration paid‖ is taken to be the amount paid for the purchase of goods or services by a Consumer then even though Insurance Policy taken by the Consumer be above ₹10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), factually there will no instance of making payment by any Consumer premium of more than CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 116 | P a g e ₹10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore) and if such a strict view is taken then the claims regarding Insurance will have to be necessarily filed either before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and not before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which will create great hardship to such Consumers.
7. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Complainant cannot be accepted. It is no doubt true that under the Act of 1986, pecuniary jurisdiction was to be determined by taking the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed. Meaning thereby that the value of the goods or services as also the compensation is to be added to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the National Commission has the jurisdiction or not. This law was laid down by a three Member Bench of this Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, I (2017) CPJ I (NC). Thus in the Act of 1986 it was ―the value of the goods or services and the compensation claimed‖ taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. For example, if a person has agreed to purchase a Flat/ Apartment/ Plot for about Rs.60,00,000/- and he is claiming refund as also compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- then the value will exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission. Similar, would be the case of taking Insurance Policy of above Rs.1,00,00,000/-or may be below Rs.1,00,00,000/- but taking into consideration the premium paid and the compensation claimed if the value exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/- the CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 117 | P a g e Consumer Complaint has to be filed before the National Commission.
8. It appears that the Parliament, while enacting the Act of 2019 was conscious of this fact and to ensure that Consumer should approach the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whether it is District, State or National only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into consideration while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and not value of the goods or services and compensation, and that is why a specific provision has been made in Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) providing for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission respectively.
9. For ready reference the provisions of Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a)
(i) and 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are reproduced below:
―34. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:‖ ―47. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 118 | P a g e ten crore:‖ ―58. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:‖
10. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is amply clear that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission the value of the goods or services paid as consideration alone has to be taken and not the value of the goods or services purchased/ taken. Therefore, we are of the view that the provision of Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019 are very clear and does not call for any two interpretations
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that as the value of consideration paid by the Complainant is only Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees four lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is not above Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crore), the National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Consumer Complaint and it is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.‖
80. The aforesaid judgment has found reference in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rutu Mihir Panchal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 974 that was a case where the vires of the pecuniary CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 119 | P a g e jurisdictions under the 2019 Act was challenged on the ground that there were anomalies and it was unworkable. The said Writ Petition was dismissed.
81. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Bank has urged that with regard to the nature of investments that have been made, the Bank has only charged a processing fee of 2250 US $ which is far below the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The same converted into rupees translates to approximately 1,68,739/-. It is, therefore, urged that the Complaints lack entertainment by this Commission for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
82. The value of the consideration paid for availing the services from the Bank for the investments in AT 1 Bonds is the processing fee of 2250 us dollars. Applying the ratio of the judgments referred to above, the value of the total investments by the complainants for purchasing the Standard Chartered and Credit Suisse Bonds is not a consideration paid to the HDFC Bank. It is only the platform of the Bank that has been utilized by the complainants to acquire the Bonds. The Bank is only a facilitator with autonomy to the complainants to make their investments as per their choice. The investment is not in the Bank but is by the complainants with an investment of their money in Bonds with the aid of the loan sanctioned by the Bank. The Bank is not a beneficiary of these investments. It is only the complainants who can earn profits from these investments. The Bank only receives the interest payable against the loan advanced and therefore the Bank for these facilitating services for investments in Bonds receives just the processing fee and nothing more. CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 120 | P a g e
83. Learned counsel for the Complainants urged that their deposits which were in the HDFC Bank at Gurgaon in Haryana and with the Headquarters of the Bank in Mumbai, the territorial jurisdiction with regard to this dispute of investment is within the jurisdiction and purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because the deposits have been transacted by way of transfer from these Bank Accounts in Gurgaon, India to the offshore accounts in Bahrain and, therefore, this transaction is directly intertwined and inter-planned with the investments that were made through the offshore accounts, that too even on the advice of the Bank officials in India. It is therefore, submitted that merely because the investments were transacted through the offshore account, the actual deposits and the corpus was transacted within India. The investments were in the shape of AT-1 Bonds against which the deposits of the Complainants have been held up by the Bank on lien. Thus, it was an integrated and structured investment that commenced its journey from India and in contracts entered into between the Complainants and the HDFC Bank who were also stationed in India. The cause of action also arose in India itself when the Bank refused to release the lien on the fixed deposits made by the Complainants on the ground that they stood hypothecated.
84. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank has urged that according to the documents on record the Complainants voluntarily expressed their desire to purchase these AT-1 Bonds from their offshore accounts in Bahrain. It is urged that the transfer of the amount from the Indian branch of the Bank at Gurgaon to Bahrain were voluntarily and independent acts of transfer. No investment is permissible in India for purchase of AT-1 Bonds and CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 121 | P a g e it is for the said reason that the Complainants themselves had transferred their money from their own accounts to the offshore account at Bahrain, the reason being the said purchase of Bonds was not permitted in India.
85. Mr. Hooda, submits that this was within the complete knowledge of the Complainants and all transactions relating to the offshore accounts were within the jurisdiction of the Courts in Bahrain only. The governing laws have also been described in Clause No.23 of the Master Facility Agreement and Clause 4.22 of the Master Services Agreement. It stands engrained in the Relationship Opening Form that was executed at the time of the opening of the offshore accounts which categorically records that all claims and disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent Courts in Bahrain only
86. We have very closely perused the said clauses and we do not find any ambiguity in respect of the jurisdiction regarding such disputes regarding investments through offshore accounts to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of competent Courts in Bahrain only. These documents have been signed by the Complainants voluntarily and the accounts were opened and the investments were transacted which continued entirely offshore from Bahrain for some time without any dispute or hindrance.
87. Unfortunately, it was after the shares in which the investments were made lost their value, which was after a long time of the investments, that the dispute came to be raised. The contract relating to the investments through the offshore account at Bahrain, had already, been given effect to and therefore, merely because the deposits made by the Complainants in their offshore accounts had been made through their funds in India. The same CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 122 | P a g e would not amount to any investment in India. The source of deposit transferred from India to Bahrain was not part of the contract of the investments and purchase of AT-1 Bonds which was an independent transaction through the offshore accounts. The Complainants opened fresh deposit accounts at Bahrain, availed loan facilities from Bahrain and voluntarily made investments through Bahrain account independently.
88. It goes without saying that had there being no losses the investments and its outcome would have continued to be transacted at Bahrain itself.
89. We therefore without going into any other submissions which are equally tenable as raised on behalf of the Bank, hold that the dispute raised in the present complaints are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Courts at Bahrain as per the terms and conditions of the Agreements and therefore completely outside the territorial jurisdiction of this country. The complaints are accordingly consigned.
.............................................
(A.P. SAHI, J) PRESIDENT .............................................
(BHARATKUMAR PANDYA) MEMBER Mukesh/MM/Pramod/Brahm/PramodVM/Court-1/Reserved Matter CC/55/2024, CC/1/2025 & Dy. No.13448/2024-CC 123 | P a g e