Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)
Ashutosh Tiwary vs Hdfc Bank Through The Managingdirecto ... on 24 March, 2026 cites

Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February, 2022

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 20 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Rutu Mihir Panchal vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2022

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Cheema Engineering Services vs Rajan Singh on 1 November, 1996

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 98 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Sanjay Bansal vs M/S Vipul Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vipul ... on 12 April, 2019

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Anjaneya Jawellery Rep By Its ... vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 7 March, 2019

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
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar Sinha & Ors vs Magadh Gramin Bank & Ors on 29 August, 2012

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.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - R K Datta - Full Document

Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs Raghachand Associates on 8 February, 2022

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Annapurna B. Uppin vs Malsiddappa on 1 August, 2022

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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1