Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Richi Rich Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs State Bank Of India & 3 Ors. on 22 July, 2015 cites

M/S. Sam Fine O Chem Limited vs Union Bank Of India on 12 April, 2013

In M/s. Sam Fine O Chem Limited Vs. Union Bank of India, C.C.No.39 of 2013, decided on 12-04-2013, the complainant had availed credit facility from Union Bank of India. Alleging deficiency in the services provided by the bank he preferred a complaint before this Commission. Rejecting the complaint this Commission inter alia noted that the complainant had availed the credit facility service of the bank for expansion of its manufacturing activity which was a commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant did not fall within the definition of 'consumer' given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd vs Dr. B.N. Raman on 14 July, 2006

In Dr. B.N. Raman(supra), the complainant/respondent who was a Non-Resident Indian had opened a Foreign Currency Non-Resident Account with the bank and unauthorized withdrawal was made from his account.  The deposit in the account was made on 17.08.1979 and the unauthorized withdrawal was communicated to him in the year 1992 when he returned to India.  It was on these facts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that banking was a commercial function and the intention of the Act was to protect consumers of the services rendered by the Banks.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

M/S. Harsolia Motors vs M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd on 3 December, 2004

Harsolia Motors (supra) was a case of claim against an insurance company and during the course of the judgment, it was observed by this Commission that profit was the main aim of commercial purpose and where the goods are purchased or services are hired in an activity, which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose.  It was also held that a person who takes insurance policy to cover a risk does not take for commercial purpose but takes it only for indemnification of actual loss.  However, the present case is not a case of seeking reimbursement from an insurance company and the service of the bank were hired for an activity which was directly intended to generate profit for the complainant by sale of rice.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 305 - Full Document

Vimal Chandra Grover vs Bank Of India on 26 April, 2000

Reference in this regard was made to an earlier decision in Vimal Chandra Grover Vs. Bank of India (2000) 5 SCC 122.  Thus, not only the consumer in that case was individual who had opened the account for keeping his savings with the bank, the services of the bank were hired or availed much before the amendment of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act w.e.f. 15.03.2003.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 50 - Full Document
1