Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.34 seconds)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.
Section 58 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Shriram Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd. vs Raghachand Associates on 10 March, 2021
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.
Arun Bhatiya vs Hdfc Bank on 8 August, 2022
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.
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.
Section 59 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [Entire Act]
Finance Act, 2019
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.