SHRIKANT G. MANTRI versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

SHRIKANT G. MANTRI versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Appellant availed and repeatedly enhanced an overdraft facility from the bank in a business-to-business relationship to expand his stock-broking business and increase profits; these transactions had a dominant commercial purpose and were not availed exclusively for earning his livelihood by self-employment, therefore he was not a 'consumer' under s.2(1)(d) and the consumer complaint was not maintainable.

Parties
Appellant / Complainant: Shrikant G. Mantri; Respondent: Punjab National Bank
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 (appeal to Supreme Court) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Consumer, Commercial Purpose, Self Employment Exception, Maintainability of Consumer Complaint, Overdraft Facility
Consumer Protection Banking/financial Services Definition of Consumer Commercial Purpose Self Employment Exception Maintainability of Consumer Complaint Overdraft Facility

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shrikant G. Mantri

Appellant / Complainant

Punjab National Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 (appeal to Supreme Court) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was a 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether services availed from the bank were for a 'commercial purpose'
  3. 3 Whether the services were availed exclusively for earning appellant's livelihood by means of self-employment so as to fall within the Explanation to s.2(1)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant availed and repeatedly enhanced an overdraft facility from the bank in a business-to-business relationship to expand his stock-broking business and increase profits; these transactions had a dominant commercial purpose and were not availed exclusively for earning his livelihood by self-employment, therefore he was not a 'consumer' under s.2(1)(d) and the consumer complaint was not maintainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs