SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. versus VIJAYA BANK

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 19-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 221 : 2026 INSC 264
Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar  
Development Corporation Ltd. 
v. 
Vijaya Bank
(Civil Appeal No. 4841 of 2023)
19 March 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant, a body corporate, while availing services 
of the Bank to deposit its surplus funds in an interest bearing 
term deposit, such as a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), could be 
considered a consumer as defined in s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986; whether the nature of allegations made in the 
complaint were such that they took the claim outside the purview 
of proceedings under the 1986 Act.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – “consumer” – 
NCDRC dismissed the consumer complaint of the appellant, 
a body corporate on the ground that the deposit made by the 
appellant with the Bank had a direct nexus to generation of 
profit(s) (i.e., earning interest on surplus funds), therefore, 
the banking services availed were for a commercial purpose 
and thus, the appellant was not a consumer qua the Bank as 
per s.2(1)(d) – Challenge to:
Held: In normal course, parking of surplus funds by a body corporate 
with a bank, either for safe custody or to comply with statutory 
mandate is not reflective of a commercial purpose – More so, 
because ordinarily all deposits in a Bank earn interest – Hence, 
it cannot be said that since the deposit earned interest, banking 
service was availed for a commercial purpose – However, it would 
be different where deposits are made to leverage a credit facility, 
or for availing other banking services, for business use – Deposit 
of the latter kind may amount to availing banking services for a 
commercial purpose – In the present case, the deposit was by 
one business entity, the appellant company, with another business 
entity, the Bank – It was thus, a business-to-business transaction – 
* Author
222
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Admittedly, the Bank had set up a case that FDR was pledged to 
avail credit facility and the maturity value of the FDR was adjusted 
against the dues – Though the appellant has denied this loan 
transaction, this issue is not settled by either a criminal court or a 
civil court even though a criminal complaint has been made in that 
regard – Thus, it is not a simple case of not fulfilling contractual 
obligation qua the deposit but a case where a subsequent contract 
of pledge is set up which, if accepted, would override the contractual 
obligation under the FDR – Thus, without determining whether 
there was fraud played upon the appellant, or forged documents 
were created for a false pledge/loan, it would not be possible to 
determine whether the services availed by the appellant from the 
respondent-Bank were for a commercial purpose or not – NCDRC 
was justified in dismissing the complaint even though the reasons 
for such dismissal may not be entirely correct [Paras 26, 27, 33]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Whether the nature of 
allegations made in the complaint were such that they took the 
claim outside the purview of proceedings under the 1986 Act:
Held: The complaint as framed is not maintainable – According to 
the complaint allegations, the appellant had invested 9 crores by 
way of a term deposit with the Bank and that the said term deposit 
was fraudulently hypothecated for availing overdraft without the 
sanction of the appellant company – When the overdraft against 
the FDR was brought to the notice of the appellant, a complaint 
was made with the respondent-bank – The response of the Bank 
to that complaint is important, inasmuch as the Bank claims that 
the original of the FDR is with the Bank and the same stands 
pledged for availing overdraft – Besides, the Bank claimed that 
the FDR which the appellant claims to be in its possession is a 
forged document – In the complaint itself, the appellant admitted 
that this matter was reported to the Economic Offences Wing – 
Therefore, the main grievance of the appellant appears to be qua 
adjustment of proceeds of the FDR against the amount outstanding 
in the overdraft account – Thus, what is clear from the complaint 
allegations is that the Bank had acknowledged the FDR and had 
accounted for the interest payable thereon but, instead of releasing 
the maturity proceeds in favour of the appellant, it had set up a 
subsequent contract of pledge of that FDR for according overdraft 
facility to the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.