LexTHE CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1445 : 2025 INSC 288 The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7438 of 2023) 28 February 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the borrower of a project loan, falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2 (1)(d)(ii) – Definition of ‘Consumer’ – Borrower of project loan, if falls within the definition of ‘Consumer’ – Maintainability of the consumer complaint – Respondent-advertising and branding company defaulted on a project loan availed from the appellant-Bank for engaging in the post production of a movie – Initiation of proceedings, One Time Settlement between the parties and thereafter, issuance of No-Dues Certificate to the respondent and full-satisfaction memo filed before the DRT – However, the Bank incorrectly reported the name of the respondent to Reserve Bank of India as a defaulter with outstanding loan amount which caused loss of goodwill and reputation, and resulted in the respondent losing an exclusive advertising tender/license – Consumer complaint by the respondent alleging negligence and deficiency in service on part of the appellant – National Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay compensation to the respondent – Sustainability: Held: Respondent is not a ‘consumer’ under the Act – Plea that post-production of a movie was a self-branding exercise, the sole purpose being building a brand name for the respondent in order to earn livelihood, thus no nexus to generation of profits, not convincing since the dominant purpose behind brand building itself was to attract more customers and consequently generate profits or increase revenue for the business – Fundamental nature of the transaction, availing of credit facility from Bank which was * Author 1446 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports purely business-to-business transaction entered into for commercial purpose, not altered – Transaction of obtaining a project loan had a close nexus with a profit-generating activity and the dominant purpose for getting the loan sanctioned was to generate profits upon successful post-production of the movie – Order passed by the National Commission set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 21] Case Law Cited National Insurance Company Limited v. Harsolia Motors & Ors. [2023] 3 SCR 448 : (2023) 8 SCC 362; Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers [2019] 14 SCR 563 : (2020) 2 SCC 265; Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank [2022] 5 SCR 945 : (2022) 5 SCC 42 – referred to. List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. List of Keywords Consumer; Deficiency in service; Project loan; Borrower of project loan; Consumer complaint; Postproduction of movie; Non-performing asset; One-time settlement; Delayed period interest; No-Dues Certificate; Full-satisfaction memo; Wilful defaulters; Doubtful and loss accounts; Airports Authority of India advertising tender/license; Wrongful reporting; Unfair trade practice; Serious breach of duty by bank; Business-to-business transaction; Business-to-consumer transaction; Dominant intention; Commercial purpose; Self-branding exercise; Loan for self-use; Direct nexus with profit generating activity; Maintainability of consumer complaint; Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters DBOD No. BC/CIS/47/20.16.002/94 dated 23.04.1994. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7438 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2023 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 23 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No. 3456 of 2025 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1447 The Chief Manager, Central Bank of India & Ors. v. M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Viresh B. Saharya, Akshat Agarwal, Rishabh Mathur, Ashish Wad, Manoj Wad, Ms. Swati Arya, Ms. Akriti Arya, Mohd. Hadi (for M/s. J S Wad And Co.). Adv. for the Respondents: Dharav Shah, Dhawal Desai, Pranaya Goyal. Respondent-in-person. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The question which arises in these two appeals for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.