https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465106 SC upheld the National Commission's dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable, holding that the appellant did not qualify as a "consumer" under s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant, a professional stock-broker, had availed and periodically enhanced an overdraft facility from the respondent bank to expand business operations and increase profits. SC held that this was a "business to business" transaction falling squarely within "commercial purpose," not services hired "exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment." Extending consumer jurisdiction to such disputes would defeat the Act's objective. Finding no error in the Commission's reasoning, SC dismissed the appeal while preserving liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 12:53:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465106 SC upheld the National Commission's dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable, holding that the appellant did not qualify as a "consumer" under s.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant, a professional stock-broker, had availed and periodically enhanced an overdraft facility from the respondent bank to expand business operations and increase profits. SC held that this was a "business to business" transaction falling squarely within "commercial purpose," not services hired "exclusively for the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment." Extending consumer jurisdiction to such disputes would defeat the Act's objective. Finding no error in the Commission's reasoning, SC dismissed the appeal while preserving liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465106