{"id":366963,"date":"2025-11-17T18:00:16","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T12:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=366963"},"modified":"2025-11-17T18:00:34","modified_gmt":"2025-11-17T12:30:34","slug":"company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a ‘consumer’: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The present appeal was filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 15-6-2020, whereby the order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (‘State Commission’) was affirmed, wherein it was held that the appellant was not a ‘consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a> (‘Consumer Protection Act’) was affirmed. The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, J.*<\/span>, stated that the appellant is an established company, which bought the product license to automate its processes. In such circumstances, the object of the purchase was not to generate self-employment but to organize its operations to maximise its profits and reduce costs.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court stated that the transaction of purchase of goods\/ services has a nexus with generation of profits and, therefore, the appellant’s transaction cannot be considered a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act<\/a> and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The appellant, a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956<\/a>, deals in importing and exporting medical devices. To handle documentation for this, it bought a software called ‘Brillio Opti Suite’<\/span> from the respondent and paid for it. However, the software didn’t work properly, so the company filed a complaint with the State Commission.<\/p>\n

The appellant in its complaint, claiming deficiency in service, asked for refund of the entire amount paid to the respondent towards (a) product licence cost and (b) additional development cost together with interest at the rate of 18%. The respondent contested the complaint claiming that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act<\/a>. The respondent contested the complaint claiming, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1)(d)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act<\/a>. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the appellant filed an appeal before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was dismissed by the impugned order.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court stated that the identity of the person making the purchase, or the value of the transaction, is not conclusive to determine whether the transaction or activity is for a commercial purpose. What is to be seen is the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction i.e. whether it is to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser or their beneficiary. If the dominant purpose is for a commercial purpose, then it might have to be considered whether it is for generating livelihood by means of self-employment. However, the same is not required in case of personal use.<\/p>\n

The Court further clarified that there is a difference between a self-employed individual and a corporation. The goods purchased by a self-employed individual for generating livelihood would fall within the explanation of the definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d)<\/a> of Consumer Protection Act<\/a>, even if activity of that person is to generate profits for its livelihood. However, where a company purchases a software for automating its processes, the object is to maximise profits and, therefore, it would not fall within the Explanation of Section 2(1)(d)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that in the present case, the appellant is an established company, which bought the product license to automate its processes. In such circumstances, the object of the purchase was not to generate self-employment but to organize its operations to maximise its profits. Such purchase was eventually linked to generation of profit and inasmuch the automation of business is undertaken, not just for better management of the business but also to reduce costs and maximise profits.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court stated that the transaction of purchase of goods\/ services has a nexus with generation of profits and, therefore, the appellant’s transaction cannot be considered a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)<\/a> of the Consumer Protection Act<\/a>. The Court stated that the State Commission as well as the National Commission were justified in holding that the goods\/services purchased\/ availed by the appellant were for a commercial purpose and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n

[Poly Medicure Ltd. v. Brillio Technologies (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2443<\/a>, decided on 13-11-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Manoj Misra<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> Shashank Garg, Sr. Adv.; Divyakant Lahoti, AOR; Kartik Lahoti, Adv.; Praveena Bisht, Adv.; Vindhya Mehra, Adv.; Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Adv.; Adith Menon, Adv.; Samridhi Bhatt, Adv.; Shreya Gokel, Adv.; Siddharth Tripathi, Adv.; Akanksha Soni, Adv.; Shubheksha Dwivedi, Adv.; Nishtha Jain, Adv.<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.; Ankur Sangal, Adv.; Sucheta Roy, Adv.; Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Adv.; M\/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Identity of the person making the purchase, or the value of the transaction, is not conclusive to determine whether the transaction or activity is for a commercial purpose. Dominant intention or purpose is required to be seen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":366980,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[92837,14601,42139,18321,49365,55018,92839,92838,5363],"class_list":["post-366963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-automation-software","tag-consumer","tag-consumer-complaints","tag-consumer-protection-act","tag-justice-j-b-pardiwala","tag-justice-manoj-misra","tag-poly-medicure-ltd","tag-profits-maximisation","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCompany buying software for profits not a 'consumer': SC| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court stated that the appellant had purchased the automation software for profits, and company buying software for profits not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a 'consumer': Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court stated that the appellant had purchased the automation software for profits, and company buying software for profits not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-11-17T12:30:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-11-17T12:30:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a 'consumer': Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"headline\":\"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a ‘consumer’: Supreme Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-17T12:30:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-17T12:30:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":795,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"automation software\",\"Consumer\",\"Consumer Complaints\",\"Consumer Protection Act\",\"Justice J.B. Pardiwala\",\"Justice Manoj Misra\",\"Poly Medicure Ltd\",\"profits maximisation\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Company buying software for profits not a 'consumer': SC| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-11-17T12:30:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-11-17T12:30:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court stated that the appellant had purchased the automation software for profits, and company buying software for profits not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Company buying software for profits not consumer\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2025\\\/11\\\/17\\\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a ‘consumer’: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/arushi\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Company buying software for profits not a 'consumer': SC| SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court stated that the appellant had purchased the automation software for profits, and company buying software for profits not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a 'consumer': Supreme Court","og_description":"Supreme Court stated that the appellant had purchased the automation software for profits, and company buying software for profits not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-11-17T12:30:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-11-17T12:30:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a 'consumer': Supreme Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/"},"author":{"name":"Arushi","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"headline":"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a ‘consumer’: Supreme Court","datePublished":"2025-11-17T12:30:16+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-17T12:30:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/"},"wordCount":795,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp","keywords":["automation software","Consumer","Consumer Complaints","Consumer Protection Act","Justice J.B. Pardiwala","Justice Manoj Misra","Poly Medicure Ltd","profits maximisation","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/","name":"Company buying software for profits not a 'consumer': SC| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp","datePublished":"2025-11-17T12:30:16+00:00","dateModified":"2025-11-17T12:30:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court stated that the appellant had purchased the automation software for profits, and company buying software for profits not a consumer within Consumer Protection Act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Company buying software for profits not consumer"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/17\/company-buying-software-for-profits-not-a-consumer-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Company purchasing automation software to maximise profits and reduce costs not a ‘consumer’: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blog-2025-11-17T172903.385-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":297998,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/29\/whether-slp-under-art-136-against-ncdrc-order-be-entertained-sc-answers-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":366963,"position":0},"title":"Consumer Dispute| Supreme Court explains the scope of maintainability of SLP under Art 136 against NCDRC orders","author":"Editor","date":"July 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court explained that the power to special leave is an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it must be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. It will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"slp under article 136 against ncdrc order","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/slp-under-article-136-against-ncdrc-order.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/slp-under-article-136-against-ncdrc-order.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/slp-under-article-136-against-ncdrc-order.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/slp-under-article-136-against-ncdrc-order.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299210,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/12\/know-thy-judge-supreme-court-of-india-justice-j-b-pardiwala\/","url_meta":{"origin":366963,"position":1},"title":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice J.B. Pardiwala","author":"Arunima","date":"August 12, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cScrutiny of Judicial Process by Half Truth Knowledgeable is real danger to Rule of Law\u201d \u2014 Justice J.B. Pardiwala at \u20182nd Justice HR Khanna Memorial National Symposium'1 Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala assumed office as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 09-05-2022 and is in line to become the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"justice j b pardiwala","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/justice-j-b-pardiwala.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/justice-j-b-pardiwala.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/justice-j-b-pardiwala.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/justice-j-b-pardiwala.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293682,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/02\/justice-manoj-misra-supreme-court-judge-scc-blog-legal-news-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":366963,"position":2},"title":"Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Manoj Misra","author":"Ritu","date":"June 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Justice Manoj Misra is the sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023 and has formerly served as a Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.","rel":"","context":"In "Know thy Judge"","block_context":{"text":"Know thy Judge","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/judges-information\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"justice manoj misra","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/justice-manoj-misra.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/justice-manoj-misra.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/justice-manoj-misra.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/justice-manoj-misra.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":59051,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/30\/land-owner-can-approach-consumer-forum-in-case-of-breach-committed-by-builder\/","url_meta":{"origin":366963,"position":3},"title":"Land owner can approach Consumer Forum in case of breach committed by builder","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 30, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which has approved the view of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad which held that the complainant was not a \u201cconsumer\u201d within the definition under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":378982,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/20\/sc-on-deposit-interest-commercial-purpose-under-consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":366963,"position":4},"title":"Interest earned on deposit by itself doesn\u2019t establish a \u2018commercial purpose\u2019 under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 20, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Consumer complaint not maintainable where dispute involves alleged fraudulent pledge of fixed deposit and requires determination of complex facts beyond summary consumer proceedings.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"commercial purpose under Consumer Protection Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":288417,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/03\/supreme-court-constitutionality-of-uapa-covid-19-parole-bhopal-gas-tragedy-and-more-from-march-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":366963,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court | Constitutionality of UAPA; Covid 19 Parole; Bhopal Gas Tragedy and more from March 2023","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court\u2019s judgments\/orders on Independent Election Commission; Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Tripura Sales Tax Rules; gigantic political crisis in Maharashtra; wildlife declaration time; casting couch; Adani Hindenburg Report and more. It also covers Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of March; Explainers on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court March Roundup","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-965.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-965.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-965.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-965.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366963","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=366963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366963\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/366980"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=366963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=366963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=366963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}