Supreme Court's Judgments of November 2025 : Part 5

Supreme Court's Judgments of November 2025 : Part 5

Who is a Consumer for the Purposes of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

In a recent Judgment this issue has been discussed. It would be useful to reproduce the definition of “consumer” as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing goods or services is for personal use and consumption of the purchaser, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question whether such purchase is for generating a livelihood by means of self-employment need not be looked into. However, where the transaction is for a commercial purpose then it might have to be considered whether it is for generating livelihood by means of self-employment or not. In the instant case, the complainant had been an established company doing business 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 with a view to maximise profits. In such situation therefore, the case of the complainant does not fall within the Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. Such organisation cannot be treated as consumer for purposes of the 1986 Act.

For details refer Poly Medicure Ltd v. Brillio Technologies Pvt Ltd [2025] GCtR 1695 (SC).

Uploading of Judgments by High Courts

In an important decision towards accountability and transparency, High Courts have been directed to provide the mechanism so that information can be given in public domain about the date when judgments are reserved, date when judgment is actually pronounced, and the date when it is actually uploaded on the website.

For details refer Pilan Pahan @ Peela Pahan v. State of Jharkhand [2025] GCtR 1696 (SC).

Counter-Claims in Civil Suits and Legal Principles

A counter claim though can be based on different cause of action than that are put forth in the suit, it should be one incidental or connected with that cause of action and it has necessarily to be directed against the plaintiff and cannot be directed against the co-defendant.

For details refer Sanjay Tiwari v. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao [2025] GCtR 1697 (SC).

############################

Previous 4 Parts of November 2025 are available Free of cost at the links given below :

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-judgments-of-nov-2025_11.html

Part 3 of Judgments of November 2025 are available here at the link given below. Readers can read entire content free of cost :  

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-judgments-of-november.html

Part 2 of Supreme Court's Judgments of November 2025 are available at the link given below : - 

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-judgments-of-nov-2025.html

Part 1 of Judgments of November 2025 are available here at the link given below. Readers can read entire content free of cost :  

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-important-judgments-of.html