M/S Poly Medicure Ltd vs M/S Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6349 OF 2024 Arising out SLP (C) No. 14306 of 2020

M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD

…RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This appeal arises from Consumer Complaint No.

515 of 2019 filed by the appellant before the State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi1.

Signature Not Verified The State Commission, vide its order dated Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2025.11.13 16:51:06 IST Reason: 1 State Commission

Civil Appeal No.6349 of 2024 Page 1 of 27 19.08.2019, held complaint not maintainable as,

according to the State Commission, the complainant

(appellant herein) was not a “consumer” as per

Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,

19862.

2. Aggrieved by the State Commission’s order, the

appellant filed First Appeal No. 1977 of 2019 before

the National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, New Delhi3 which was dismissed, vide

order dated 15.06.2020, affirming the order of the

State Commission.

3. The issue which falls for our consideration is

whether in respect of the goods purchased/services

availed, the appellant would qualify as a “consumer”

as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

Facts

4. The complainant (appellant herein), a company

incorporated and registered under the Companies

2 1986 Act 3 NCDRC

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 2 of 27 Act, 1956, filed a consumer complaint before the

State Commission claiming, inter alia, that, - it is

engaged in export and import of medical devices and

equipment; with an intent to install and implement

an export/ import documentation system at its plant,

it sought a software; in connection therewith, it

purchased a product licence of “Brillio Opti Suite”, a

software, from the respondent; requisite payment for

the purchase was made, but the software did not

function properly. In consequence, claiming

deficiency in service, the complaint was filed, inter

alia, for refund of the entire amount paid by the

complainant to the respondent towards (a) product

licence cost and (b) additional development cost

together with interest at the rate of 18%.

5. 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) of the 1986 Act.

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 3 of 27

6. The State Commission vide its order dated

19.08.2019 held that since purchase of the software

license was for a commercial purpose, the

complainant would not qualify as a “consumer”;

hence, the complaint is not maintainable.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission,

the appellant filed an appeal before NCDRC, which

came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

9. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that

software was purchased for self-use; appellant was

the end user and had no intention to transfer/ sell it

for profit, therefore, it cannot be said that purchase

was for commercial purpose; moreover, purchase of

goods/ services for self-utilization with no intention

to directly generate profit from it, would qualify the

purchaser of such goods or services as a “consumer”

by virtue of Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986

Act, 1986. Decision of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 4 of 27 Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers

and Ors4 was relied to contend that identity of a

person making the purchase, or the value of the

transaction, is not conclusive to determine whether it

is for a commercial purpose. What is to be seen is the

dominant purpose for the transaction, that is,

whether it is to facilitate some kind of profit

generation for the purchaser / other beneficiary.

Additionally, it was argued that since the software

was not directly linked to generation of profit, the

transaction cannot be considered as one for a

commercial purpose so as to disqualify the appellant

from being a “consumer”.

9.1. Reliance was also placed on decision of this

Court in Sunil Kohli and Anr. v. Purearth

Infrastructure Ltd.5 to contend that if purchaser of

a property puts it to commercial use to earn his

livelihood, by way of self-employment, such a

4 (2020) 2 SCC 265 5 (2020) 12 SCC 235

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 5 of 27 purchaser would be a consumer. Based on those

decisions, learned counsel for the appellant

contended that since the appellant had purchased

the software for installing and implementing an

export/ import documentation system for self-use as

an end user thereof, and not for resale or transfer or

conversion in any manner, the appellant would

qualify as a consumer and, therefore, the view to the

contrary taken by the State Commission as well as

NCDRC is against the law and liable to be set aside.

Submissions on behalf of respondent

10. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent, it was

submitted that the software “Brillio Opti Suite” is

admittedly for carrying out professional activities.

The software is customized to provide support to the

appellant in managing its business affairs by

performing various functions such as Export

Document Set, Clubbing/Spitting SAP Sales

Documents, Clubbing of Bill of Exchange, Advance

Payment/FIRC, CHA Charges Tracking, Duty

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 6 of 27 Drawback (All Industrial rate), Letter of Credit

Management, Container Indents and Tracking,

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Policy

Management, Export Packing Credit Handling,

FOREX Forward Cover Management. Thus, the

software was used by the appellant to create

documents necessary for import and export of its

goods and also to track consignments and benefits

available under various Government Schemes. The

use of the software therefore had a direct nexus with

profit-generating activity of the appellant. Besides

above, the disputes dealt with under the 1986 Act are

business to consumer and not business to business.

Additionally, it was contended, if statutory provisions

are interpreted in the manner as suggested by the

appellant, then business to business transactions

would also fall as consumer disputes thereby

defeating the very purpose of the 1986 Act, which is

to provide simple and speedy redressal of consumer

disputes. In support of its submissions, the learned

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 7 of 27 counsel for the respondent placed reliance on

decisions of this Court in Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta

Medical Trust (supra); National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Ors6 and Shrikant G.

Mantri v. Punjab National Bank7.

Discussion/ Analysis

11. Before we set out to consider whether the

appellant is a “consumer” as defined in Section

2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act, it would be useful to

reproduce the definition of “consumer” as contained

in Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act. The same reads as

under: -

“(d) “consumer” means any person who, —

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who

6 (2023) 8 SCC 362 7 (2022) 5 SCC 42

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 8 of 27 obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;” (Emphasis supplied)

12. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of

Section 2 of the 1986 Act in simple terms provides

that “consumer” means any person who buys any

goods for a consideration. However, it excludes from

its purview a person who obtains such goods for

resale or for any commercial purpose. Sub-clause (ii)

of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 in simple

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 9 of 27 terms provides that a person who hires or avails of

any services for a consideration shall also be a

consumer provided such services are not for any

commercial purpose. Explanation to clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 2 of 1986 Act carves out an

exception by clarifying that commercial purpose does

not include use by a person of goods bought and

used or/ and services availed by him exclusively for

the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of

self-employment.

13. In Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation and Anr. v. Ashok Iron Works

Private Ltd.8, this Court had an occasion to consider

the true import of the term “person” as defined in

Section 2(1)(m) of the 1986 Act9; as per which,

“person” includes,—(i) a firm whether registered or

not; (ii) a Hindu undivided family; (iii) a co-operative

society; (iv) every other association of persons

8 (2009) 3 SCC 240 9 Section 2(1)(m). “person” includes,—(i) a firm whether registered or not; (ii)a Hindu undivided family;

(iii) a co-operative society; (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not.

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 10 of 27 whether registered under the Societies Registration

Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not. Upon consideration of

the aforesaid definition in conjunction with the

definition of “person” as provided in section 3 (42) of

the General Clauses Act, 189710, this Court held as

follows:

“20. Section 3 of the Act, 1986 upon which reliance is placed by learned counsel for KPTC provides that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. This provision instead of helping the contention of KPTC would rather suggest that the access to the remedy provided to the Act of 1986 is an addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It does not in any way give any clue to restrict the definition of the `person'.

21. Section 2(1)(m) is beyond all questions, an interpretation clause, and must have been intended by the Legislature to be taken into account in construing the expression `person' as it occurs in Section 2(1)(d). While defining `person' in Section 2(1)(m), the Legislature never intended to exclude a juristic person like company. As a matter of fact, the four categories by way of enumeration mentioned therein is indicative, categories (i), (ii) & (iv) being unincorporate and category (iii) corporate, of its intention to include body corporate as well as body un-incorporate. The definition of `person' in Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive. It does not appear to us to admit of any doubt that company is a person within the

10 Section 3(42). – “person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 11 of 27 meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(m) and we hold accordingly.”

14. We respectfully agree with the view taken by this

Court in Karnataka Power Transmission Corp.

and Anr (supra) that the definition of “person” in

Section 2(1)(m) is inclusive and not exhaustive.

Therefore, there can be no doubt that even an

incorporated company could be a consumer within

the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section

2(1)(m) of the 1986 Act.

15. As to when an activity or transaction of purchase

of goods or services availed can be understood as for

a commercial purpose, this Court, in Lilavati

Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (supra), after

considering number of decisions, culled out broad

principles for its determination. The relevant

paragraphs of the said decision are extracted below:-

“19. To summarize from the above discussion, though a straight- jacket formula cannot be adopted in every case, the following broad principles can be culled out for determining whether an activity or transaction is “for a commercial purpose”:

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 12 of 27 19.1 The question of whether a transaction is for a commercial purpose would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

However, ordinarily, “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/ industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities.

19.2 The purchase of the good or service should have a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.

19.3 The identity of the person making the purchase or the value of the transaction is not conclusive to the question of whether it is for a commercial purpose. It has to be seen whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary.

19.4 If it is found that the dominant purpose behind purchasing the good or service was for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser and/or their beneficiary, or is otherwise not linked to any commercial activity, the question of whether such a purchase was for the purpose of ‘generating livelihood by means of self- employment’ need not be looked into.”

16. What is clear from the above decision is 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

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 13 of 27 dominant intention or dominant purpose for the

transaction i.e. whether it is to facilitate some kind of

profit generation for the purchaser(s) and/or its/

their beneficiary. 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.

17. The aforesaid judgment underscores that

ordinarily commercial purpose is understood to

include manufacturing/ industrial activity or

business to business transaction between

commercial entities.

18. There is a difference between a self-employed

individual and a corporation. The goods purchased

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 14 of 27 by a self-employed individual for self-use for

generating livelihood would fall within the

explanation even if activity of that person is to

generate profits for the purpose of its livelihood. But

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) of the 1986 Act.

19. In Sunil Kohli (supra), a decision relied by the

appellant, the complainants were non-resident

Indians residing abroad. They intended to shift to

India and therefore, with an intention to earn their

livelihood, they booked a shop with the opposite

party. The allegations in the complaint were that the

complainants had paid instalments to the opposite

party and despite full payment, the opposite party

failed to deliver possession. Consequently,

complainants sought compensation and delivery of

possession. The opposite party therein contested the

proceedings by claiming that the complainants had

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 15 of 27 booked the shop for commercial purpose therefore

they cannot be termed “consumer”. In the light of

earlier decisions of this Court in Laxmi Engineering

Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute11 and Cheema

Engineering Services v. Rajan Singh12, this Court

considered the evidence on record to determine

whether the premises were booked by the

complainants with an intention of self-employment /

self-use. Upon finding that the complainant(s) were

not employed any more in foreign land and had

disclosed their desire to come to India to start a

business, this Court held them to be consumer(s).

20. The decision in Sunil Kohli (supra) will not be of

help to the appellant as that was a case of

unemployed individual(s) who had booked a shop for

self-employment; whereas, in the case on hand, the

appellant is a company engaged in commercial

activity of import/export, and the goods/services

11 (1995) 3 SCC 583 12 (1997) 1 SCC 131

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 16 of 27 purchased/availed by the company were to automate

its business processes with a view to augment its

efficiency and profits. Thus, whether those goods/

services purchased/availed are for self-use, in our

view, would not make a material difference.

21. In Virender Singh v. M/s. Darshana Trading

Co. through its partner Sanjay Seth (Dead) &

Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5510 of

2020, decided on 18.03.2025), the complainant,

had purchased machines by which the

manufacturing of die could be done at cheaper cost

and with more precision. As there were defects in the

machine, a complaint was filed before the State

Commission, wherein the preliminary objection

raised was that since the machine was purchased

purely for commercial purposes, the complainant is

not covered under the definition of a consumer. The

objection was sustained by the State Commission

and its decision was affirmed by the National

Commission. The matter travelled to this Court.

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 17 of 27 Argument raised was that since the machine was

purchased for self-use/ self-employment, it cannot be

a commercial purpose. In support of its submission

an earlier decision of this Court in Paramount

Digital Colour Lab & others v. Agfa India Pvt.

Ltd. & Ors.13 was cited. Upholding the decision of

the National Commission, this Court held that

though it is correct that if goods or services

purchased or availed are for self-employment, it

cannot be categorized as commercial purpose, but

each case has to be seen in light of its own facts. Thereafter, while distinguishing the case of

Paramount Digital (supra), it was held:

“In this case cited above i.e., Paramount Digital (supra), there were two unemployed graduate persons who had purchased the machine evidently for self-employment. But in the present case, the petitioner/ complainant was already running a business as a commercial venture and admittedly he had purchased the machine to expand his business. It is not a case where the petitioner was himself operating the machine, but he had employed workmen who were doing the job for him. Under these circumstances, no matter how small the venture is, it cannot be

13 (2018) 14 SCC 81

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 18 of 27 called self-employment for the purpose of the Act and therefore, we find no scope to take a different view than the one taken by the State Commission and the National Commission.”

22. In the case on hand also, 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 our

view therefore, the case of the complainant does not

fall within the Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the

1986 Act.

23. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia

Motors and Ors (supra), another decision relied by

the appellant, the complainant, a commercial entity

engaged in the business of sale of vehicles, took fire

insurance policy from the appellant, an insurance

company, covering its office, showroom, garage,

machinery lying in the showroom premises, etc. The

complainant’s case was that damages were sustained

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 19 of 27 during Godhra riots and, therefore, the complainant

was entitled to be indemnified under the policy of

Insurance. Aggrieved by action of the insurance

company, claiming deficiency in service, a complaint

was filed. The Insurance Company took an objection

that the complainant was not a consumer as per

Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act because its ultimate

object is to earn profits. The State Commission

upheld the objection; against which, the complainant

filed an appeal before the National Commission. The

National Commission held that the expression used

“for any commercial purpose” would mean that the

goods purchased or services hired should be used in

any activity directly intended to generate profit, but

in a case where goods purchased or services availed

are not intended to generate profit, it would not be a

commercial purpose. Therefore, it was held, when a

person takes an insurance cover for indemnification

of actual loss suffered, the intention is not to

generate profits. Consequently, the complainant

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 20 of 27 would be a consumer. Upholding the above view of

the National Commission, this Court observed:

“39. Applying the aforesaid test, two things are culled out; (i) whether the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose; or (ii) whether the services are availed for any commercial purpose. The two-fold classification is commercial purpose and non-commercial purpose. If the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose, then such consumer would be excluded from the coverage of the Act, 1986. For example, if a manufacturer who is producing product A, for such production he may be required to purchase articles which may be raw material, then purchase of such articles would be for commercial purpose. As against this, if the same manufacturer purchases a refrigerator, television or air-conditioner for his use at his residence or even for his office has no direct or indirect nexus to generate profits, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose and for afore-stated reason he is qualified to approach the Consumer Forum under the Act, 1986.

40. Similarly, a hospital which hires services of a medical practitioner, it would be a commercial purpose, but if a person avails such services for his ailment, it would be held to be a non-

commercial purpose. Taking a wide meaning of the words “for any commercial purpose”, it would mean that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose, but in a case where goods purchased or services hired is an activity, which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be a commercial purpose.

41. In other words, to make it further clear, let us have certain illustrations, as to whether the transaction falls for commercial purpose or whether the complainant can be held to be a

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 21 of 27 “consumer” within the scope and ambit of Act, 1986.

41.1 A CT scan machine was purchased by a Charitable Trust and that was found to be defective, the question raised whether the machinery was purchased for a commercial purpose and whether the appellant was a consumer. From the narration of facts, this Court in Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust v. Toshniwal Bros. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. held that the machine was purchased by the Charitable Trust for commercial purpose as every person who takes a CT scan has to pay for it and the services rendered are not free and thus the Trust was not a consumer.

41.2. In Rajeev Metal Works v. Mineral & Metal Trading Corpn. of India Ltd., a manufacturer imported raw material through statutory authority that acted as a canalizing agency for manufacture and sale of the finished product. The appellant approached the National Commission alleging that the respondent had not supplied the required quantity demanded by the appellant. This Court held that the purchase was for a commercial purpose and the manufacturer was not a “consumer” for the purpose of the Act, 1986.

41.3. The bank which had taken bankers indemnity insurance policy from the insurance company and suffered loss owing to some of transactions in one of its branches, raised an insurance claim stating that it is owing to dishonesty of Branch Manager and the claim was repudiated by the insurance company stating that the alleged loss was because of some dishonesty of the Branch Manager and this being for commercial purpose, may not be a consumer.

41.4. The complainant is a private limited company running a diagnostic clinic and alleges that Xray machine purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective. If an objection is raised that as machine was purchased for commercial purpose and the complainant

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 22 of 27 cannot be said to be a consumer as defined under the Act, 1986 as he has been employed for commercial purpose and has been carrying out business for profit indeed the complainant is not a consumer under the Act, 1986.

41.5. A company purchased the EPBX system for the better management of the business of the company for commercial purpose and the complaint filed for alleged supply of defective system may not be covered by the explanatory clause of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 as the transaction has no nexus to generate profits.

42. Thus, what is finally culled out is that each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances and what is to be examined is whether any activity or transaction is for commercial purpose to generate profits and there cannot be a straightjacket formula which can be adopted and every case has to be examined on the broad principles which have been laid down by this Court, of which detailed discussion has been made.”

24. Based on paragraphs 39 and 41.5 of the decision

in Harsolia Motors (supra), the learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that if the goods purchased

or services availed are for convenience/ comfort or for

better management of the business of the company,

and the complaint is filed for compensation on

account of defective supplies or deficient services, a

consumer complaint would be maintainable. Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 23 of 27

25. In our view, if we read paragraphs 39 and 41.5 in

conjunction with other paragraphs of the judgment

in Harsolia Motors (supra), more particularly

paragraph 42, what becomes clear is that if the

transaction has a nexus with generation of profits, it

would be treated as one for a commercial purpose.

The examples of purchase of refrigerator, television or

air-conditioner cited in paragraph 39 (supra), as one

not relating to generation of profit, makes the

position clear. These products/ goods are for comfort

having no direct nexus to generation of profits. But if

a transaction has nexus with generation of profits, it

would be for a commercial purpose. However,

whether a transaction has nexus with generation of

profits or not is to be determined on the facts of each

case by taking into consideration, inter alia, the

nature of the goods purchased or services availed

and the purpose for which it is purchased or availed.

If upon consideration of all relevant factors the

picture that emerges is one which reflects that the

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 24 of 27 object of the purchase of goods/ services is to

generate or augment profit, the same would be

treated as for a commercial purpose.

26. Besides above, the question that fell for

consideration before this Court in Harsolia Motors

(supra) was whether the insurance services availed

were for commercial purpose or not. Insurance

service by its very nature is to secure the insured

against a prospective loss on account of unforeseen

circumstances. Therefore, the dominant object of

availing that service is not to generate profit but to

secure oneself against unforeseen losses. In that

context, this Court took the view that availing of

insurance services would not be a transaction for a

commercial purpose even though it may be a

business to business transaction. The other

illustrations / examples cited in the judgment do not

constitute the ratio decidendi of that decision.

27. In the instant case, not only the complainant is a

commercial entity, the purchase of goods/ services

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 25 of 27 (i.e., software) from the respondent was with a view to

automate the processes of the company which were

linked to generation of profit inasmuch as

automation of business processes is undertaken not

just for better management of the business but to

reduce costs and maximise profits. Thus, in our view,

the transaction of purchase of goods/ services (i.e.,

software) had a nexus with generation of profits and,

therefore, qua that transaction the appellant cannot

be considered a consumer as defined in Section

2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

28. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the

considered view that both 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

therefore the appellant is not a “consumer” as per

Section 2(1)(d) of the 1986 Act.

29. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly,

dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 26 of 27

30. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

There is no order as to costs.

.………….......................................J. (J. B. PARDIWALA)

……………......................................J. (MANOJ MISRA)

New Delhi;

November 13, 2025.

Civil Appeal No. 6349 of 2024 Page 27 of 27