The Leaflet: Consumer Protection Act — Everything is ‘Commercial’, yet Nothing is

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court in Sant Rohidas Leather Industries v. Vijaya Bank (2026) reiterated the dominant purpose and direct nexus test to determine ‘commercial purpose’ that excludes consumer fora adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act. In doing so, it endorsed its 2023 judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors.

However, this dominant purpose test, as upheld, remains nebulous. There is no bright line between what is and is not a commercial purpose in business-to-business transactions. Accordingly, any business-to-business transaction is capable of being classified as ‘commercial’ or not, based on subjective and often questionable interpretation.

If determining whether a transaction amounts to a ‘commercial purpose’ requires a detailed examination of evidence and intent, it raises the threshold question of whether such disputes ought to be adjudicated before consumer fora at all.