Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra appeared as counsel for the respondents in Pratibha Pratishthan v. Manager, Canara Bank & Others, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 712. He was part of the legal team representing the respondent side before the Supreme Court of India, along with Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate, and other counsel.
Representation Before the Supreme Court
The proceedings record the appearance of Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I for the respondent side. He was also listed along with Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate, and other advocates in the subsequent proceedings of the matter. His participation as counsel for the respondents is therefore directly established from the Supreme Court record.
Nature of the Dispute
The matter arose from a consumer dispute involving Pratibha Pratishthan, a Trust, and Canara Bank. The dispute concerned the maintainability of a consumer complaint filed by the Trust under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a Trust could fall within the statutory definition of a “person” and consequently qualify as a “consumer” entitled to institute a consumer complaint under the Act.
The case required the Court to examine the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the legal status of a Trust in relation to those provisions.
Role of Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s verified role was as counsel representing the respondents in the proceedings before the Supreme Court. His name appears in the Court’s proceedings as part of the respondent-side legal team.
The reported judgment and proceedings do not separately attribute a specific submission or individual argument to Mr. Mishra by name. Accordingly, his role is accurately described as participation in the legal team representing the respondents, rather than ascribing a particular argument to him individually.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined the statutory definitions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and considered whether the Trust could be treated as a “person” and therefore as a “consumer”.
The Court held that a Trust was not covered by the definition of “person” under the Act and consequently could not be treated as a “consumer” for the purpose of maintaining a consumer complaint. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Significance of the Matter
The decision provides an important interpretation of the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly concerning the entities capable of invoking the consumer dispute-resolution mechanism.
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s participation in the matter is accordingly recorded as Counsel for the Respondents, forming part of the legal team that represented the respondent side before the Supreme Court in this significant consumer-law matter.
His verified involvement is limited to what is established by the Court’s records, and no separate individual submission or argument is attributed to him where the judgment does not make such an attribution.