“The principal issue involved in the matter is whether a Charitable Trust could maintain an action under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The reliance was placed on Pratibha Pratisthan, (2017) 3 SCC 712 to hold that a Trust would not be a ‘person’ and consequently not a ‘consumer’.

The definition of ‘person’ in terms of Section 2(1)(m) is an inclusive definition. In our view, the case of a Trust may come within the purview of the definition of ‘person’. The concerned provision includes number of categories under the definition of ‘person’ so much so that even an unregistered firm which otherwise has certain disabilities in law, is also entitled to maintain an action. We find it difficult to accept that a Trust would not come within the definition of a ‘consumer’. In our view, the issue requires to be revisited and the matter requires re-consideration.

We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench of such strength as the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may consider proper.”

– Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit, Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18636 of 2019].

_____

Whether a Trust would come within purview of a ‘consumer’ has been Referred to a Larger Bench on 04.10.2019 in Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18636 of 2019. Pratibha Pratisthan v. Canara Bank, (2017) 3 SCC 712 is position of law in force.

– Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, HongKong Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. v. Awaz, [Civil Appeal No. 5273 of 2008] decided on 20.12.2024.

_____

Trust is not a ‘legal entity’ or ‘juristic person’. There exists no ambiguity about there being no legal requirement for a Trust to be made a party in a proceeding before a Court of Law since it is only a Trustee who is liable and answerable for acts done or alleged to have been done for and on behalf of said Trust.

When a cause of action arises due to an alleged dishonour of cheque and a complaint is initiated under NI Act, same is maintainable against the Trustee who has signed the cheque, without requirement to array the Trust also as an accused.

We are conscious, Pratibha Pratisthan v. Canara Bank, (2017) 3 SCC 712 has been doubted and Referred to a Larger Bench in Tara Bai Desai Charitable Opthalmic Trust Hospital, Jodhpur v. Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18636 of 2019 [(2025) 3 SCC 80]. Pratibha Pratisthan continues to hold the field. There is no doubt on this, given Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140.

– Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal, [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4459 of 2023] decided on 09.10.2025.