Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 18/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Consumer

Insurance Contract–An apprentice is not an employee in common parlance.

Bysclaw

Feb 19, 2019

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
   
Forgot password? Click here to reset
New User? Click here to register

By sclaw

Related Post

Consumer General Insurance

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Policy — Scope of Coverage — Proximate Cause — Repudiation of Claim — Loss occasioned by fire following an attempted theft/burglary — Policy covered ‘Fire’ as a specified peril with limited exclusions which did not include theft/burglary preceding the fire — Insurer denied claim arguing that the proximate cause was theft/burglary, which was excluded under the Riots Strike and Malicious Damages (RSMD) clause — Held: Once the loss is caused by fire (an insured peril), the cause igniting the fire is immaterial, particularly when no such exclusion (theft/burglary preceding fire) is contained within the ‘Fire’ peril’s exclusions or the general exclusions — A fire insurance contract indemnifies against loss by fire, and the cause of the fire is irrelevant unless it stems from a peril expressly excluded in the fire coverage — The exclusion under the RSMD clause cannot be imported to negate coverage under the distinct ‘Fire’ peril — Claim repudiation based on theft as the proximate cause was unjustified, and the NCDRC erred in upholding it. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Consumer

Developer liable for refund with agreed interest for delayed possession; interest on allottee’s loan not developer’s direct liability, though loan financing can be a factor in awarding general compensation

Jun 12, 2025 sclaw

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) and 11(6-A) — Appointment of Arbitral Tribunal (AT) — Scope of Judicial Scrutiny — The enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, and no further — The referral court must refrain from entering into contentious factual or legal issues related to authority, capacity, arbitrability, maintainability, or merits of claims, adhering to the principle of minimal judicial intervention. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act I P C

Criminal Law — Conviction — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Together Theory — Must establish acquaintance between accused and deceased for theory to apply as a circumstance linking chain; mere fact of accused and deceased being in the same vicinity shortly before the crime, without proven acquaintance, is insufficient to propound the ‘last seen together theory’ as a conclusive link, though presence in same vicinity remains a relevant initial fact. (Para 6)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Suit for Permanent Injunction — Dismissal of Suit — Reversal by High Court — Scope of Interference by Supreme Court — Where the Trial Court dismissed a suit for permanent injunction on grounds of failure to establish title and uncertainty in property identification, and the High Court reversed this relying on unproven and unauthenticated documents/surveys (like a BDA survey not proved or authenticated, and a letter without a clear seal or legible signature), the High Court erred. (Paras 3, 4, 11, 12, 14)

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Proof of Will — Requirement of attestation — Will excluding one legal heir (daughter) — One attesting witness (DW-2) examined — DW-2 must speak not only to the execution by the testator and his own attestation, but also to the attestation by the other witness — Failure of the Trial Court and High Court to find the Will proved — Evidence of DW-2 affirmed the signatures of the testator and both attesting witnesses after being suggested so in cross-examination by the plaintiff — Where a positive suggestion is made in cross-examination, and the witness affirms it, the response has probative value and cannot be ignored merely because it was a leading question — Concurrent finding disbelieving the Will reversed. (Paras 6, 16, 23, 24, 29

Dec 18, 2025 sclaw