Supreme Court of India Judgements

47095 Judgements hosted as on 22/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: April 2026

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   CANARA BANK Vs. M/S. OASYS CYBERNETICS PVT. LTD. ( Before : A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) NC/FA/712/2012 Decided on : 25-02-2026…

Consumer

Housing Finance — Loan Disbursement — Due Diligence — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized that while a housing finance company (HFC) has a duty to exercise due diligence, borrowers also have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care and circumspection when availing home loans, especially in builder-linked projects with potential delays or issues — The Commission found that the borrowers had already booked their flats and made initial payments before approaching the HFC for loans, negating claims of reliance on alleged assurances from the HFC — The HFC disbursed loans based on the borrowers’ proposals and submitted records, and could not be held liable for the developer’s subsequent defaults.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   SUBASH CHANDRA SEN Vs. HDFC LTD. ( Before : Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member ) First…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   DR. VIVEK K. JAIN, VIVEK JAIN HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Inderjit Singh Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   JAYA GUPTA Vs. M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHER ( Before : Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain,…

Uncategorized

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited — Interference justified only if lower fora exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Not for re-appreciation of evidence — Petitioners failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or material irregularity in appreciation of evidence by lower fora — Petition dismissed —

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (O&M) AND OTHER Vs. JAGDISH SINGH RAJPUROHIT AND OTHER ( Before : Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra Avsm,…

Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Transfers of property made during the pendency of litigation are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and are subservient to the final decision of the court — Such transfers are not void ab initio but remain invalid if the litigation goes against the transferor.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 339 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. BHAVNA SETH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna.B. Varale, JJ. )…

I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Application for corporate insolvency resolution process — Existence of a pre-existing dispute — Adjudicating authority must reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute — The dispute must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending — The authority needs to see if there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence — It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster — However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed — The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above — So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 344 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLS FILMS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 343 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANNAPPA (D) THR. LRS. Vs. PARVATEWWA (D) THR. LRS. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Constitution

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Prisoners with Disabilities — This case concerns the rights and conditions of prisoners with disabilities, focusing on the effective implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination within prison systems.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw
Will & Succession

Succession Act, 1925 — Section 263 — Revocation of probate — Just cause — Fraudulent grant by concealing material facts or false suggestions — Failure to cite necessary parties — Grant of probate is a judgment in rem and binds the world — Persons with even a slight interest, including subsequent transferees from heirs, are entitled to citation before probate is granted — Failure to implead appellants and legal heirs of deceased sons, and to issue citations, constitutes just cause for revocation.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 13 — Conclusiveness of foreign judgment — Enforceability in India — Summary judgment granted by foreign court without full trial despite existence of triable issues and crucial documentary evidence like Balance Sheets and Board Minutes, particularly when the respondent was denied leave to defend — Such procedure prevents a fair adjudication and is not rendered “on the merits” as required by Section 13(b) — Foreign judgment is therefore not enforceable in India.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Valuation and Court Fees — The Supreme Court reiterated that Order 7 Rule 11 allows rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action, is undervalued, insufficiently stamped, or barred by law — It clarified that a plaint should not be rejected at the threshold if it contains averments that, taken at face value, set out a dispute requiring adjudication — The Court emphasized that assessing the sufficiency of evidence or the probability of success is impermissible at this stage and constitutes a premature mini-trial.

Apr 22, 2026 sclaw