Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 04/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Contract Law — Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Interpretation — The JDA and GPA clearly indicate that the developer is authorized to enter sale agreements, construct, receive consideration, and transfer possession and title for flats within the developer’s share — The JDA also contains indemnity clauses where the developer indemnifies the landowners against any liabilities arising from construction and sale agreements, and landowners indemnify the developer against title defects or delays caused by landowners — The court interpreted these clauses to mean that while landowners are responsible for ensuring title transfer, the actual construction and timely delivery of flats within the developer’s share is the developer’s sole responsibility

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 51 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) Vs. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta…

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

2025 INSC 1444 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. )…

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

2025 INSC 1023 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALM GROVES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. M/S MAGAR GIRME AND GAIKWAD ASSOCIATES ETC. ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh…

Consumer

Insurance Law — Condition Precedent — Absurd Consequences — A term in an insurance policy will not be construed as a condition precedent to liability if doing so leads to absurd results, rendering the insurance cover ineffective under foreseeable circumstances (requiring voyage completion before monsoon, which might be prevented by an insured peril itself) — Such conditions may be disregarded if they vitiate the fundamental purpose of the insurance contract

Apr 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 453 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and…

You missed

Artificial Intelligence Constitution

Artificial Intelligence (AI) — Use in Legal Proceedings — Reliance on AI-generated judgments by a court is a serious matter concerning the integrity of the judicial process — Such judgments, if non-existent or fake, amount to misconduct rather than a simple error of judgment — Supreme Court orders examination of consequences and accountability for such practices — Notice issued to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Bar Council of India to address this institutional concern.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw
Electricity Act

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) / Power Supply Agreement (PSA) — Interpretation of Contract — Surrounding Circumstances — Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 92, 94, 95 — Contractual terms can be clarified by attending circumstances and conduct of parties, even if contract is reduced to writing, to give meaning to terms that may otherwise be meaningless or unworkable.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 31(7)(a) — Interest awarded by Arbitral Tribunal — Contractual bar — Where a contract expressly prohibits the award of pre-award and pendente lite interest, an Arbitral Tribunal cannot award such interest, even if termed as compensation, as the arbitrator is bound by the terms of the contract.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw
Corporate Tenders & Contracts

Contract Act, 1872 — Section 133 — Discharge of surety by variance in terms of contract — A variance made without the surety’s consent in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor discharges the surety only with respect to transactions occurring subsequent to the variance. The surety remains liable for the original amount guaranteed.

Mar 4, 2026 sclaw