Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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…

Consumer

The complainant contended that the basis of valuation as mentioned in clause-4.3 of the policy was “All exports-CIF + 10%”. This meant that the complainant had an insurable interest in the consignments until they were delivered to the buyer – The insurer argued that the basis of valuation was “FOB” and that the insurance coverage terminated on delivery of the consignment to the port of New York – The NCDRC rejected the review application, holding that the complainant had not proved that the basis of valuation was “All exports-CIF + 10%” – The NCDRC also held that the NCDRC had not erred in holding that the insurance coverage terminated on delivery of the consignment to the warehouse.

Feb 5, 2025 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   RENAISSANCE RTW (ASIA) (P) LTD. Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ( Before : Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya,…

You missed

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
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw