Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw