Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Applicability of Order 22 of CPC to death of parties — Section 13(7) made Order 22 of CPC applicable to death of complainant or opposite party, allowing substitution of legal heirs if the right to sue survives — This procedural rule must be harmoniously construed with substantive law like Section 306 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs survivability of causes of action

May 12, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 443 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMUD LALL Vs. SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.…

Consumer Insurance Law

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Claim — Assessment of Loss — Survey Report — Admissibility and Weightage — Admissibility of Survey Report as Primary Evidence — In insurance claims, a survey report, prepared by an expert after physical inspection, is considered primary and significant evidence — It cannot be disregarded without strong contrary evidence showing arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   M/S. A.P. KNITWEARS Vs. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) First Appeal…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — A person purchasing a vehicle for business to earn livelihood is a consumer. — Deficiency in service — No deficiency in service if a vehicle model is not available and another available model is given to the buyer as per mutual understanding and agreement, and the buyer fails to make payments for the second vehicle.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   PROGRESSIVE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN DEBNATH ( Before : Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member ) Second…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking — Cheque Presentation — Bank’s failure to re-present cheques within their validity period after they were returned due to a bank strike constitutes negligence and a deficiency in service, as banks have a duty of due diligence in handling customer deposits.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking — Cheque Presentation — Bank’s failure to re-present cheques within their validity period after they were returned due to a bank strike constitutes negligence and a deficiency in service, as banks have a duty of due diligence in handling customer deposits.

Apr 16, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 363 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CANARA BANK Vs. KAVITA CHOWDHARY ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2587 of 2025…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NISSAN MOTOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAISON LUKOSE AND OTHERS ( Before : A. P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) First Appeal…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   AKTHAR KHAN Vs. GOYAL’S MEDICAL CENTRE AND OTHERS ( Before : Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member ) Consumer Complaint…

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…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw