Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 14/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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,…

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 629 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. KUSHALRAJ LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Consumer

Consumer Law — Housing — Delay in delivery of possession of the Flat — Appellants purchased a flat from a developer but faced significant delays in receiving possession — They filed a complaint seeking a refund and interest — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partly allowed the complaint, ordering the developer to refund the full amount paid along with interest at 9% per annum — On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the refund order but increased the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of deposit until the refund. The court also dismissed other claims for compensation.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 557 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIDYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

You missed

Arbitration

An arbitral award under the 1996 Act should not be annulled solely on the ground of MP Act, 1983 applicability if the objection was not raised before the Tribunal.

May 17, 2025 sclaw
Arbitration

Under Section 31(7) of the 1996 Act, an Arbitral Tribunal validly awards post-award interest on the sum of the principal amount and accrued pre-award interest, which is not impermissible compound interest.

May 17, 2025 sclaw
C P C

Courts exercising power to appoint Receivers under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC must exercise discretion cautiously, considering temple’s sacred nature, preferring persons with religious affinity and managing pending litigation expeditiously the temple administration

May 17, 2025 sclaw
Dowry Death

Conviction for Section 304-B IPC upheld based on proven unnatural death within 1.5 years of marriage and consistent evidence of continuous dowry harassment soon before death. Prosecution established essential ingredients invoking Section 113-B presumption, which accused failed to rebut with credible defence.

May 17, 2025 sclaw