Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Deficiency in service – Failure of builder to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – Respondent-builder was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate – Failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – members of society society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.

Jan 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – Where a residential apartment is purchased by the husband and wife jointly or by a parent and child jointly. If they have a grievance against the builder, both of them are entitled to file a complaint jointly. Such a complaint will not fall under Section 35(1)(c) but fall under Section 35(1)(a). Persons filing such a complaint cannot be excluded from Section 2(5)(i) on the ground that it is not by a single consumer.

Jan 2, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – HELD the proper way of interpreting Section 35(1) read with section 2(5), would be to say that a complaint may be filed: (i) by a single consumer; (ii) by a recognised consumer Association; (iii) by one or more consumers jointly, seeking the redressal of their own grievances without representing other consumers who may or may not have the same interest; (iv) by one or more consumers on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers; and (v) the Central Government, Central Authority or State Authority.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 13(2) – Consumer Complaint – Limitation period – While entertaining Consumer Complaint, the NCDRC has condoned the delay of 100 days in filing a written statement – Appeal against – No case for interference is made in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIAMOND EXPORTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(g) – Mediclaim policy – Deficiency in service – Failure to disclose changes in policy conditions at time of renewal of the policy – Insurer was clearly under a duty to inform the policy holders about the limitations which it was imposing in the policy renewed – Its failure to inform the policy holders resulted in deficiency of service.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH JACOB PUNNEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindrabhat, J. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51 – Appeal to National Commission – Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Consumer

IMP : Object of seeking a mediclaim policy is to seek indemnification in respect of a sudden illness or sickness which is not expected or imminent and which may occur overseas – If the insured suffers a sudden sickness or ailment which is not expressly excluded under the policy, a duty is cast on the insurer to indemnify the appellant for the expenses incurred thereunder – Repudiation of the policy by the insurance company was illegal and not in accordance with law – Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be indemnified under the policy.

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANMOHAN NANDA — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Consumer

Issue regarding prospective operation of the Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, Constitution Bench Held, District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act – Case refers to Larger Bench:

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEEMA AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Consumer

Medical negligence – If the operation theatres were occupied at the time when the operation of the patient was contemplated, it cannot be said that there is a negligence on the part of the Hospital – A team of specialist doctors was available and also have attended to the patient but unfortunately nature had the last word and the patient breathed his last -No doctor can assure life to his patient but can only attempt to treat his patient to the best of his ability which was being done in the present case as well – Findings recorded by the Commission holding the Hospital and the Doctor guilty of medical negligence are not sustainable in law.

Dec 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE — Appellant Vs. ASHA JAISWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw