Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, – Section 13(2)(a) – Whether Section 13(2)(a), which provides for the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should be read as mandatory or directory – 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 Act.

Mar 8, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – Meaning of “Consumer” – Destruction of some part of the crop – Respondent lodged a consumer complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract on the part of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant failed to buy back her produce, leading to the destruction of the greater part of the crop – Appellant contested the farmers’ claims before consumer fora on the preliminary point of maintainability right up to this Court, HELD Tendency to resist even the smallest of claims on any ground possible, by exploiting the relatively greater capacity of seed companies to litigate for long periods of time, amounts to little more than harassment of agriculturists, Appeal dismissed

Mar 7, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NANDAN BIOMATRIX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. S. AMBIKA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…

Consumer

……..it is evident that the 1976 Rules prescribed that a licence had to be obtained for the purposes of storing Hexane of the quantity involved in the instant case, and the Appellant has failed to comply with this requirement………..In the absence of such a licence, the Appellant could not have lawfully stored Hexane…….Non disclosure…..Respondent was justified in repudiating the claim of the Appellant on this ground.

Feb 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BASPA ORGANICS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…

Consumer

Associations That Are Formed Due To Mandate Of Law Cannot File A Consumer Complaint: HELD appellant association which consists of members of flat owners in a building, which has come into existence pursuant to a declaration which is required to be made compulsorily under the provisions of 1972 Karnataka Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary association

Feb 14, 2020 sclaw

Associations That Are Formed Due To Mandate Of Law Cannot File A Consumer Complaint: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 14 Feb 2020 5:42 PM Explaining the term ‘voluntary consumer…

Consumer

-Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Appeal – Breach of condition of Policy — HELD Fidelity Guarantee is different from contingency guarantee – The insurance under it, is for honesty, against negligence or for being faithful and loyal to its employees – The protection afforded is different than in normal insurance policies – Precisely, it is a contract whereby, for a consideration, one agrees to indemnify another, against loss, arising from the breach of honesty, integrity or fidelity of an employee or other person holding a position of trust”

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL BULK HANDLING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash…

Consumer

CLAIM REPUDIATED on grounds ‘farmers’ were not ‘consumers’ within the meaning of C P Act, 1986 – HELD “consumer” under the Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services – CLAIM ALLOWED

Feb 6, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CANARA BANK @ APPELLANT @ HASH M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS @ RESPONDENT ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak…

Consumer

No Obligation On Airlines To Escort Passenger To Boarding Gate After Issuing Boarding Pass: SC HELD “After boarding pass is issued, the passenger is expected to proceed towards security channel area and head towards specified boarding gate on his own. There is no contractual obligation on the airlines to escort every passenger, after the boarding pass is issued to him at the check­in counter, up to the boarding gate

Jan 28, 2020 sclaw

The Supreme Court has observed that there is no obligation on the airlines to escort every passenger after issuing him/her a boarding pass at the check-in counter until he/she reaches…

Consumer

SC Sets Aside NCDRC Findings Of Unfair Trade Practice Against Star TV & Airtel In Relation To KBC Show HELD there is no other cogent material on record upon which the National Commission could have placed reliance to render the finding of ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(1)(r)(3) (a) of the 1986 Act”,

Jan 25, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STAR INDIA (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw