Supreme Court of India Judgements

46790 Judgements hosted as on 02/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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,…

Consumer

H E L D – The respondents had paid 85% of the agreed consideration, together with the agreement to sell, and even the balance at the time when the sale deed was executed on 11 February 2013. Having paid the consideration, it was evidently not in their interest to delay the receipt of possession. Though the sale deed records that possession was handed over, it is clear from the contemporaneous record that it was only on 28 August 2014 that all the sets of keys of the apartment were handed over to the respondents. Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay reasonable compensation to the respondents for the period between 9 February 2013 and 28 August 2014, in addition to the contractual payment due for the period between 8 August 2012 and 8 February 2013.

Dec 25, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S LANCO HILLS TECHNOLOGY PARK PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANISHA BALKRISHNA KULKARNI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

You missed

Constitution

Maternity leave as a facet of reproductive rights and dignity is a constitutional guarantee, requiring service rules to be interpreted liberally, not restricting benefit based on children from a previous marriage not in the employee’s custody.

Jun 4, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal

A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw