Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Consumer Law – Housing – Delay in deleivery of Flat – The appellants, homebuyers, paid 90% of the total sale consideration for a flat, but the respondent-developer failed to deliver possession by the scheduled date, leading to a consumer dispute – The Supreme Court found that the Commission erred in allowing the respondent-developer to charge the said interest and quashed that part of the order – The Court directed the respondent-developer to convey the outstanding amount to the appellants within two months, and upon payment, to hand over possession of the flat immediately.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 300 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PIONEER URBAN LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R.…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Whether respondent file a complaint under the CPA considering the investment was made in a partnership firm attracts Consumer Protection Act – The court finds the complaint not maintainable, as the investment was a commercial transaction and the appellants did not inherit the firm’s liabilities – The Supreme Court sets aside the orders of the lower forums and dismisses the complaint, allowing the respondent to seek other legal remedies.

Apr 7, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANNAPURNA B. UPPIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MALSIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ )…

Consumer

“Fire Insurance Claim Revived: Manufacturer Gets Chance to Challenge Reports After Rejection” – The Court analyzed the definition of ‘person’ under the Consumer Protection Act and concluded that a company can be considered a consumer – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Commission and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing Appellant to file a rebuttal.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. KOZYFLEX MATTRESSES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 47, 49(2) and 59 – Court observed that the appellant was not an illiterate person and had signed the agreement after being aware of the adjustable interest rate option – The Court also noted that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that he had a better option of securing loan from another institution – The Court held that the email could not override the policy decisions of HDFC and that the appellant could not seek refund of the interest paid after having received the loan amount and repaid it as per the agreement.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH MONGA — Appellant Vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Consumer

Consumer Law – they neither have the skills nor the expertise to do so. However, they are liable to pay the monetary compensation as directed by the consumer forums from the estate of the deceased developer – The court applied the principles of contract law, consumer protection law, and succession law to arrive at its decision – It distinguished between proprietary rights and personal rights, and between inheritable rights and uninheritable rights – It also discussed the nature and status of a proprietary concern and its legal representatives.

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. JAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Consumer

Supreme Court held that the respondent-company had breached the agreement by not offering possession of the apartment for fit outs by the stipulated date and the appellants had the right to terminate the agreement and claim unconditional refund with interest at 12% p.a. as per the agreement – The Supreme Court also held that the NCDRC had overstepped its jurisdiction by rewriting the terms and conditions of the contract and applying its own subjective criteria.

Mar 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VENKATARAMAN KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LODHA CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – – the respondent filed a review petition with the NCDRC, which granted it ex parte, reducing the compensation to Rs. 2 lakhs and stating that the respondent had already paid the amount – The appellant then filed a review petition with the Supreme Court, which reinstated the original order of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest at 12% – The Supreme Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondent for making a false representation

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.C. JAIN — Appellant Vs. DR. R.P. SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S). …of…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy – Supreme Court held that the date of issuance of the policy would be the relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of issuance of the receipt – The appeals were accordingly allowed and the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were set aside.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAYA WADHWANI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Consumer

Insurance Claim – Replacement of Car – On account of damage caused to BMW Car due to accident – In case of total loss/constructive total loss, instead of paying the amount, the insurer has an option available to replace the vehicle with a new one – Thus, it is not the right of the insured under the policy conditions to always claim replacement of the car – It is at the option of the insurer

Nov 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. MUKUL AGGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Consumer

Consumer Complaint – Deficiency of service or defect – Adverse reaction due to administration of vaccine Engerix-B – Non-mentioning of myositis being suffered as an adverse reaction in the literature accompanying the injection or on the vial not amounts to deficiency of service, more particularly when the adverse reaction was minimal only to the extent of 0.02 in one million – If the matter is looked at from its correct perspective it is seen that except for the appellant assuming that he has suffered myositis and the cause for the same was the Engerix-B vaccine being administered, the same has not been established with the minimal required evidence to conclude even on preponderance of probability – Complaint dismissed

Nov 1, 2023 sclaw

(2023) 11 SCALE 325 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH BANG — Appellant Vs. GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw