Supreme Court of India Judgements

47260 Judgements hosted as on 24/05/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   DR. VIVEK K. JAIN, VIVEK JAIN HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Inderjit Singh Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   JAYA GUPTA Vs. M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHER ( Before : Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain,…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of “consumer” — Commercial purpose — Deposit of surplus funds by a company in a bank for earning interest does not automatically make it a commercial purpose, but if the deposit is made to leverage credit facilities for augmenting business, it would have a direct nexus with revenue generation/profits — The identity of the purchaser or the value of the transaction is not conclusive, but the dominant intention or purpose behind the transaction is determining.

Mar 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 264 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. VIJAYA BANK ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,…

Consumer

Contract Law — Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and General Power of Attorney (GPA) — Interpretation — The JDA and GPA clearly indicate that the developer is authorized to enter sale agreements, construct, receive consideration, and transfer possession and title for flats within the developer’s share — The JDA also contains indemnity clauses where the developer indemnifies the landowners against any liabilities arising from construction and sale agreements, and landowners indemnify the developer against title defects or delays caused by landowners — The court interpreted these clauses to mean that while landowners are responsible for ensuring title transfer, the actual construction and timely delivery of flats within the developer’s share is the developer’s sole responsibility

Feb 22, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIGANESH CHANDRASEKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S UNISHIRE HOMES LLP AND OTHERS ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 71 — Execution of Order — Judgment Debtor Company — Liability of Directors/Promoters — Execution must strictly conform to the decree; it cannot be employed to shift or enlarge liability to bind persons who were neither parties to the decree nor otherwise legally liable thereunder — Where consumer complaints were consciously proceeded against the Company alone (Corporate Debtor), and directors/promoters were dropped as parties during admission/pre-adjudication stage (order unchallenged), the final order binds the Company exclusively, not the directors/promoters. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23)

Jan 18, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 51 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) Vs. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta…

Consumer General Insurance

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Policy — Scope of Coverage — Proximate Cause — Repudiation of Claim — Loss occasioned by fire following an attempted theft/burglary — Policy covered ‘Fire’ as a specified peril with limited exclusions which did not include theft/burglary preceding the fire — Insurer denied claim arguing that the proximate cause was theft/burglary, which was excluded under the Riots Strike and Malicious Damages (RSMD) clause — Held: Once the loss is caused by fire (an insured peril), the cause igniting the fire is immaterial, particularly when no such exclusion (theft/burglary preceding fire) is contained within the ‘Fire’ peril’s exclusions or the general exclusions — A fire insurance contract indemnifies against loss by fire, and the cause of the fire is irrelevant unless it stems from a peril expressly excluded in the fire coverage — The exclusion under the RSMD clause cannot be imported to negate coverage under the distinct ‘Fire’ peril — Claim repudiation based on theft as the proximate cause was unjustified, and the NCDRC erred in upholding it. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1444 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. )…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1023 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALM GROVES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. M/S MAGAR GIRME AND GAIKWAD ASSOCIATES ETC. ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 154, 173 — Clubbing/Transfer of FIRs — Multiple FIRs registered against petitioners in different jurisdictions arising from same set of transactions relating to a real estate project — Held, multiplicity of FIRs and parallel investigations on same facts leads to avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting findings and serious prejudice to the accused — Principle laid down in T.T — Antony v — State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction, squarely applies — FIR No. 30/2019 (EOW, Delhi) directed to be transferred and clubbed with FIR No. 439/2024 (Gurugram, Haryana) for investigation — Blanket direction restraining coercive steps in future FIRs declined, but petitioners permitted to avail remedies in law if future FIRs are based on the same transaction.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Abuse of Process of Court — Discharge of Accused — Vague Allegations — Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet are general and do not specify the role of the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of court and may cause prejudice.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 2(2), Order 20 Rule 18 — Preliminary vs. Final Decree — A Preliminary Decree declares rights and liabilities, leaving actual results to be worked out in further proceedings — A Final Decree is passed after further inquiries, completely disposing of the suit — A Preliminary Decree cannot be executed directly unless it is partly final — Provisions of Order 20 Rule 18 allow a court to pass a Preliminary Decree declaring rights and giving further directions if partition cannot be conveniently made without further inquiry in suits for partition of immovable property — The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by focusing on the nomenclature of the decree rather than its executable portions, especially when the property was not divisible by metes and bounds.

May 24, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Narcotics Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Section 43-D(5) — Bail — Constitutional Courts’ power to grant bail — The Supreme Court reiterated that statutory restrictions on bail under the UAP Act do not oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — The Court emphasized that the rigors of Section 43-D(5) can “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration is substantial.

May 24, 2026 sclaw