Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 15/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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…

Consumer

Insurance Law — Condition Precedent — Absurd Consequences — A term in an insurance policy will not be construed as a condition precedent to liability if doing so leads to absurd results, rendering the insurance cover ineffective under foreseeable circumstances (requiring voyage completion before monsoon, which might be prevented by an insured peril itself) — Such conditions may be disregarded if they vitiate the fundamental purpose of the insurance contract

Apr 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 453 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and…

You missed

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
State Laws

Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1991 — Section 12 — Set-off of losses — Accumulated losses of amalgamating company cannot be set-off against income of amalgamated company as it had not suffered the losses itself.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13B — Divorce by Mutual Consent — Settlement agreement reached in mediation — Wife withdrew consent before Second Motion for divorce — Held, while ordinarily consent can be withdrawn, when a settlement agreement has been entered into for full and final settlement of disputes, it is not open for a party to resile from its terms without demonstrating fraud, force, or undue influence — Wife failed to prove her allegations of fraud or compulsion by Husband, and her claims about substantial jewelry not mentioned in the settlement were unsubstantiated and raised suspicion due to delayed assertion — Held, wife’s withdrawal of consent was not justified.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 36 — Enforcement of Consent Award — Construction of compromise deed and consent award — Promoters undertook to defend proceedings and ensure no liability recovered from Appellants by any forum — Deposit of an amount by Appellants to prevent execution of award against their properties constituted a liability that triggered Promoters’ obligation under the consent award — High Court erred in deferring enforceability of consent award until final confirmation by the highest court of appeal — Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside.

Apr 15, 2026 sclaw