Supreme Court of India Judgements

47200 Judgements hosted as on 30/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — For the conviction under Section 498A, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused mental or physical cruelty to the woman. In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding dowry demands and cruelty was found to be contradictory and uncorroborated by independent witnesses. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC was set aside.

May 1, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 89 — Compromise Decree — Interpretation of — Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) forming basis of decree — Clause (xiii) specifying conditional obligations for exchange of immovable properties or payment of guideline value upon failure to transfer — Held, obligation to pay monetary compensation triggered by failure to transfer agreed ‘B Schedule’ land, not discretionary option.

May 1, 2026 sclaw
Education

Right to Education Act, 2009 — Section 12 — Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 — Rule 8 — Neighbourhood School Obligation — A neighbourhood school has a constitutional and statutory duty to admit students forwarded by the State Government without delay, as mandated by Article 21A of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the RTE Act and UP RTE Rules — The school cannot question the eligibility of a student once the government has completed the admission process and forwarded the list.

Apr 30, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 5(8) — Financial Debt — Corporate Guarantees — A liability arising from corporate guarantee for money borrowed against interest qualifies as financial debt — The execution of corporate guarantees, even if challenged on grounds of timing or non-disclosure, are considered valid and enforceable if their execution is admitted or demonstrably proven, making the appellants entitled to recognition as financial creditors.

Apr 30, 2026 sclaw