Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Medical Negligence–When a patient consults a medical practitioner, consent given for diagnostic surgery, cannot be construed as consent for performing additional or further surgical procedure – either as conservative treatment or as radical treatment – without the specific consent for such additional or further surgery.

Dec 5, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 337 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. N. Agarwal The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. P. Naolekar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Consumer

Consumer–Interest–Housing–As per clause in allotment letter complainant agreed to refund of amount with 24% interest if required approvals are not got sanction within 12 months-Exorbitant rate of interest in allotment letter, is a strong indicator that the complainant in fact was an investor or financier in the project

Aug 14, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 379 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 596 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member V.K. Jain Consumer Case No. 43 of…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12–Education–Misleading advertisement-Institute did not file any documentary evidence that it was recognized by the Government in any manner and was affiliated with any state or central university-Contention that Diploma Course in Veterinary pharmacy is not governed by any statute; not accepted-Order directing refund of fee with interest upheld.

Aug 10, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 371 (NCDRC) : 2016 LawHeiald.Org 2450 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before  The Hon’ble Mrs. Presiding Member M. Shreesha Revision Petition No. 1662 of…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12–lnsurance–Theft of Vehicle-Delay of 21/2 months in giving intimation of theft by insured to insurer-It amounts to breach of policy-­Insured was obligated to give intimation immediately after theft came to his knowledge-Mere intimating the police or lodging FIR does not amount to sufficient compliance-Claim held to be rightly repudiated.

Jul 11, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 558 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 598 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member V.K. Jain Revision Petition No. 176 of…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw