Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Medical bills which have been issued by Hospital and Research Centre, as per which appellant had incurred expenditure – – Direction to pay the amount, Rs.4,09,000/- in terms of Medical bills with interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint before the District Forum till its realisation – Appeal allowed.

Jul 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEM RAJ — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

Insurance Policy – Exclusionary Clause – It is trite to say that wherever such an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause – In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured.

May 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. VEDIC RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi,…

Consumer

Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy – extent to which the claim of the appellant is required to be accepted and the respondent be directed to reimburse the same – – on the exchange of correspondence between surveyor and the appellant who brought on record additional material before the surveyor to indicate that the machinery cannot be repaired, the amount assessed was Rs.2,32,02,000 – Appeal partly allowed

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUPER LABEL MFG. CO. — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

C P C Consumer

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 1 Rule 8 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 12(1)(c) – there is no question of Order I Rule 8 CPC being complied with as they do not represent the others, particularly when there is no larger public interest involved. Such complainants seek reliefs for themselves and nothing beyond.

May 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and M. M. Sundresh,…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – For award of compound interest – award of compound interest in the present case had neither any foundation in the record nor any backing in law nor the Consumer Fora took care to examine the contours of their jurisdiction and the requirements of proper assessment, if at all any compensation and/or punitive damages were sought to be granted. The impugned orders are difficult to be sustained.

Apr 22, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUNEJA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANITA MERCHANT — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Consumer

“Consumer” – Commercial purpose – whether the insurance service has a close and direct nexus with the profit generating activity and whether the dominant intention or dominant purpose for the transaction was to facilitate some kind of profit generation for the purchaser and/or their beneficiary – Insured is a commercial enterprise is unrelated to the determination of whether the insurance policy shall be counted as a commercial purpose

Apr 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. HARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

HELD Impugned orders passed by the National Commission and that of the State Commission are required to be modified to the extent holding the developer liable to pay compensation under clause 9(c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement to the extent of 70% and 30% liability would be upon the Chandigarh Housing Board.

Apr 16, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. — Appellant Vs. GAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw