Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.

Feb 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi,…

Consumer

HELD – The value of the timber loaded in the truck SCDRC to examine this issue afresh without being influenced by its earlier order, including the order passed by the NCDRC. The appellants and the respondent would be permitted to file additional documents regarding delivery to the consignee and the valuation of the consignment, including the documents filed by the Bank before us. The parties would be asked to lead evidence through affidavits.

Feb 6, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSIND BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIMARJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

Compensation sought by the appellants cannot be granted as Section 12-B of MRTP Act empowers the Commission to grant compensation only when any loss or damage is caused to a consumer as a result of a monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practice – Appellants have failed to prove unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, they are not entitled to any compensation.

Jan 29, 2022 sclaw

UPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.B. PATEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Consumer

Deficiency in service – Failure of builder to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – Respondent-builder was responsible for transferring the title to the flats to the society along with the occupancy certificate – Failure of the respondent to obtain the occupation certificate is a deficiency in service – members of society society are well within their rights as ‘consumers’ to pray for compensation as a recompense for the consequent liability (such as payment of higher taxes and water charges by the owners) arising from the lack of an occupancy certificate.

Jan 18, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – Where a residential apartment is purchased by the husband and wife jointly or by a parent and child jointly. If they have a grievance against the builder, both of them are entitled to file a complaint jointly. Such a complaint will not fall under Section 35(1)(c) but fall under Section 35(1)(a). Persons filing such a complaint cannot be excluded from Section 2(5)(i) on the ground that it is not by a single consumer.

Jan 2, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – HELD the proper way of interpreting Section 35(1) read with section 2(5), would be to say that a complaint may be filed: (i) by a single consumer; (ii) by a recognised consumer Association; (iii) by one or more consumers jointly, seeking the redressal of their own grievances without representing other consumers who may or may not have the same interest; (iv) by one or more consumers on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers; and (v) the Central Government, Central Authority or State Authority.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 13(2) – Consumer Complaint – Limitation period – While entertaining Consumer Complaint, the NCDRC has condoned the delay of 100 days in filing a written statement – Appeal against – No case for interference is made in the order of the NCDRC allowing the application for condonation of delay on merits.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIAMOND EXPORTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(g) – Mediclaim policy – Deficiency in service – Failure to disclose changes in policy conditions at time of renewal of the policy – Insurer was clearly under a duty to inform the policy holders about the limitations which it was imposing in the policy renewed – Its failure to inform the policy holders resulted in deficiency of service.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH JACOB PUNNEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindrabhat, J. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51 – Appeal to National Commission – Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw