Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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,…

Consumer

IMP : Object of seeking a mediclaim policy is to seek indemnification in respect of a sudden illness or sickness which is not expected or imminent and which may occur overseas – If the insured suffers a sudden sickness or ailment which is not expressly excluded under the policy, a duty is cast on the insurer to indemnify the appellant for the expenses incurred thereunder – Repudiation of the policy by the insurance company was illegal and not in accordance with law – Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be indemnified under the policy.

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANMOHAN NANDA — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Consumer

Issue regarding prospective operation of the Judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, Constitution Bench Held, District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act – Case refers to Larger Bench:

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEEMA AGARWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Consumer

Medical negligence – If the operation theatres were occupied at the time when the operation of the patient was contemplated, it cannot be said that there is a negligence on the part of the Hospital – A team of specialist doctors was available and also have attended to the patient but unfortunately nature had the last word and the patient breathed his last -No doctor can assure life to his patient but can only attempt to treat his patient to the best of his ability which was being done in the present case as well – Findings recorded by the Commission holding the Hospital and the Doctor guilty of medical negligence are not sustainable in law.

Dec 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOMBAY HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE — Appellant Vs. ASHA JAISWAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw