Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 16/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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,…

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.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity.

Sep 16, 2025 sclaw
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