Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Top Tags

Latest Post

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities. Housing Finance — Loan Disbursement — Due Diligence — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized that while a housing finance company (HFC) has a duty to exercise due diligence, borrowers also have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care and circumspection when availing home loans, especially in builder-linked projects with potential delays or issues — The Commission found that the borrowers had already booked their flats and made initial payments before approaching the HFC for loans, negating claims of reliance on alleged assurances from the HFC — The HFC disbursed loans based on the borrowers’ proposals and submitted records, and could not be held liable for the developer’s subsequent defaults.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.
C P C

Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC, also known as Or 17 R 3, gives courts the authority to proceed with a case even if one of the parties fails to provide evidence. This power can significantly limit the options for the losing party to seek justice, and is considered a drastic measure. Therefore, courts should exercise this power only in rare and exceptional situations.

Apr 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM KISHORE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BRAHM PRAKASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Civil…

I P C Murder

(IPC) – Sections 300-Exception 4, 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC – Appeal dismissed.

Apr 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALU SUDAM KHALDE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…

Acquittal

(IPC) – Ss 394 and 397 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Robbery with voluntarily causing hurt – Presence of accused at the scene of crime and recovery of pistol from him becomes highly doubtful and the guilt of the accused having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.

Apr 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANWAR @ BHUGRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Housing State Laws

Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 – Rule 36(2) – Expulsion of membership on account of non-payment of dues for construction of flats – There is violation of Rule 36(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 and the prescribed procedure for expulsion of a society member has not been followed – Expulsion of membership order is upheld.

Apr 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GEETA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Aravind Kumar,…

Corporate SEBI

Out of the total amount of Rs. 24,979.67 Crores lying in the “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account”, Rs. 5000 Crores be transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, – which shall be paid to the genuine depositors in the most transparent manner and on proper identification and on submitting proof of their deposits and proof of their claims and to be deposited in their respective bank accounts directly.

Apr 2, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PINAK PANI MOHANTY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) I.A.…

I B C

I B C, 2016 – S 12A – application under section 12A for withdrawal cannot be said to be kept pending for constitution of CoC, even where such application was filed before constitution of CoC HELD substituted Regulation 30A of IBC as it stands clearly provided for withdrawal applications being entertained before constitution of CoC – It does not in any way conflicts or is in violation of section 12A of IBC.

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABHISHEK SINGH — Appellant Vs. HUHTAMAKI PPL LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Acquittal

(IPC) – Ss 302 & 149 – Murder – Acquittal – scribe of FIR not examined – PW-1 stated that she had no knowledge of the contents of the FIR -Death was homicidal but not convinced that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence are set aside

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PULEN PHUKAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Accident I P C

(IPC) – Ss 279 and 304A – Causing death by negligence – driving the Scorpio in rash and negligent manner due to which one innocent person lost his life and two persons who were travelling in the ambulance sustained the injuries – Orders passed by the H C reducing the sentence while maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 304A of IPC from two years RI to eight months SI quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. DIL BAHADUR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 844…

Bail Declined Narcotics

(NDPS) – Ss 8, 20, 27-A, 29, 32 and 37 – Recovery of ganja – no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Bail cancelled.

Mar 30, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ PAPPU — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in service — Manufacturing defect — Vehicle purchased with manufacturing defect — State Commission awarded refund of purchase price and compensation — High Court modified the order, directing refund of the principal amount without interest or compensation, citing the complainant’s refusal to accept a replacement engine — Appeal partly allowed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving medical negligence by leading cogent and convincing evidence — Mere assertions or affidavits are insufficient — Dismissed

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Cannot be invoked for setting aside orders based solely on appreciation of facts.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(ii) — Definition of “Consumer” — Commercial Purpose — Bank Guarantees availed for the purpose of facilitating profit generation in a business transaction are not considered to be for a commercial purpose that excludes them from the definition of a consumer under the Act, especially when the dispute concerns the refund of commission for unutilized periods of such guarantees — The dominant purpose test applies, and the specific nature of the dispute regarding service charges makes the complaint maintainable — The interpretation of “commercial purpose” should not exclude disputes related to service charges for financial facilities.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw