Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Top Tags

Latest Post

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 — Appeal allowed — State Commission wrongly entertained complaint when jurisdiction was excluded by agreement and granted claim to insurance company which was not a consumer. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited — Interference justified only if lower fora exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Not for re-appreciation of evidence — Petitioners failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or material irregularity in appreciation of evidence by lower fora — Petition dismissed —
Consumer

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.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
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
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 — Appeal allowed — State Commission wrongly entertained complaint when jurisdiction was excluded by agreement and granted claim to insurance company which was not a consumer.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Appeal allowed — State Commission wrongly entertained complaint when jurisdiction was excluded by agreement and granted claim to insurance company which was not a consumer.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several.
Consumer
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several.
Customs & Excise

HELD Anardana’ is a dried product of local ‘daru’ or wild pomegranate – well-settled principle that words in a taxing statute must be construed in consonance with their commonly accepted meaning in the trade and their popular meaning – Policy which specifically states – ‘import of pomegranate seeds will be free’

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AMRITSAR (PUNJAB) — Appellant Vs. M/S D.L. STEELS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela…

Corporate

SEBI – Appellate Tribunal is an appellate forum and not the authority empowered to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-H or suo moto issue directions under Section 11, 11B or 11(4)(d) of the Act. It can uphold or set aside the direction issued, or modify and substitute the direction issued under Regulation 44 of the Takeover Regulations 1997 read with Sections 11, 11B and 11(4)(d) of the Act.

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…

Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – There cannot be a fetter in a owner of a property to give a limited estate if he so chooses to do including to his wife but of course if the limited estate is to the wife for her maintenance that would mature in an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the said Act.

Jul 24, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOGI RAM — Appellant Vs. SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Acquittal

(IPC) – S 302/34 – Murder – Common intention- HELD the evidence available on record was not looked into as the witnesses had already been exposed to the accused in the police station – After all, the test identification parade is only a part of an investigation, and therefore, nothing more can be attached to it – Acquittal

Jul 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHISHPAL @ SHISHU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Acquittal

Last seen theory – When the last seen theory is found to be not true, there has to be much more concrete and clinching evidence to implicate the accused. HELD when a large number of persons were available near the dead body, it is incomprehensible as to how all of them refused to sign the documents prepared by the police – Order of conviction is set aside.

Jul 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAVI SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh,…

Murder

Accused has failed to explain the aforesaid incriminating material/circumstances found against him namely the purchase of pesticides by him, prior to the occurrence and that the very bottle of pesticide which was purchased by him was found from the place of occurrence – Conviction and sentence id upheld.

Jul 23, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HAJABHAI RAJASHIBHAI ODEDARA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Consumer

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.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Appeal allowed — State Commission wrongly entertained complaint when jurisdiction was excluded by agreement and granted claim to insurance company which was not a consumer.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several.

Apr 14, 2026 sclaw