Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1) – Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Section 2(7) – Manufacturer defect – Failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a carbuyer of reasonable prudence, should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Contempt Petition – Non-compliance of directions – Builder is guilty of delaying the construction by not taking suitable steps in complete disobedience of the orders passed by this Court based on its undertaking – Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the tenants/occupants to approach this Court in case of non-compliance of the directions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH MAVJI TANK (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HARRESH NAVNITRAI MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…
Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination with those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai…
Territorial jurisdiction – Preliminary issue – When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue – Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.G. JAGDISHAN — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice – Bail cancelled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
There is no application of mind at all by the High Court on merits of the order passed by the Tribunal – It can be seen that the High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it while exercising the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Matter remand to High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice – Bail cancelled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MS. Y — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal…
Murder – Appeal against acquittal – Reasoned judgment was pronounced and uploaded after a period of almost five months – Order of acquittal is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRAJEET YADAV — Appellant Vs. SANTOSH SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 – Section 19 – While challenge to award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 – Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TIRUPATI STEELS — Appellant Vs. M/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 – Sections 32(2) and 34 – Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Future use of the acquired land cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation for the lands acquired
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…