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.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CANARA BANK Vs. M/S. OASYS CYBERNETICS PVT. LTD. ( Before : A.P. Sahi, President and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member ) NC/FA/712/2012 Decided on : 25-02-2026…
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.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SUBASH CHANDRA SEN Vs. HDFC LTD. ( Before : Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member ) First…
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.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATC LOGISTICAL SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. Vs. PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LIMITED AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sudip Ahluwalia , Presiding Member and Avm J. Rajendra Avsm…
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.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DR. VIVEK K. JAIN, VIVEK JAIN HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : Inderjit Singh Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar…
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.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JAYA GUPTA Vs. M/S IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHER ( Before : Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain,…
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 —
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (O&M) AND OTHER Vs. JAGDISH SINGH RAJPUROHIT AND OTHER ( Before : Avm Jonnalagadda Rajendra Avsm,…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Transfers of property made during the pendency of litigation are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and are subservient to the final decision of the court — Such transfers are not void ab initio but remain invalid if the litigation goes against the transferor.
2026 INSC 339 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. BHAVNA SETH AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna.B. Varale, JJ. )…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Application for corporate insolvency resolution process — Existence of a pre-existing dispute — Adjudicating authority must reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute — The dispute must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending — The authority needs to see if there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence — It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster — However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed — The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above — So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.
2026 INSC 344 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GLS FILMS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ. )…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.
2026 INSC 343 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANNAPPA (D) THR. LRS. Vs. PARVATEWWA (D) THR. LRS. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Civil…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.
2026 INSC 342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (MSEDCL) AND OTHERS Vs. R Z MALPANI ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S.…