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.
Acquittal

Murder—Unsoundness of mind—Duty of Police—In view of the previous history of insanity of the appellant, at the time of offence, it was the duty of police to subject the accused to a medical examination immediately and place the evidence before the court and if this is not done, it creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case

Nov 3, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1749 :2018 LawHerald.Org 1250 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2017…

Will & Succession

Registration—Admissibility of unregistered documents—Any document which is not registered as required under law, would be inadmissible in evidence and therefore, cannot be produced and proved. Succession—Joint family property—After partition, the property in the hands of the son will continue to be the ancestral property and the natural or adopted son of that son will take interest in it and is entitled to it by survivorship.

Nov 2, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1741 :2018 LawHeraldLOrg 1249 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Civil Appeal No.…

I P C

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, S.326 & S.34—Murder—Common Intention—Overt Act—Grievous Hurt—Acquittal – Except specifying that one assaulted the informant no other allegations are found against him—Ingredients of common intention on the part of the accused to do away with life of other two deceased are not forth coming from evidence on record—Appellant acquitted u/s 302 IPC but convicted w/s 326 IPC—Sentence reduced to already undergone.

Nov 2, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald |SC) 1736 :2018 LawHerald.Org 1123 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Criminal Appeal No.…

C P C

Injunction—Question of Title—Findings of title can be recorded in a suit for injunction if there are necessary and appropriate issues regarding question of title Second Appeal—Question of Title—High Court while dismissing the second appeal being devoid of merit was not justified in making an observation which has the potential of reopening the already settled issue of title in respect of the suit property—Such findings set aside

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2337 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant  Vs.  VIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Kurian…

Limitation

Adverse Possession—Permissive possession over the property howsoever long never becomes adverse to the interest of real owner at any point of time Adverse Possession—The limitation of 12 years begins when the possession of the defendants would become adverse to that of the plaintiffs -Adverse Possession—Proof of—Tax receipt, Chaukidari receipt and Khatian extract—These documents at the most depict the possession of the defendants and not their adverse possession.                                

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2316 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1520 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                                            Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S, 100-Second Appeal-Substantial Question of law-High Court also failed to see that the issue of resjudicata and the issue of ownership were independent issues and the decision on one would not have answered the other one—In other words, both the issues had to be examined independent of each other on their respective merits—It was, however, possible only after framing of substantial questions on both the issues as provided under Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code—This was, however, not done in this case-Case remanded back

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2311 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1519     SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA GRAMANI — Appellant Vs. MARIAMMAL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and…

Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.18—Development Charges—Exemplar sale deed was only for 99 sq. yds., whereas the total acquired land is 05 acres- -Acquired land is abutting residential area, which is a Mandal Headquarter where bank, high school, bus stand, telephone exchange, police station, primary health centre, cinema hall, petrol pumps are located—Deduction of 30% towards development charges held to be justified.

Oct 30, 2018 sclaw

2O18(3) Law Herald (SC) 2307 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1493 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon~ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Haul Kalluri Veakata Narasimha…

Accident

Accident–Disability @ 25%–Injured was unmarried boy of 25 years—He suffered fracture of both pelvic bones-­ He suffered partial but permanent disability in his body which reduced his movement capacity to a larger extent—He was earning Rs 4000/- p.m.–He had spent substantial amount on treatment and has also lost his job—Tribunal had awarded Rs. 3.43 lakhs—Keeping in view, circumstances of cases further enhancement of Rs. 5 lakhs without interest awarded.                                                                      

Oct 30, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2302 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1453 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                      Before      Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit…

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