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.
Property Matters

Lis Pendence—Agreement to Sell-During pendency of litigation some more transaction took place in relation to suit property—Such transactions are directly hit by the principle of lis pendence-These transaction are not binding on parties to the suit much less on plaintiffs—Such parties would be at liberty to now work out their inter se rights

Oct 27, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2245 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 2213   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS. — Respondent ( Before…

Acquittal

Rape—Medical Evidence—Doctor has opined that the possibility of sexual assault upon the victim cannot be ruled out, though she did not specify as to whether the sexual assault was in the recent past-­Accused acquitted.  Rape—Improbable Story—Prosecutrix specifically disposed that at the time of incident, the wife, children, sister and mother of the accused persons were present in the house—Accused acquitted.

Oct 27, 2018 sclaw

    2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2237: 2018 LawHerald.Org 1488   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAM SINGH — Appellant  Vs.  STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana and Mohan M…

Acquittal

When the doctor has given opinion that the suicide cannot be ruled out and the death of the deceased could have been due to suicide which was accepted by the High Court—Held; when the High Court has a view which is a plausible view such order does not call for interference—Acquittal upheld.

Oct 24, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 22O1 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1443 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Criminal Appeal Nos. 1496…

Bail Granted

Challenge to order granting bails—As per orders of Supreme Court bail would be subject to furnishing of bank guarantee—Held; (i) Bank guarantee would be mean obligation as per agreement and not the due amount; (ii) Ail those who had already furnished sufficient security by way of pledging immovable property need not to furnish bank guarantee as per earlier orders; (iii) All those who had not given any security are obligated to furnish bank guarantee—In absence of it, bail would stand cancelled and they be taken into custody; (iv) Corporation permitted to serve its interest either by involving the bank guarantees where ever furnished and or by putting to auction the unencumbered immovable property pledged by the millers—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438.

Oct 24, 2018 sclaw

2018(3} Law Herald (SC) 2193 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Criminal Appeal…

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