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.
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.362~Recalling of Order-However patently erroneous the earlier order be, it can only be corrected in the process known to law and not under Section 362 Cr.P.C.-The whole purpose of Section 362 Cr.P.C. is only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. 

Sep 17, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1902 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1401 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Criminal Appeal No(S).…

Constitution

Lynching—Police directed to register FIR against persons who spread irresponsible and explore message and videos on various social media platforms having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind. Lynching—Mob-violence—Parliament recommended to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same—Certain other directions also issued.

Sep 17, 2018 sclaw

2018 (3) Law Herald (SC) 1873 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar…

Constitution I P C

Section 498- A, Judgement ” In the aforesaid analysis, while declaring the directions pertaining to Family  Welfare  Committee  and  its  constitution  by  the  District  Legal Services   Authority   and   the   power   conferred   on   the   Committee   is impermissible.  Therefore,  we  think  it  appropriate  to  direct  that  the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder  Kumar  (supra),  D.K.  Basu  (supra),   Lalita  Kumari  (supra) and  Arnesh  Kumar  (supra).  It  will  also  be  appropriate  to  direct  the Director  General  of  Police  of  each  State  to  ensure  that  investigating officers  who  are  in  charge  of  investigation  of  cases  of  offences  under Section  498-A IPC  should  be  imparted  rigorous  training with  regard  to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest. In view  of  the  aforesaid  premises,  the  direction  contained  in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same. As far  as  direction  Nos.  19(iv),  19(v)  and  19(vi)  and  19(vii)  are concerned, they shall be governed by what we have stated in paragraph 35.

Sep 14, 2018 sclaw

    REPORTABLE     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar                    …Petitioner(s) and another…

Narcotics

Narcotics—Personal Search—Accused posed faith in raiding party and gave written consent for being searched by raiding party—Held; this does not satisfy the requirement ofS.50 NDPS Act—Accused acquitted. Narcotics–Personal Search—Search before Magistrate or Gazetted officer is mandatory requirement and strict compliance thereof is mandated.

Sep 13, 2018 sclaw

2018(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1617 (SC) : 2018 LawHerald.Org 925   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARIF KHAN @ AGHA KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : R.K. Agrawal…

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