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.
Consumer

Held; complainant is a renowned export/buying house recognized by Ministry of Commerce involved in large scale business which is run with the assistance of number of employees- Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that complainant has been running its business exclusively for the earning livelihood by way of self employment-Complaint dismissed.                                                          

Aug 26, 2018 sclaw

  2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 747 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 807 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member Ajit Bharihoke The Hon’ble Mr. Member…

C P C

Held, when the plaintiff could be shown the indulgence, the same equity should have been mated out to the appellant (defendant)-Since it was suit for recovery of money-The Court should have put the parties at least to terms and then disposed of the matter on merits-Ex parte Decree set side.                                                                           

Aug 26, 2018 sclaw

(2017) 100 ACrC 264 : (2017) 175 AIC 263 : (2017) 2 ICC 443 : (2017) 1 LAR 643 : (2017) 1 LawHerald(SC) 746 : (2017) 2 LJR 661 : (2017) 4 LW 283…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12–Consumer–insurance–Acceptance of policy-­Policy was not issued by insurer-Therefore, there being no insurance contract in existence, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer of the insurance company and he has no locus standi to file the consumer complaint.

Aug 26, 2018 sclaw

2017  (1 ) Law Herald (SC) 743 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 806 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member Ajit Bharihoke The Hon’ble Mr.…

Cr P C

The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015,  dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC QUASHED

Aug 23, 2018 sclaw

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016) K. SUBBA RAO & ORS. .... Appellant(s)…

Will & Succession

V IMP :::: Will–Joint and Mutual Will—Survivor after death of other testator during his life time can deal as absolute owner of the property but when he dies, he is to bequeath what is left in the manner agreed upon between both the testators originally. Will—Intention of Testator—Court is not entitled to ignore clear words or add something of its own or dilute the meaning of any clear word used in the Will.

Aug 19, 2018 sclaw

(2017) 173 AIC 224 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 1473 : (2017) AIR(SC) 1473 : (2017) AllSCR 685 : (2017) 122 ALR 470 : (2017) 3 AndhLD 128 : (2017) 2 ApexCourtJudgments(SC)…

Narcotics

“It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also.”

Aug 18, 2018 sclaw

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION HEAD NOTE: The Court also noted that in a case like this with a reverse burden of proof, if the informant police official is himself carrying out…

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