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

Appeal–Dismissal of an appeal for default or non-prosecution without going into the merits of the case is clearly illegal and the Appellate Court must dispose of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of record and after giving a hearing to the parties, if present, before disposal of the appeal on merits

Nov 5, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 225 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2001…

Property Matters

Transfer of Property—Part Performance—Mere expiry of the period of limitation for a suit for specific performance may not be a bar for a person in possession of an immovable property in part performance of a contract to assert the shield of Section 53A of T.P. Act

Nov 4, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2065 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1133            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                      The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra                     The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Civil Cases

Copyright–The judgments of the Apex court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright–The reproduction or publication of the judgments by any number of persons would not be infringement of a copyright of the first owner namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited. Copyright–Judgments of Court–Whether the inputs put by the appellants in the copy-edited judgments published in their journal ‘SCC’ touch the standard of creativity required for the copyright, discussed.

Nov 3, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 179 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Civil Appeal No. 6472 of 2004…

Rent

Rent Law–Eviction Proceedings–Joint Family Property–Filing of eviction suit by a junior member of the HUF–Maintainability of. Rent–Increase of–Landlord can issue a notice under section 6A of the Act for increase of rent when the petition for eviction of the tenancy was pending before the Rent Controller and where there had been an order to the tenant for deposit of rent on a month to month basis u/s 15 of the Act.

Nov 2, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 166 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 5761 of 2007 M/s…

Service Matters
Service

Subsistence Allowance–Non payment of–It must be shown that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension the employee was not in a position to participate in the proceedings or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the proceedings was caused to him.

Nov 2, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 161 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi  Appeal (civil) 587 of 2005…

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