Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bank’s Service Deficiency in Insurance Claim: Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi vs. Saurashtra Gramin Bank (2020) INSC 68 (03 February 2020)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Deficiency of Service, Consumer Rights, Deficiency of Service, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bank’s Service Deficiency in Insurance Claim Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 68 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J Can a bank be held liable for deficiency of service when it fails to process an insurance application, leading to the rejection of […]

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bank’s Service Deficiency in Insurance Claim: Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi vs. Saurashtra Gramin Bank (2020) INSC 68 (03 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies consumer status in ONGC employee retirement scheme: ONGC Ltd. vs. Consumer Education Research Society (2019)

/ Consumer, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(d), Deepak Gupta, Employee Benefits, Judges, Labour Law, Post-Retirement Benefits, S. Abdul Nazeer, Service Provider

Supreme Court Clarifies Consumer-Service Provider Relationship in ONGC Employee Scheme LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a relationship of consumer and service provider exists between employees and their employer, ONGC, under a post-retirement benefits scheme. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ONGC Ltd. & Ors. vs. Consumer Education Research Society & Ors. Judgment Date: 09 December

Supreme Court clarifies consumer status in ONGC employee retirement scheme: ONGC Ltd. vs. Consumer Education Research Society (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Commercial Purpose, Consumer Definition, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of ‘commercial purpose’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically whether a medical trust providing hostel facilities to its nurses qualifies as a

Supreme Court Defines ‘Commercial Purpose’ Under Consumer Protection Act: Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Unique Shanti Developers (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Directs Compensation in Housing Society Dispute: Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs. Farmer Bank Employees Society (2019)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(o), Cooperative Housing Society, Cooperative Law, Deficiency in Service, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Directs Compensation in Housing Society Dispute: Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs. Farmer Bank Employees Society (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cooperative bank is deficient in service for not transferring land to its employees’ housing society and whether the society is entitled to claim interest in the remaining land. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case

Supreme Court Directs Compensation in Housing Society Dispute: Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank vs. Farmer Bank Employees Society (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of Consumer Forums over statutory dues in deficiency of service: Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Vidya Chetal (2019) INSC 851 (16 September 2019)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Consumer Forums, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(o), Deficiency in Service, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, Statutory Dues

Supreme Court Clarifies Consumer Forum Jurisdiction over Statutory Dues in Service Deficiency Cases Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 851 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. Can consumer forums decide if a statutory body’s demand for fees is justified? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of Consumer Forums over statutory dues in deficiency of service: Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Vidya Chetal (2019) INSC 851 (16 September 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Refund for Delayed Villa: Marvel Omega Builders vs. Shrihari Gokhale (2019)

/ Breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 23, Consumer Rights, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clauses 5(a) and (b), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Orders Refund for Delayed Villa: Marvel Omega Builders vs. Shrihari Gokhale (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer is entitled to a refund with interest for a delayed real estate project. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Shrihari Gokhale and Anr. [Judgment Date]: July 30, 2019

Supreme Court Orders Refund for Delayed Villa: Marvel Omega Builders vs. Shrihari Gokhale (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Completion of Amrapali Group Projects, Protecting Homebuyers: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(1)(c), Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 53, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 7, Judges, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 11(4), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 4(2)(l)(D), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with Section 8, Uday Umesh Lalit

Amrapali Group Homebuyers Win Relief: Supreme Court Orders Project Completion LEGAL ISSUE: Protection of homebuyers’ rights and completion of stalled real estate projects. CASE TYPE: Real Estate/Consumer Law. Case Name: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 23 July 2019 Date of the Judgment: 23 July 2019 Citation: Not Available

Supreme Court Orders Completion of Amrapali Group Projects, Protecting Homebuyers: Bikram Chatterji & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns NCDRC Order in Housing Allotment Dispute: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ratan Devi (22 July 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Limitation Period, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Limitation Period

Supreme Court Overturns NCDRC Order in Housing Allotment Dispute: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ratan Devi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer complaint filed after a significant delay can be entertained, particularly when the allottee failed to pay the balance amount for a housing unit within the stipulated time. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Rajasthan

Supreme Court Overturns NCDRC Order in Housing Allotment Dispute: Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Ratan Devi (22 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act in REP license claims: The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Ors. vs. M/s Vinod and Company (2019)

/ Consumer, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, M.R. Shah, Service

Supreme Court clarifies consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act in REP license claims (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a person making a claim under an REP license is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Ors. vs. M/s Vinod and Company [Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies consumer status under the Consumer Protection Act in REP license claims: The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce & Ors. vs. M/s Vinod and Company (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Rights, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Medical Negligence

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a surgeon was negligent in operating on a patient with a low platelet count. CASE TYPE: Medical Negligence under Consumer Law Case Name: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi & Others Judgment

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Class Action in Consumer Case: Anjum Hussain vs. Intellicity Business Park (2019)

/ Arun Mishra, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order I Rule 8, Consumer, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 12(1)(c), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(b), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Allows Class Action in Consumer Case: Anjum Hussain vs. Intellicity Business Park (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a group of consumers with a common grievance can file a class action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even if they don’t all have the same individual purpose for purchasing a commercial unit. CASE TYPE: Consumer

Supreme Court Allows Class Action in Consumer Case: Anjum Hussain vs. Intellicity Business Park (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019)

/ Consumer Complaint, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can dismiss a consumer complaint on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale & Anr. vs. M/s Gruhashilp

Supreme Court on Consumer Complaint Dismissal for Technical Reasons: Vibha Bakshi Gokhale vs. Gruhashilp Constructions (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top