Consumer Law Half Yearly Digest: 2026[JANUARY-JUNE]

Supreme Court Financier Can't Claim Insurance Over Theft Of Vehicle Surrendered By Insured Owner : Supreme Court Cause Title: K. PRAKASHCHAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634 The Supreme Court has held that a mere surrender of an insured vehicle by its owner to another person, who had financed the purchase of a vehicle, would not be sufficient for the financer to claim indemnification in the event of loss or theft of a vehicle. Supreme Court Consumer Forum's Jurisdiction Not Ousted By Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court Cause Title: T.K.A. PADMANABHAN VERSUS ABHIYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 633 The Supreme Court recently held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement would not preclude the consumer forum from adjudicating the dispute on merit. “…an arbitration clause does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), State Commission and the District Forum order which had referred a dispute over delay in handing over the possession of the residential flat unit to arbitration. Supreme Court Bank Liable For Delay In Presenting Cheque : Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Under Consumer Protection Act Cause Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS KAVITA CHOWDHARY Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 375 The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 15) held that a failure of the bank to present the cheque within the prescribed validity period of the cheque without any reasonable explanation would amount to 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the liability of the Canara Bank for deficiency in rendering service to its customer, who had deposited the cheque with the bank, but the bank failed to present the instruments before the expiry of the validity period of the cheque, rendering the check to be dishonoured with the remark “stale cheque.” Supreme Court NCDRC Decree Against Builder Company Can't Be Executed Against Directors/Promoters Without Personal Liability Fixed: Supreme Court Cause Title: ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) VS. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS. (and connected matters) Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 40 The Supreme Court on Monday (January 12) observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, obtained solely against a builder company, against its directors or promoters personally, unless a specific finding of liability was made against them in the original proceedings. Supreme Court Consumer Protection Act | Keeping Bank Deposit Not 'Commercial Purpose' Merely Because Interest Is Earned : Supreme Court Cause Title: SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS VIJAYA BANK Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 267 The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 19) observed that merely earning interest on bank deposits does not automatically render the transaction “commercial” so as to exclude a person from the definition of a “consumer”; rather, it must be examined whether the deposit has a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity. Supreme Court Compassionate Assistance To Govt Employee's Family Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation: Supreme Court Cause Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS KANIKA & ORS. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196 The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the compassionate assistance received by a dependent of a deceased employee would be liable to be deductible from the compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Act. Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows High Courts To Hear Consumer Appeals In States Where State Commission Not Formed IN RE: PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1144/2021 Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Ensure Functioning Of Consumer Commissions In Smaller States, Seeks SG's Assistance. Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently empowered High Court Judges to hear consumer appeals in States where State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Many States found it “not viable” to constitute full-fledged State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions owing to low pendency. Supreme Court Supreme Court Seeks Union & NMC Responses On Plea To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act Case: ASSOCIATION OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (INDIA) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. W.P.(C) No. 110/2026 The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission on a plea to declare that ...

Consumer Law Half Yearly Digest: 2026[JANUARY-JUNE]

Apoorva Pandita

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Apoorva Pandita

Consumer Law Half Yearly Digest: 2026[JANUARY-JUNE]

Apoorva Pandita

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Apoorva Pandita

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers