2018 AIR CC 1966 (RAJ) - AIROnline

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Home
• About Us
• AIR Shop
• Online Subscriptions
• Support
• Switch to old AIROnline

• Home
• About
• Shop
• Support
• More

What would you like to Research today?

Exact Phrase Proximity Search

Citation Search

Judgement Update

Nominal Search

Acts & Section Search

Articles Search

Statutes Central/State

Pay As You Use

Browse More

Updates From Supreme CourtUpdates From High Courts AIROnline 2026 SC 126 Supreme Court Of IndiaHON'BLE JUDGE(S): B. V. Nagarathna AND R. Mahadevan, JJ. D/-20-02-2026

• (A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 14, S. 2(1)(o), S. 2(1)(g) - Consumer dispute - Housing construction - Deficiency of service - Respondents booked residential flats and paid substantial consideration - Appellant-developer failed to complete construction within stipulated time and did not obtain Occupancy Certificate - NCDRC directed completion, delivery of possession after obtaining Occupancy Certificate, and payment of interest @ 8% p.a. from cut-off date till possession, along with litigation costs, rebate and stamp duty differential - Developer contended that a clause of Flat Buyer Agreement capped delay compensation at Rs.10 per sq. ft. per month and that NCDRC exceeded jurisdiction under S.14 - Housing construction constitutes "service" under S.2(1)(o) and delay in handing over possession amounts to "deficiency" under S.2(1)(g) - Contractual stipulations cannot curtail statutory jurisdiction of the consumer fora - Delay in completion and handing over of possession constituted deficiency in service - There was persistent non-compliance despite repeated undertakings before Court - Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate before offering possession constituted continuing deficiency in service - Possession without Occupancy Certificate cannot be forced - Order of NCDRC was affirmed - Direction issued to obtain Occupancy Certificate and deliver possession within stipulated time. (Para 13, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 28.1, 29)

...Read More AIR 2026 SUPREME COURT 1081 Supreme Court Of IndiaHON'BLE JUDGE(S): Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha AND Alok Aradhe, JJ. D/-20-02-2026

• Consumer Protection Act (35 of 2019), S. 2(11) - Deficiency in service - Delay in delivery of possession of flats - Liability to compensate - Delay pertained to flats falling to share of developer and construction was exclusively within domain of developer - No material to show delay was attributable to landowners - For lapse on part of developer, landowners, who were no way concerned with construction, could not be held liable for deficiency in service, particularly when developer has indemnified them against acts of commission or omission in construction - Mere principal-agent relationship did not fasten liability - Liability to pay delay compensation was rightly fastened solely on developer, though both parties were directed to execute sale deeds and transfer title. (Para 14, 15)

...Read More AIROnline 2026 SC 125 Supreme Court Of IndiaHON'BLE JUDGE(S): Sanjay Kumar AND K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. D/-20-02-2026

• (A) Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act (24 of 1997), S.14(1)(a) - Licence for 2G Band Spectrum - Reserve price for conducting auction - Commencement date for levy of liability - Supreme Court earlier had quashed allotment of 2G Band Spectrum to various parties, including respondent on 02.02.2012 and ordered fresh auction - Fresh auction could not be concluded within time frame - On 15.02.2013 Supreme Court directed that licensees, who continued operation after 2.2.2012, whether or not they gave bid in auction conducted on 12.11.2012 and 14.11.2012, shall pay reserve price fixed by Government for purpose of conducting auction in November 2012 - As respondent had continued with its services up to 02.10.2013, DoT had demanded reserve price including interest - TDSAT had ordered to pay reserve price from 15.02.2013 - Supreme Court had referred to date '02.02.2012' in context of licensees who continued with their operations, clearly demonstrated that 02.02.2012 was commencement date for levy of liability in terms of that order - Respondent was held liable to pay reserve price from 15.02.2013 - Respondent was liable to pay interest from date of expiry of 21 days stipulated in show-cause notice. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

...Read More AIR 2026 SUPREME COURT 1085 Supreme Court Of IndiaHON'BLE JUDGE(S): Prashant Kumar Mishra AND Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ. D/-20-02-2026

• (A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3, S. 27, S. 8 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302, S. 201 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Accused had allegedly hatched a conspiracy with his friend, abducted deceased, demanded ransom, committed her murder and her body was thrown into a well - Delay in lodging a missing report, by itself, did not vitiate prosecution's case - Ransom calls were made from her mobile phone - Accused came into possession of deceased's mobile phone and sold it - Recovery of body from precise location could only have been made on basis of information furnished by someone who had personal knowledge of its disposal - Dead body was recovered from a well at disclosure of accused - This information was not within public domain or capable of discovery through routine investigation - Absence of DNA testing did not vitiate identification of dead body when credible and consistent testimonies of witnesses who knew deceased personally was on record that body recovered was that of deceased - Recovery of Scooty of deceased at disclosure of accused had established his exclusive knowledge about whereabouts of deceased's belongings after she went missing - Medical evidence established that death was homicidal in nature - Motive of financial gain through extortion had strengthened prosecution's case - Prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt of accused - Conviction was proper - However, considering fact that accused had undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment, liberty was granted to him to apply for remission. (Para 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)

...Read More AIROnline 2026 SC 130 Supreme Court Of IndiaHON'BLE JUDGE(S): Rajesh Bindal AND Vijay Bishnoi, JJ. D/-18-02-2026

• (A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Termination of service - Challenge against - Appellant studied from University of Technology and Science which was set up under Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya Act of 2002 enacted by State Legislature - Subsequently said Act was declared to be ultra vires by Supreme Court - Till such time, students were studying and passing out - At time of declaration of Act to be ultra vires, Supreme Court had protected students who were studying and they were directed to be transferred to alternative institutions recognised by State - Services of appellants were terminated only for reason that institution in which they had studied was declared as unrecognised - Appellants cannot be said to be at fault as they had studied in University set up under 2002 Act - Hence, they should not be deprived of benefits of degree obtained by them while studying in University - It was not case of State that University in which appellants studied was bogus or no study was actually imparted - Termination of service of appellants was declared as illegal - Directions were issued to reinstate appellants back in service, with continuity without any back wages. (Para 16, 17, 18)

...Read More Items per page: 5 1 – 5 of 30 WhatsAppInstagramFacebookTelegramLinkedIn