Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

BUNGA DANIEL BABUversusMIS SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

2016 INSC 54622 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landowner, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with a builder to construct a multi‑storey building, with the completed flats to be shared 40% to the landowner and 60% to the builder. The agreement required completion within 19 months and stipulated rent payable for delay. The construction was de

SHRIKANT G. MANTRIversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2022 INSC 21722 February 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a stock‑broker, obtained an overdraft facility and subsequent enhancements from the respondent bank, pledging shares as security. After a dispute over the bank’s sale of the pledged shares, the appellant filed a consumer complaint seeking the return of the shares, alleging deficiency in service. The cent

KALPAVRUKSHA CHARITABLE TRUSTversusTOSHNIWAL BROTHERS (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

1999 INSC 47312 October 1999

The Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust operated a diagnostic centre and purchased a CT‑scan machine, charging patients for its use while providing free services to only ten percent of them. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Trust was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 beca

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.versusSEA SHORE APARTMENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

2008 INSC 269 January 2008Case Allowed

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (the Board) entered into agreements with allottees for flats constructed on land acquired by the State, stipulating that the final price would be fixed after the land acquisition compensation was determined. The Board later demanded additional amounts, citing increased plinth area, ground a

ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR.versusM/S VIPUL LTD.

2023 INSC 8076 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants sought to purchase a commercial office space in the Vipul World Commercial project and paid Rs 51,10,117, but the developer failed to deliver possession within the agreed 24‑month period. The appellants filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) claiming that the

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search