Articles

Landlord not liable for delay in construction by the developer in Joint Development agreement.  Key Issue :Whether landowners are also liable along with Builder for Deficiencies in flat constructions Different opinion expressed by courts based on the facts of the cases             Case in hands

Fundamental principal for execution of Consumer Court decree to be implemented verbatim against judgment debtor, it cannot go beyond order The Supreme Court observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, against its directors or promoters personally, when it is obtained solely against a builder

The Supreme Court observed that mere leasing or renting of a residential flat does not automatically exclude the owner from the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless it is proved that the dominant intention at the time of flat purchase was

The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru,  dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the demolition of a building by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Commission held that the dispute was civil in nature and did not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection

The legal heirs of the alleged medically negligent doctor (deceased now) challenged to the  order Dated 26.05.2010  in M.A. No. 1214 of 2009 (Application for substitution) in Revision Petition No. 432 of 2006 passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission which allowed the application

Subject of Discussion Exclusion of Medical Sector from CP Act 2019 How this issue came up again? Lawyers removed from the jurisdiction of CP Act 2019 vide SC judgment in case of Bar of Indian Lawyers &Bar Council of India v/s D. K. Gandhi &

“Disputes relating to Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) benefits, arising out of an employer–employee relationship, do not constitute consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act.  observing that an employee is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo. Background of the dispute There appears a significant legal confrontation between two statutory bodies, the Delhi Development

    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

Hon’ble Apex Court gave a landmark judgment in which banks were brought within the applicability of RERA and also where RERA would prevail over SARFAESI Act in the event of conflict. Homebuyers can approach RERA against the bank which took possession of a real estate

A Party who elects one of two available remedies cannot later invoke an alternative forum for the same cause of action (RERA visa vis Consumer Protection Act) Decided on  7th March 2026 ( SC) In  case of M/s Kabra and Associates.& others V/S Rekha Rajkumar

How this issue came up again? Lawyers removed from the jurisdiction of CP Act 2019 vide SC judgment in case of Bar of Indian Lawyers &Bar Council of India v/s D. K. Gandhi & National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr. Decided On 14.05.2024 Not

Supreme Court orders CBI Inquiry during hearing case against DLF finding mismatched activities of authorities involved. Supreme Court (Record of Proceedings) Dated 25.02.2026 Civil Appeal No. 8049/2024   Case: Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr. V DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors.   In the above case,

Case Law: Rakesh Kumar Shukla V Alok Eye Health and Optical Centre(NC) Decided on 30.01.2026. Head Note “The act of prescribing allopathic medicines by a person not possessed of a recognized medical qualification and not registered under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, constitutes deficiency