Consumer Protection Act
UPES | National Technolawgy Battle: Law Student vs. AI [Register by 5th March, 2025]
The Technolawgy Club, School of Law, UPES is pleased to invite participation for the “National Technolawgy Battle: Law Student vs. AI” an analytical quiz competition being organized by the Technolawgy Club, School of Law, UPES in collaboration with Dua Associates, as a part of VidhiUtsav 2025 law fest.
Forfeiture Clauses in Agreements Must Be Reasonable — Supreme Court reaffirms
by Saloni Kapadia* and Karan Gandhi**
Medical Device Failures in India — Determining the Liability
by Mahip Singh*, Samir Malik** and Maitri Singh***
2025 SCC Vol. 1 Part 3
Conversion rate of foreign currency for computation of awarded amount must be considered
Section 245 — The Road Less Travelled
by Urvashi Misra* and Anant Narayan Misra**
Advocate Not Liable Under Consumer Protection Act: A Critique of Supreme Court Judgment
by Baglekar Akash Kumar*
Explained | ‘Onus to prove that service was obtained for commercial purpose under Consumer Protection Act lies on service provider and not consumer’: SC
“If and only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the complainant to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment.”
Inside Thrissur District Consumer Commission order on Britannia selling biscuits below packaged weight
“Such a deceptive act from the part of an erring manufacturer or trader is tantamount to jeopardizing the very dignity of the consumer and his right to live a life free from exploitation or deception or any kind of unfair trade practice.”
Consumer Protection| Advocates not liable for deficiency of services; Professionals to be treated differently from persons carrying out business and trade: SC
“Any interpretation of the Preamble or the scheme of the Act for construing ‘Profession’ as ‘Business’ or ‘Trade’; or ‘Professional’ as ‘service provider’ would be extending the scope of the Act which was not intended, rather would have a counter productive effect”
Supreme Court sets aside NCDRC order against YRF for not including ‘Jabra Fan’ song in movie; says promotional trailers not binding offers
“Promotional trailers are unilateral and are only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship.”
Can a company file a consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986? SC clarifies
In the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a body corporate was brought within the definition of ‘person’, indicating that the legislature realized the incongruity in the unamended provision and rectified the anomaly by including the word ‘company’ in the definition of ‘person’.
2024 SCC Vol. 2 Part 3
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34: Objections to the award: Law summarised relating to Court’s power to review awards under
[Mumbai Floods 2005] NCDRC dismisses Leela Hotel insurance claim of Rs 6 Crores
“The report of the surveyor can be contested by the insured for valid reasons. The insurer is required to consider the report of the surveyor appointed by it although he is not bound to accept the report in entirety.”
Supreme Court affirms the order of the Bombay High Court supporting lawyers with 10 years’ experience to be considered for Consumer Commission appointment
“In absence of transparency in the matter of appointments of President and Members and in absence of any criteria on merits the undeserving and unqualified persons may get appointment which may frustrate the object and purpose of the Consumer Protection Act”, observed the Bench.
Supreme Court| ‘Exclusion clause’ destroying the contract entered with knowledge, cannot be permitted to be used by a party who introduced it, to avoid liability
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the commission having
Supreme Court sets aside NCDRC’s judgment reducing almost Rs. 14 Lakhs of compensation granted by State Commission to Rs. 10,000
Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), wherein the