Interim Order - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to "interim orders" only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read "any order" in place of "interim order," thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The Distr...

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...