Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITYversusNARESH AGARWAL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2286/2006
Decision Date: 08-11-2024
Disposal: Reference answered

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA*, SURYA KANT*, J.B. PARDIWALA*, DIPANKAR DATTA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The issues were: 1) ingredients, indicia or criteria for an educational institution to be considered a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution; Muslim University (AMU) is a minority educational institution; 3) whether the Constitution Bench decision in Azeez Basha was incorrect, and 4) Whether two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya erred in referring the correctness of the decision rendered in Azeez Basha directly to a 

Summary: ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITYversusNARESH AGARWAL & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1647Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA*, SURYA KANT*, J.B. PARDIWALA*, DIPANKAR DATTA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The issues were: 1) ingredients, indicia or criteria for an educational institution to be considered a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution; Muslim University (AMU) is a minority educational institution; 3) whether the Constitution Bench decision in Azeez Basha was incorrect, and 4) Whether two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya erred in referring the correctness of the decision rendered in Azeez Basha directly to a
YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7305/2024
Decision Date: 10-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC510

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending not a bona fide purchaser. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Impleadment of transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation – If barred – Code of Civil Procedure – Order 1 Rule 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6682024 INSC 510Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending not a bona fide purchaser. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Impleadment of transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation – If barred – Code of Civil Procedure – Order 1 Rule
SUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4664/2024
Decision Date: 20-11-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC878

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether it was the appellant-accused who assaulted the victim-deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred; whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Headnotes† s.302 and s.304 Part-I – Prosecution case that PW-6 and her husband-victim went to the house of PW-5 – Appellant-accused came in front of the house of PW-5 and started abusing PW-5 and his wife on account of a loan they had taken – Victim intervened – Appellant abused 

Summary: SUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14402024 INSC 878Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether it was the appellant-accused who assaulted the victim-deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred; whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Headnotes† s.302 and s.304 Part-I – Prosecution case that PW-6 and her husband-victim went to the house of PW-5 – Appellant-accused came in front of the house of PW-5 and started abusing PW-5 and his wife on account of a loan they had taken – Victim intervened – Appellant abused
AABID KHANversusDINESH AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4828/2024
Decision Date: 09-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC291

SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced compensation. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement – Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a self- employed mechanic with 30 years work experience extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest – 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.AABID KHANversusDINESH AND OTHERS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2642024 INSC 291Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced compensation. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement – Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a self- employed mechanic with 30 years work experience extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest –
A (MOTHER OF X)versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5194/2024
Decision Date: 29-04-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC371

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the opinion of the medical board constituted under the MTP Act to reflect the effect of the pregnancy on the pregnant person’s physical and mental health; that the MTP Act and the reproductive right of a pregnant to their consent; and the usage of term ‘pregnant person’ instead of term ‘pregnant woman’. Headnotes Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Termination of pregnancy – 14 year old girl subjected to sexual assault, sought permission to terminate her 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.A (MOTHER OF X)versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4702024 INSC 371Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the opinion of the medical board constituted under the MTP Act to reflect the effect of the pregnancy on the pregnant person’s physical and mental health; that the MTP Act and the reproductive right of a pregnant to their consent; and the usage of term ‘pregnant person’ instead of term ‘pregnant woman’. Headnotes Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Termination of pregnancy – 14 year old girl subjected to sexual assault, sought permission to terminate her
SHAHID ALIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1479/2024
Decision Date: 11-03-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC191

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration In a celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony, the Appellant shot the deceased resulting in his demise. Whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 I, 304 Part II – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25, s.27 – Deceased shot with country-made pistol – Succumbed to death after bullet hit the deceased on his neck – FIR registered under s.302 along with s.25, 27 Arms Act - All Eyewitnesses turned hostile – Trial Court based 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SHAHID ALIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3772024 INSC 191Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration In a celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony, the Appellant shot the deceased resulting in his demise. Whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 I, 304 Part II – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25, s.27 – Deceased shot with country-made pistol – Succumbed to death after bullet hit the deceased on his neck – FIR registered under s.302 along with s.25, 27 Arms Act - All Eyewitnesses turned hostile – Trial Court based
SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD.versusTHE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6493/2014
Decision Date: 05-03-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC174

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and; whether the Government 1994 notification, which inter alia notified “ghee” as one of for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of “ghee” in all notified market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Headnotes Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD.versusTHE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1742024 INSC 174Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and; whether the Government 1994 notification, which inter alia notified “ghee” as one of for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of “ghee” in all notified market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Headnotes Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 –
NOBLE M. PAIKADAversusUNION OF INDIA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628/2021
Decision Date: 21-03-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC241

ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Item 6 in the impugned notification which granted exemption from requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc., if provided a blanket exemption which was 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – r.5(4) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21 – First EC notification provided that certain projects falling under categories set out in the 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.NOBLE M. PAIKADAversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12492024 INSC 241Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Item 6 in the impugned notification which granted exemption from requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc., if provided a blanket exemption which was 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – r.5(4) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21 – First EC notification provided that certain projects falling under categories set out in the
TINKUversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2024
Decision Date: 13-11-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC867

ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died on duty in 1997 when he was seven years on compassionate grounds in 2008 after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee: Held: Compassionate appointment is an 

Summary: TINKUversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7132024 INSC 867Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died on duty in 1997 when he was seven years on compassionate grounds in 2008 after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee: Held: Compassionate appointment is an