Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
AJWARversusWASEEM AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2639/2024
Decision Date: 17-05-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC438

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail enmity, the accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused by the High Court – Justification: Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers 

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.AJWARversusWASEEM AND ANOTHER-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5752024 INSC 438Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail enmity, the accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused by the High Court – Justification: Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers
KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusBIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6466/2024
Decision Date: 16-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC4354

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration State Municipal Corporation having claimed to have acquired the property of respondent-land bearer in exercise of powers u/s.352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the High Court, if justified in holding that there was no such power of immovable property u/s.352 of the Act. Headnotes† Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – s. 352 – Power to acquire lands and buildings for public streets and for public parking places – Interpretation of s. 352 – If there is power of compulsory acquisition 

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.KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusBIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8312024 INSC 4354Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration State Municipal Corporation having claimed to have acquired the property of respondent-land bearer in exercise of powers u/s.352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the High Court, if justified in holding that there was no such power of immovable property u/s.352 of the Act. Headnotes† Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – s. 352 – Power to acquire lands and buildings for public streets and for public parking places – Interpretation of s. 352 – If there is power of compulsory acquisition
RAJESH KUMARversusANAND KUMAR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7840/2023
Decision Date: 17-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC444

PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to deposition of power of attorney holder in a suit for specific performance, in place and instead of the plaintiff-principal wherein the plaintiff is required to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract; and the specific performance after a long delay, on the last date of limitation. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Deposition of a power of attorney holder, when can be read in evidence – On facts, the appellant 

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.RAJESH KUMARversusANAND KUMAR & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 6122024 INSC 444Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to deposition of power of attorney holder in a suit for specific performance, in place and instead of the plaintiff-principal wherein the plaintiff is required to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract; and the specific performance after a long delay, on the last date of limitation. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Deposition of a power of attorney holder, when can be read in evidence – On facts, the appellant
PRABIR PURKAYASTHAversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2577/2024
Decision Date: 15-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC414

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused- appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the order of remand thus, not informing him of the grounds of arrest in writing. Headnotes – Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 22(5) – FIR registered u/ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 22C, UAPA r/w ss.153A, 120B, IPC – Appellant was arrested in connection therewith however, the arrest memo did not contain the ‘grounds of arrest’ – Appellant 

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.PRABIR PURKAYASTHAversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 6662024 INSC 414Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused- appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the order of remand thus, not informing him of the grounds of arrest in writing. Headnotes – Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 22(5) – FIR registered u/ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 22C, UAPA r/w ss.153A, 120B, IPC – Appellant was arrested in connection therewith however, the arrest memo did not contain the ‘grounds of arrest’ – Appellant
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.versusSURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14603/2024
Decision Date: 17-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issues arose as regards the declaration of land to be surplus when there was a family settlement regarding the said land, whereby each family member had a separate share duly demarcated and thus could not be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one a fresh litigation could be allowed when the issue attained finality in the first round of litigation. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration of land to be surplus – Case 

Summary: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.versusSURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 708Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issues arose as regards the declaration of land to be surplus when there was a family settlement regarding the said land, whereby each family member had a separate share duly demarcated and thus could not be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one a fresh litigation could be allowed when the issue attained finality in the first round of litigation. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration of land to be surplus – Case
STATE OF U.P. & ORSversusM/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007
Decision Date: 23-10-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC812

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 and phrase “intoxicating liquor”. The question is whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products; whether Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule Decision Date : 23-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007  |  Bench : 9 Judges

Summary: STATE OF U.P. & ORSversusM/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19312024 INSC 812Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 and phrase “intoxicating liquor”. The question is whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products; whether Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh ScheduleDecision Date :23-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007|  Bench :9 Judges
KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3990/2011
Decision Date: 03-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC374

RAJESH BINDAL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not exercising the discretion to extend the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a pre-emption suit. Headnotes† Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Extension of time suit – The court can allow such an extension when there is a bona fide mistake and the deficiency is minor – law laid down in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others, [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 – Followed – Non-deposit of a relatively small fraction of money due to 

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.KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8852024 INSC 374Coram : RAJESH BINDAL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not exercising the discretion to extend the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a pre-emption suit. Headnotes† Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Extension of time suit – The court can allow such an extension when there is a bona fide mistake and the deficiency is minor – law laid down in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others, [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 – Followed – Non-deposit of a relatively small fraction of money due to
GAURAV KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 352/2023
Decision Date: 30-07-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC558

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils (SBC) are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961; whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 Enrolment of advocates – Challege to the validity of Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961: 

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.GAURAV KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14892024 INSC 558Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils (SBC) are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961; whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 Enrolment of advocates – Challege to the validity of Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961: