Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2024
Decision Date: 03-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC262

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order by which it declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application by appellants- Union of India for restoration of the Non-condonation of – Length of the delay, relevant – Decree for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour of respondent in 1987 – Appeal thereagainst filed by appellants-Union of India, dismissed in 1992 – Said order of the appellate court was challenged by the 

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.UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 762024 INSC 262Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order by which it declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application by appellants- Union of India for restoration of the Non-condonation of – Length of the delay, relevant – Decree for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour of respondent in 1987 – Appeal thereagainst filed by appellants-Union of India, dismissed in 1992 – Said order of the appellate court was challenged by the
VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1031/2022
Decision Date: 22-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC810

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of acknowledge of debt in the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC: Held: It was contended by the Appellant that there is no unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt owed to Respondent – Financial Creditor Flip viewPDF

Summary: VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14622024 INSC 810Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of acknowledge of debt in the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC: Held: It was contended by the Appellant that there is no unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt owed to Respondent – Financial CreditorFlip viewPDF
N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6333/2013
Decision Date: 24-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC817

PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted and is a valid document which continue to exist despite its revocation as the donor had not reserved the right to revoke the same. Headnotes† Gift – Gift deed – Revocation of gift deed by the appellant in favour of the respondent, gifting the property for the purpose of manufacturing and the same was accepted by the respondent – However, revoked after five years – Four years later, the respondent filed suit for declaration of title over the property 

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.N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9522024 INSC 817Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted and is a valid document which continue to exist despite its revocation as the donor had not reserved the right to revoke the same. Headnotes† Gift – Gift deed – Revocation of gift deed by the appellant in favour of the respondent, gifting the property for the purpose of manufacturing and the same was accepted by the respondent – However, revoked after five years – Four years later, the respondent filed suit for declaration of title over the property
KALI CHARAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13119/2024
Decision Date: 26-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC898

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by respondent No.3-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA); Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land in the instant case, thereby justifying the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act; Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma validating the questioned acquisition while relying upon Nand 

Summary: KALI CHARAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10642024 INSC 898Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by respondent No.3-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA); Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land in the instant case, thereby justifying the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act; Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma validating the questioned acquisition while relying upon Nand
DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2020
Decision Date: 25-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC893

DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 893 SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR 947 : 2024 INSC 893 Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020) 25 November 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Writ Petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and 1976 – Words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble – Challenge to: Held: Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution – The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament – This amending power extends to the 

Summary: DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 893Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR947 : 2024 INSC 893 Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020) 25 November 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Writ Petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and 1976 – Words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble – Challenge to: Held: Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution – The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament – This amending power extends to the
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusDR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3791/2011
Decision Date: 25-11-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC894

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus DR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS  - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13662024 INSC 894 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases, on any terms and conditions it – Land allocation policy – Distribution of State largesse – State distributing public land in the State of Telangana – Allotment of land parcels, vide several State Government Memoranda within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits through Cooperative Societies 

Summary: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusDR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13662024 INSC 894Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases, on any terms and conditions it – Land allocation policy – Distribution of State largesse – State distributing public land in the State of Telangana – Allotment of land parcels, vide several State Government Memoranda within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits through Cooperative Societies
V.S. PALANIVELversusP. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2022
Decision Date: 28-08-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC659

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that Covid-19 lockdown was a valid reason for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; (ii) Whether the appellant was justified in alleging that the (iii) Whether it was incumbent for the Liquidator to constitute a Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee; (iv) Whether Liquidator had violated Regulation 33 of the IBBI Regulations, 2016; (v) What is the import of the order of attachment issued by the Income Tax Authorities in 

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.V.S. PALANIVELversusP. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 12632024 INSC 659Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that Covid-19 lockdown was a valid reason for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; (ii) Whether the appellant was justified in alleging that the (iii) Whether it was incumbent for the Liquidator to constitute a Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee; (iv) Whether Liquidator had violated Regulation 33 of the IBBI Regulations, 2016; (v) What is the import of the order of attachment issued by the Income Tax Authorities in
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.versusPROHLAD GUHA ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4434/2014
Decision Date: 01-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC563

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground. The authority found that their appointments were based on forged/ fabricated and bogus documents and their services were terminated. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the dismissal from service is legally sustainable or not. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Allegation that appointments of respondent-employees were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Employees were terminated from services – Original 

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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.versusPROHLAD GUHA ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 82024 INSC 563Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground. The authority found that their appointments were based on forged/ fabricated and bogus documents and their services were terminated. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the dismissal from service is legally sustainable or not. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Allegation that appointments of respondent-employees were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Employees were terminated from services – Original
RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.versusVIJAYAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2161/2012
Decision Date: 22-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC885

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Issue arose with respect to the devolution of property by way of Marumakkathayam law. Nature and character of the scheduled properties. Whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong present facts, ‘PA’ had the legal right to transfer the entire property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by way of a mortgage deed or was her right only limited to one-sixth of the property as contended by the original defendants. Headnotes† Madras 

Summary: RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.versusVIJAYAN & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10132024 INSC 885Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Issue arose with respect to the devolution of property by way of Marumakkathayam law. Nature and character of the scheduled properties. Whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong present facts, ‘PA’ had the legal right to transfer the entire property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by way of a mortgage deed or was her right only limited to one-sixth of the property as contended by the original defendants. Headnotes† Madras
SUNIL @ SONU ETC.versusSTATE NCT OF DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3978/2024
Decision Date: 24-09-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC727

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that as to whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or in the facts and circumstance of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 not amounting to murder – Pre-existing disputes between the parties leading to verbal altercation whereafter accused persons attacked the victims with knives and dandas, resulting in death of one – FIR lodged by one of the victim as also the appellant – Conviction of 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.SUNIL @ SONU ETC.versusSTATE NCT OF DELHI-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6162024 INSC 727Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that as to whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or in the facts and circumstance of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 not amounting to murder – Pre-existing disputes between the parties leading to verbal altercation whereafter accused persons attacked the victims with knives and dandas, resulting in death of one – FIR lodged by one of the victim as also the appellant – Conviction of the