Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.
Case No.: ARBITRATION PETITION No. 29/2023
Decision Date: 01-03-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC155

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator u/s.11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; if yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation; when does the right to whether the court may refuse to make a reference u/s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the claims are ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Applicability 

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.M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 732024 INSC 155Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator u/s.11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; if yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation; when does the right to whether the court may refuse to make a reference u/s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the claims are ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Applicability
NEERAJ SUD AND ANR.versusJASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012
Decision Date: 25-10-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC825

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration The NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation. Whether the NCDRC was justified in holding doctor negligent and awarding compensation. Headnotes† Negligence – Medical negligence and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – The State Commission, upon Decision Date : 25-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012  |  Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF

Summary: NEERAJ SUD AND ANR.versusJASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14752024 INSC 825Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration The NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation. Whether the NCDRC was justified in holding doctor negligent and awarding compensation. Headnotes† Negligence – Medical negligence and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – The State Commission, uponDecision Date :25-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012|  Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF
K. RAVIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2024
Decision Date: 29-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC642

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge framed which would be an interlocutory order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, 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.K. RAVIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7002024 INSC 642Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge framed which would be an interlocutory order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, in
PARVEEN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1014/2013
Decision Date: 23-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC717

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim- wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage – 

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.PARVEEN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 542024 INSC 717Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim- wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage –
SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4758/2024
Decision Date: 25-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC899

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for conclusion of trials. Headnotes† Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and Appellant incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail: Held: Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of the offence – The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half years – The counter 

Summary: SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13212024 INSC 899Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for conclusion of trials. Headnotes† Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and Appellant incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail: Held: Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of the offence – The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half years – The counter
INDORE VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN (IDA) & ANR.versusSHRI HUMUD JAIN SAMAJ TRUST & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13089/2024
Decision Date: 24-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC904

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Appellant issued an advertisement inviting bids for leasing out land. Respondent’s bid was found to be the highest. The Tender Committee while finalizing the bids noticed that a property tax demand was outstanding in respect of the land not taken into account while fixing the base price and decided not to accept any of the bids. Respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition, inter alia, challenging resolution rejecting the bid and the issuance of fresh NIT. Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief. 

Summary: INDORE VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN (IDA) & ANR.versusSHRI HUMUD JAIN SAMAJ TRUST & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9252024 INSC 904Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Appellant issued an advertisement inviting bids for leasing out land. Respondent’s bid was found to be the highest. The Tender Committee while finalizing the bids noticed that a property tax demand was outstanding in respect of the land not taken into account while fixing the base price and decided not to accept any of the bids. Respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition, inter alia, challenging resolution rejecting the bid and the issuance of fresh NIT. Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief.
KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 551/2012
Decision Date: 29-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC908

PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107, 417 – When asked by the deceased, the appellant refused to marry committed suicide – On facts, whether the appellant, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide: Held: No – Dying declaration of the deceased indicates that it was the deceased who was in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him – There was no evidence to 

Summary: KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12692024 INSC 908Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107, 417 – When asked by the deceased, the appellant refused to marry committed suicide – On facts, whether the appellant, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide: Held: No – Dying declaration of the deceased indicates that it was the deceased who was in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him – There was no evidence to
RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAYversusSRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4831/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, – Witch (Daain) Act – ss.3 and 4 – Victim was accused of witchcraft – She abused physically & verbally and thereafter disrobed – FIR was registered against 13 accused persons – Trial Court took cognizance – Accused persons sought quashing of FIR 

Summary: RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAYversusSRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1122Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, – Witch (Daain) Act – ss.3 and 4 – Victim was accused of witchcraft – She abused physically & verbally and thereafter disrobed – FIR was registered against 13 accused persons – Trial Court took cognizance – Accused persons sought quashing of FIR
SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1345/2024
Decision Date: 04-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC163

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction. Headnotes Child and Family Welfare – Custody of minor child – Custody of one of the twin daughters born to respondent No.2 and his wife is in question, who had undisputedly been living with of respondent No. 2) ever since she was 3-4 month old and thereafter with the family: Held: Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality – Welfare of the children is of paramount consideration and not 

Summary: Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 102024 INSC 163Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction. Headnotes Child and Family Welfare – Custody of minor child – Custody of one of the twin daughters born to respondent No.2 and his wife is in question, who had undisputedly been living with of respondent No. 2) ever since she was 3-4 month old and thereafter with the family: Held: Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality – Welfare of the children is of paramount consideration and not
T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusV.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14749/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in denying the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company. Headnotes† Motor Denial of interest – The High Court had partly accepted appeal while enhancing the compensation, however, it denied the interest for the delay of 708 days in filing appeal and interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 – Justified or not: Held: As far as assessment 

Summary: T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusV.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1143Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in denying the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company. Headnotes† Motor Denial of interest – The High Court had partly accepted appeal while enhancing the compensation, however, it denied the interest for the delay of 708 days in filing appeal and interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 – Justified or not: Held: As far as assessment