Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1766/2009
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as ‘Edible oil’ under Heading 1513, titled ‘Coconut (Copra) oil, etc.’, in Section oil’ under Heading 3305, titled ‘Preparations for use on the hair’, in Section VI-Chapter 33, of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Headnotes† Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – First Schedule, Chapter 15, Section III, Heading 1513, 

Summary: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 893Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as ‘Edible oil’ under Heading 1513, titled ‘Coconut (Copra) oil, etc.’, in Section oil’ under Heading 3305, titled ‘Preparations for use on the hair’, in Section VI-Chapter 33, of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Headnotes† Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – First Schedule, Chapter 15, Section III, Heading 1513,
OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5267/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed by said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Incident of indiscriminate firing by eight persons including main accused at 

Summary: OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 777Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed by said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Incident of indiscriminate firing by eight persons including main accused at
GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024
Decision Date: 23-10-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC811

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant, who was not a party to the settlement between the second respondent-BCCI (Operational Creditor) and the Corporate Debtor, has locus in the proceedings before this Court; whether the NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent of the NCLAT Rules 2016 in the presence of a prescribed procedure for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and settlement of claims between parties; and without prejudice to the above, whether the NCLAT adequately addressed the objections raised by the appellant, while Decision Date : 23-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024  | Direction Issue : Civil appeal and special leave petition disposed of.  |  Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF

Summary: GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18022024 INSC 811Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant, who was not a party to the settlement between the second respondent-BCCI (Operational Creditor) and the Corporate Debtor, has locus in the proceedings before this Court; whether the NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent of the NCLAT Rules 2016 in the presence of a prescribed procedure for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and settlement of claims between parties; and without prejudice to the above, whether the NCLAT adequately addressed the objections raised by the appellant, whileDecision Date :23-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024| Direction Issue :Civil appeal and special leave petition disposed of.|  Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF
SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5438/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant- accused was not produced before the Court either physically or virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court. Headnotes† Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, on account of non-production of the appellant- accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five years – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence 

Summary: SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 837Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant- accused was not produced before the Court either physically or virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court. Headnotes† Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, on account of non-production of the appellant- accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five years – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence
K.S. MURALIDHARversusR. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12993/2024
Decision Date: 22-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC886

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering for a motor accident victim having suffered 100% disability. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Compensation – Enhancement of – Victim aged company vehicle which collided with container lorry driven rashly and negligently – Victim suffered 90% permanent disability – Tribunal taking the functional disability as 100%, awarded compensation of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as future medical 

Summary: K.S. MURALIDHARversusR. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8352024 INSC 886Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering for a motor accident victim having suffered 100% disability. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Compensation – Enhancement of – Victim aged company vehicle which collided with container lorry driven rashly and negligently – Victim suffered 90% permanent disability – Tribunal taking the functional disability as 100%, awarded compensation of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as future medical
SONAL GUPTA & ORS.versusREGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 708/2024
Decision Date: 24-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC830

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether there is any arbitrary variation in marks obtained by candidates in the language examination for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which may affect the integrity of the overall results of Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified for main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ petitions under Article 32 for quashing of results of main examination and re-evaluation by expert committee 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - HindiDisclaimer 
						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.SONAL GUPTA & ORS.versusREGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22402024 INSC 830Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether there is any arbitrary variation in marks obtained by candidates in the language examination for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which may affect the integrity of the overall results of Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified for main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ petitions under Article 32 for quashing of results of main examination and re-evaluation by expert committee
ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10169/2008
Decision Date: 26-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC920

ROHIT KOCHHAR versus VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 12892024 INSC 920 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect to the suit property can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants warranting the application of the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to s.16 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit property situated in Gurugram, filed in the Delhi High Court – Single Judge held that the suit was maintainable in view of proviso to s.16 

Summary: ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12892024 INSC 920Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect to the suit property can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants warranting the application of the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to s.16 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit property situated in Gurugram, filed in the Delhi High Court – Single Judge held that the suit was maintainable in view of proviso to s.16
SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019
Decision Date: 04-03-2024
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC161

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case granting immunity from prosecution to a member of allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as the case may be, and of members and committees – Member of Parliament or the 

Summary: Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiमराठी - 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.SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4622024 INSC 161Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case granting immunity from prosecution to a member of allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as the case may be, and of members and committees – Member of Parliament or the
SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR.versusPUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10804/2024
Decision Date: 24-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC730

PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed executed in their favour. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.4 and Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule I – s.17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A – Appellants instituted a suit seeking declaration and injunction – Defendant No.46 took out an application u/ss. 33, 34 & 37 of the 1958 Act r/w. s.17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreements 

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.SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR.versusPUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8812024 INSC 730Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed executed in their favour. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.4 and Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule I – s.17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A – Appellants instituted a suit seeking declaration and injunction – Defendant No.46 took out an application u/ss. 33, 34 & 37 of the 1958 Act r/w. s.17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreements
NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 27824/2024
Decision Date: 22-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC902

NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS. versus BHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13182024 INSC 902 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of 4½ Years for filing of written statement. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file written Held: The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the advocate was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and 

Summary: NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13182024 INSC 902Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of 4½ Years for filing of written statement. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file written Held: The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the advocate was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and
RAJESH KUMARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14615/2024
Decision Date: 17-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

RAJESH KUMAR versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent- insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal allowed the complaint in full. However, the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with an 

Summary: RAJESH KUMARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent- insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal allowed the complaint in full. However, the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with an
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDR. HEMANT MANDOVRA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13940/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration An allotment of land to the Respondent was canceled by the Appellant for not paying the full amount as per the scheme. In a writ petition filed by the Respondent, High Court directed the respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days and directed the possession of the plot to the respondent. Respondent did not deposit the full amount and instead preferred a complaint against the Appellant in the District Forum, which dismissed Respondent’s complaint. In the appeal filed by the Respondent before the State Commission, respondent 

Summary: INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDR. HEMANT MANDOVRA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1038Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration An allotment of land to the Respondent was canceled by the Appellant for not paying the full amount as per the scheme. In a writ petition filed by the Respondent, High Court directed the respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days and directed the possession of the plot to the respondent. Respondent did not deposit the full amount and instead preferred a complaint against the Appellant in the District Forum, which dismissed Respondent’s complaint. In the appeal filed by the Respondent before the State Commission, respondent
CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR & ANR.versusMONIKA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10800/2024
Decision Date: 29-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC911

DIPANKAR DATTA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in treating the first respondent as qualified for consideration and consequent appointment; and whether the of the Advertisement, was eligible to be awarded half a mark (0.5) under the category of ‘experience’ vis-à-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for the concerned time period, in light of the Rules and Circulars of the State as adopted by the University. Headnotes† 

Summary: CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR & ANR.versusMONIKA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9542024 INSC 911Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in treating the first respondent as qualified for consideration and consequent appointment; and whether the of the Advertisement, was eligible to be awarded half a mark (0.5) under the category of ‘experience’ vis-à-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for the concerned time period, in light of the Rules and Circulars of the State as adopted by the University. Headnotes†