Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR.versusCENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS
Case No.: No. 14735/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1048

M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR. versus CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 21022024 INSC 1048 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether District Magistrate’s order prohibiting sale of 'aromatic tincture of cardamom' on the ground of it containing a high level of alcohol was correct and in accordance with the statutory framework of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) – District Magistrate (DM), Agra issued orders prohibiting sale of “alcohol mixed tinctures” – Drug Inspector acted on said orders and prevented Appellants from selling “aromatic tincture of cardamom” on the ground that it was an Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14735/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR.versusCENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 21022024 INSC 1048Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether District Magistrate’s order prohibiting sale of 'aromatic tincture of cardamom' on the ground of it containing a high level of alcohol was correct and in accordance with the statutory framework of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) – District Magistrate (DM), Agra issued orders prohibiting sale of “alcohol mixed tinctures” – Drug Inspector acted on said orders and prevented Appellants from selling “aromatic tincture of cardamom” on the ground that it was anDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :No. 14735/2024|  Bench :Judges
P. MANIKANDANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5478/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1007

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – The Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/ss.364A 

Summary: P. MANIKANDANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15532024 INSC 1007Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – The Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/ss.364A
BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRS.versusMADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE
Case No.: No. 14816/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1035

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the Respondent was guilty of medical negligence in the post-operative care of the Appellant; (2) Whether the Appellant's actions (changing his own bandage) contributed to the infection and absolved the Respondent Act, 1986 – Medical Negligence – Failed Cataract Surgery – Loss of Vision – Post-Operative Care – Expert Medical Opinion favouring the Appellant considered – No evidence available on record to shift the blame to Appellant: Held: The Appellant underwent Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14816/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRS.versusMADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 18752024 INSC 1035Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration (1) Whether the Respondent was guilty of medical negligence in the post-operative care of the Appellant; (2) Whether the Appellant's actions (changing his own bandage) contributed to the infection and absolved the Respondent Act, 1986 – Medical Negligence – Failed Cataract Surgery – Loss of Vision – Post-Operative Care – Expert Medical Opinion favouring the Appellant considered – No evidence available on record to shift the blame to Appellant: Held: The Appellant underwentDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :No. 14816/2024|  Bench :Judges
RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA
Case No.: TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 278/2023
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1014

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties breakdown of marriage. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13, 13B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.25 – Transfer petition – Transfer of divorce petition – Dissolution of marriage – 

Summary: RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 13552024 INSC 1014Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties breakdown of marriage. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13, 13B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.25 – Transfer petition – Transfer of divorce petition – Dissolution of marriage –
MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5491/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1046

DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition u/s.482, Cr. PC on the ground that since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition was Procedure, 1973-s.482 – Subsequent petition under – Maintainability – Order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s.138 against appellants – In appeal, the sentence of the the appellants suspended and was granted bail however, directed to deposit 20% of 

Summary: MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12732024 INSC 1046Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition u/s.482, Cr. PC on the ground that since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition was Procedure, 1973-s.482 – Subsequent petition under – Maintainability – Order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s.138 against appellants – In appeal, the sentence of the the appellants suspended and was granted bail however, directed to deposit 20% of
CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATIONversusM/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9486/2019
Decision Date: 08-11-2024
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC857

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows a 

Summary: CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATIONversusM/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 21732024 INSC 857Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows a
SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2845/2015
Decision Date: 12-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC865

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellants are entitled to specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by one Sushila Devi was valid and enforceable; whether such execution could be proved by a General Power of Attorney of pardanashin status, illiteracy and old age affected the validity of the sale; whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act; whether plaintiffs were in possession and whether consideration had been paid; whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing to 

Summary: SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23752024 INSC 865Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Appellants are entitled to specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by one Sushila Devi was valid and enforceable; whether such execution could be proved by a General Power of Attorney of pardanashin status, illiteracy and old age affected the validity of the sale; whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act; whether plaintiffs were in possession and whether consideration had been paid; whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing to
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.versusOM PARKASH
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4393/2010
Decision Date: 13-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC870

Unknown

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.LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.versusOM PARKASH-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23692024 INSC 870Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by setting aside his termination for abandonment of service despite the employee's failure to disclose his subsequent employment and the procedural compliance by the employer under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of 1960. Headnotes† Regulation 39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Abandonment of Service – The regulation deems an employee to have abandoned service if absent for 90 consecutive days without intimation – Employee absented himself without informing theDecision Date :13-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4393/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed|  Bench :1 Judge
IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASHversusABC
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1294/2020
Decision Date: 06-11-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC863

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Supreme Court laid down guidelines that State authorities must adhere to while removing illegal encroachments in relation to road widening projects. Headnotes† Petitioner’s letter regarding alleged illegal demolition of his house converted into suo moto Certain portion of Petitioner’s house came to be notified as a part of road widening project (NH No. 370) in 2012 – Project sanctioned in 2018 – Petitioner directed between June 2019 to 6 September 2019 through Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) to remove his illegal Flip viewPDF

Summary: IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASHversusABC-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23482024 INSC 863Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Supreme Court laid down guidelines that State authorities must adhere to while removing illegal encroachments in relation to road widening projects. Headnotes† Petitioner’s letter regarding alleged illegal demolition of his house converted into suo moto Certain portion of Petitioner’s house came to be notified as a part of road widening project (NH No. 370) in 2012 – Project sanctioned in 2018 – Petitioner directed between June 2019 to 6 September 2019 through Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) to remove his illegalFlip viewPDF
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusTHE CONSORTIUM OF MR. MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR. FLORIAN FRITSCH & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5023/2024
Decision Date: 07-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC852

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment which was to be made under the Resolution Plan, within 180 days from the of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2024, the terms of the Resolution Plan and the provisions of law; In other words, whether the impugned order of the NCLAT allowing the adjustment of the PBG in lieu of payment of the first tranche could be said to be perverse; Whether the 

Summary: STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusTHE CONSORTIUM OF MR. MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR. FLORIAN FRITSCH & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 20392024 INSC 852Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment which was to be made under the Resolution Plan, within 180 days from the of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2024, the terms of the Resolution Plan and the provisions of law; In other words, whether the impugned order of the NCLAT allowing the adjustment of the PBG in lieu of payment of the first tranche could be said to be perverse; Whether the
RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusRAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3034/2012
Decision Date: 14-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC868

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the deed executed, which gave rise to the present property dispute, was a gift deed or a deed of settlement; Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) Determination of whether an instrument is Gift Deed or Deed of Settlement – Held, the instrument in the case is Deed of Settlement – The consideration need not 

Summary: RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusRAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23292024 INSC 868Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the deed executed, which gave rise to the present property dispute, was a gift deed or a deed of settlement; Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) Determination of whether an instrument is Gift Deed or Deed of Settlement – Held, the instrument in the case is Deed of Settlement – The consideration need not
DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14293/2024
Decision Date: 11-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1049

DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS. versus PRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 21232024 INSC 1049 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) – Order 7 Rule 11 – In 2017, appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 on grounds of fraud – Trial Court dismissed suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC 

Summary: DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 21232024 INSC 1049Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) – Order 7 Rule 11 – In 2017, appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 on grounds of fraud – Trial Court dismissed suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR.versusP. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.
Case No.: CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 688/2021
Decision Date: 10-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC957

M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 688/2021  | Direction Issue : Matter listed for reporting compliance.  |  Bench : 2 Judges

Summary: CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR.versusP. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12872024 INSC 957Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide orDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 688/2021| Direction Issue :Matter listed for reporting compliance.|  Bench :2 Judges
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN.M. RAUT & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14380/2024
Decision Date: 12-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1042

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus N.M. RAUT & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 15172024 INSC 1042 SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008, and the financial upgradations granted under the MACPS. Headnotes† Service Law – Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Modified Financial upgradation – Non-functional financial upgradation – Counting of, to determine eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACPS – On implementation of the Revised Rules, some of the respondents working as Pharmacists in the Ordnance Factory, and 

Summary: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN.M. RAUT & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15172024 INSC 1042Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008, and the financial upgradations granted under the MACPS. Headnotes† Service Law – Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Modified Financial upgradation – Non-functional financial upgradation – Counting of, to determine eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACPS – On implementation of the Revised Rules, some of the respondents working as Pharmacists in the Ordnance Factory, and
CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.
Case No.: CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 158/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC978

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The present petitions sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 issuance of Sale Certificate of the Secured Asset (belonging to respondent no.1-Borrower) to the petitioner-auction purchaser; Respondent no.4 ‘Greenscape IT Park LLP’ and its director, i.e., respondent no.2 were the subsequent transferee/third party purchaser and respondent 

Summary: CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 16182024 INSC 978Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The present petitions sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 issuance of Sale Certificate of the Secured Asset (belonging to respondent no.1-Borrower) to the petitioner-auction purchaser; Respondent no.4 ‘Greenscape IT Park LLP’ and its director, i.e., respondent no.2 were the subsequent transferee/third party purchaser and respondent