Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
HDFC BANK LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4324/2024
Decision Date: 22-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC807

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials. Headnotes† Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section 420 of IPC – Question of mens rea does not must disclose the following ingredients to make out an offence u/s.420 : (i) That the Accused has induced anyone since inception; (ii) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; (iii) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The Accused/Bank is a jurisdiction person, and as Flip viewPDF

Summary: HDFC BANK LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19022024 INSC 807Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials. Headnotes† Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section 420 of IPC – Question of mens rea does not must disclose the following ingredients to make out an offence u/s.420 : (i) That the Accused has induced anyone since inception; (ii) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; (iii) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The Accused/Bank is a jurisdiction person, and asFlip viewPDF
A.B. GOVARDHANversusP. RAGOTHAMAN
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9975/2024
Decision Date: 29-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC640

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there was redemption of the mortgage; whether the Single Judge rightly held the of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58 – Mortgage – Loan obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant- plaintiff – Under the agreement in question, the respondent produced title document of 

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.A.B. GOVARDHANversusP. RAGOTHAMAN-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 10022024 INSC 640Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there was redemption of the mortgage; whether the Single Judge rightly held the of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58 – Mortgage – Loan obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant- plaintiff – Under the agreement in question, the respondent produced title document of
DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICERversusJASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3831/2024
Decision Date: 04-03-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC173

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 for cancellation, suspension interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. Headnotes Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2) & (3) – Interpretation of: Held: Bare reading of the 

Summary: Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICERversusJASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 602024 INSC 173Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 for cancellation, suspension interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. Headnotes Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2) & (3) – Interpretation of: Held: Bare reading of the
SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTDversusRAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6301/2024
Decision Date: 10-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC403

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the complaint, whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(7) – – Consumer complaint before the district forum alleging deficiency of service and seeking refund of amount from the opposite party – Instead of examining whether the service availed by complainant was for commercial purpose, the district forum determined whether the complainant fell 

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.SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTDversusRAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2142024 INSC 403Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the complaint, whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(7) – – Consumer complaint before the district forum alleging deficiency of service and seeking refund of amount from the opposite party – Instead of examining whether the service availed by complainant was for commercial purpose, the district forum determined whether the complainant fell
PREM RAJversusPOONAMMA MENON & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1858/2024
Decision Date: 02-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC260

SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed. Headnotes s.138 – Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demand 

Summary: Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.PREM RAJversusPOONAMMA MENON & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 292024 INSC 260Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed. Headnotes s.138 – Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demand
CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6772/2023
Decision Date: 02-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC367

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration For the selection in question, whether the Bangalore University was bound to comply with the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/ method of selection as per its advertisement; whether respondent No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules; advertisement issued by the University intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 suffered from any illegality. Headnotes† Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) – 

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.CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4712024 INSC 367Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration For the selection in question, whether the Bangalore University was bound to comply with the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/ method of selection as per its advertisement; whether respondent No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules; advertisement issued by the University intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 suffered from any illegality. Headnotes† Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) –
PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRSversusINDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10855/2024
Decision Date: 25-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS versus INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 988 J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the eviction suit filed by the appellant-landlord and holding that the respondent-tenant was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and tenant be Flip viewPDF

Summary: PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRSversusINDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 988Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the eviction suit filed by the appellant-landlord and holding that the respondent-tenant was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and tenant beFlip viewPDF
V.D. RAVEESHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 980/2024
Decision Date: 22-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1060

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the petitioner is guilty of committing offences u/ss.406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC, and if so, whether the sentences imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court call for interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPC 

Summary: V.D. RAVEESHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22652024 INSC 1060Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the petitioner is guilty of committing offences u/ss.406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC, and if so, whether the sentences imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court call for interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPC
MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS.versusM. MOANUNGBA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9927/2024
Decision Date: 28-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC641

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer. Headnotes† Service law – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer – Direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers in 2003 – Circulation of tentative seniority 

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.MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS.versusM. MOANUNGBA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7092024 INSC 641Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer. Headnotes† Service law – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer – Direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers in 2003 – Circulation of tentative seniority