Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
K. ARUMUGAMversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2842/2012
Decision Date: 08-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC630

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Appellant-assessees purchased Kerala State Lotteries from the District Lottery Offices and other States’ lotteries in bulk from registered promoters at a discounted rate. The appellant subsequently sold them to retailers on an outright sale basis. Whether the activity would attract service tax within the scope and ambit of Section 65(19)(ii) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – s.65(19)(ii) r/w. s.65(105)(zzb) – Appellant was directed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, 

Summary: Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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. ARUMUGAMversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8302024 INSC 630Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Appellant-assessees purchased Kerala State Lotteries from the District Lottery Offices and other States’ lotteries in bulk from registered promoters at a discounted rate. The appellant subsequently sold them to retailers on an outright sale basis. Whether the activity would attract service tax within the scope and ambit of Section 65(19)(ii) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – s.65(19)(ii) r/w. s.65(105)(zzb) – Appellant was directed by the Superintendent of Central Excise,
JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29045/2024
Decision Date: 09-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off

JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR. versus TARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 646 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of plaintiff to ask the defendant to lead the evidence. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XVIII r.1 – Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses – Right to begin – Defendants be asked to lead – When: Held: Ord. XVIII speaks of the ‘hearing’ of a suit which is only a part of the trial of the suit – Determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself – Ord. XVIII r. 1 indeed provides for 

Summary: JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 646Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of plaintiff to ask the defendant to lead the evidence. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XVIII r.1 – Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses – Right to begin – Defendants be asked to lead – When: Held: Ord. XVIII speaks of the ‘hearing’ of a suit which is only a part of the trial of the suit – Determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself – Ord. XVIII r. 1 indeed provides for
AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS.versusMEHER K. PATEL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4786/2024
Decision Date: 30-04-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC353

ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration This Hon’ble Court was considering a challenge to an Order of the High Court disposing of a writ petition in terms of a “Minutes of Order” filed by the Advocates, and signed by the parties to the petition, without impleading the affected parties. Headnotes Considerations by the Court while passing an order in terms of “Minutes of Order” – Order passed by the Court based on the “Minutes of Order” is not a consent order, it is an order in invitum – Court must record brief reasons indicating the application of mind. 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS.versusMEHER K. PATEL & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1552024 INSC 353Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration This Hon’ble Court was considering a challenge to an Order of the High Court disposing of a writ petition in terms of a “Minutes of Order” filed by the Advocates, and signed by the parties to the petition, without impleading the affected parties. Headnotes Considerations by the Court while passing an order in terms of “Minutes of Order” – Order passed by the Court based on the “Minutes of Order” is not a consent order, it is an order in invitum – Court must record brief reasons indicating the application of mind.
MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMIversusTHE STATE OF A.P.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2845/2024
Decision Date: 10-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC503

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that the the appellant-Forest 

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.MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMIversusTHE STATE OF A.P.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6402024 INSC 503Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that the the appellant-Forest
KULDEEP KUMARversusU.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2874/2024
Decision Date: 20-02-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC129

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Result of the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation declared by the Presiding Officer in favour of the eighth respondent, if was contrary to law in view of the alleged electoral malpractices by him during Headnotes Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 – Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996 – Regulation 6, Clauses (9) to (13) – Election to the post 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.KULDEEP KUMARversusU.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6932024 INSC 129Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Result of the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation declared by the Presiding Officer in favour of the eighth respondent, if was contrary to law in view of the alleged electoral malpractices by him during Headnotes Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 – Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996 – Regulation 6, Clauses (9) to (13) – Election to the post of
MUTHYALA SUNIL KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 864/2022
Decision Date: 09-07-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC499

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration In the instant writ petitions, Petitioners-transporters and tour operators assailed the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax, allegedly, in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners of the Border Tax/Authorization Fee already realized by the State Authorities at the time of their vehicles entering the State. Headnotes† Inter-State transportation – All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023 – All-India Tourists Vehicles (Authorisation of Permit) 

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.MUTHYALA SUNIL KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6342024 INSC 499Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration In the instant writ petitions, Petitioners-transporters and tour operators assailed the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax, allegedly, in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners of the Border Tax/Authorization Fee already realized by the State Authorities at the time of their vehicles entering the State. Headnotes† Inter-State transportation – All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023 – All-India Tourists Vehicles (Authorisation of Permit)
LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1943/2022
Decision Date: 09-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC942

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, dismissing the application of the Appellant seeking relief of Permanent Commissioning, granted by the AFT, Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically – Permanent Commissioning – Benefit of – Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons – Appellant- Short Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Crops, denied third opportunity for permanent Commission in view of amendment in 2013 – However, the Principle Bench 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.LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3812024 INSC 942Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, dismissing the application of the Appellant seeking relief of Permanent Commissioning, granted by the AFT, Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically – Permanent Commissioning – Benefit of – Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons – Appellant- Short Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Crops, denied third opportunity for permanent Commission in view of amendment in 2013 – However, the Principle Bench of
SOMNATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1717/2024
Decision Date: 18-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC232

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who has committed excesses on individual in police custody? Headnotes Constitution of India – Article 142, 226 – Appellant verbally and physically assaulted in police custody – for 4 hours despite being granted bail – Sub- divisional Police Officer’s inquiry report found Respondent No. 2 responsible – Special Inspector General of Police imposed punishment of “strict warning” in departmental proceedings – High Court partly allowed 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SOMNATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10142024 INSC 232Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who has committed excesses on individual in police custody? Headnotes Constitution of India – Article 142, 226 – Appellant verbally and physically assaulted in police custody – for 4 hours despite being granted bail – Sub- divisional Police Officer’s inquiry report found Respondent No. 2 responsible – Special Inspector General of Police imposed punishment of “strict warning” in departmental proceedings – High Court partly allowed