Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS.versusSMT. CHAMELI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8244/2009
Decision Date: 11-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the resumption of onerous gift to heirs of donor when conditions of gift are not fulfilled by heirs of the donee. Headnotes† Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by donor to donee, duly executed and later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees stopped rendering these services, and original donees have 

Summary: SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS.versusSMT. CHAMELI & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 693Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the resumption of onerous gift to heirs of donor when conditions of gift are not fulfilled by heirs of the donee. Headnotes† Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by donor to donee, duly executed and later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees stopped rendering these services, and original donees have
ARVIND KEJRIWALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3816/2024
Decision Date: 13-09-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC687

SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYAN* Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to his arrest being illegal as well as his application for the grant of regular bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – The High Court upheld the arrest of the appellant by the CBI and congruously denied him regular bail – Propriety: Held: [Per Surya Kant, J.]: CBI complied with Section 41A CrPC, in its true letter 

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.ARVIND KEJRIWALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6832024 INSC 687Coram : SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYAN*Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to his arrest being illegal as well as his application for the grant of regular bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – The High Court upheld the arrest of the appellant by the CBI and congruously denied him regular bail – Propriety: Held: [Per Surya Kant, J.]: CBI complied with Section 41A CrPC, in its true letter
JYOTI LIMITEDversusBSE LIMITED & ANR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4707/2022
Decision Date: 10-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

JYOTI LIMITED versus BSE LIMITED & ANR - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1117 PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) rejected the application of the appellant for the listing of certain equity shares to the BSE holding that the appellant had not taken in principle approval from the Stock Exchange and it also did not take the approval of the shareholders for the Private Limited (RARE). Order upheld and confirmed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 – s.9(1) – Companies Act, 2013 – s.62(1)(c) – SEBI (Listing 

Summary: JYOTI LIMITEDversusBSE LIMITED & ANR-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1117Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) rejected the application of the appellant for the listing of certain equity shares to the BSE holding that the appellant had not taken in principle approval from the Stock Exchange and it also did not take the approval of the shareholders for the Private Limited (RARE). Order upheld and confirmed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 – s.9(1) – Companies Act, 2013 – s.62(1)(c) – SEBI (Listing
KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1427/2011
Decision Date: 01-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC156

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 that appellant was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim to marry him when she was returning home after dropping children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house – 

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.KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3292024 INSC 156Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 that appellant was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim to marry him when she was returning home after dropping children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house –
GEORGEversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5279/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1 

Summary: GEORGEversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 769Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1
AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.versusJYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.
Case No.: ARBITRATION PETITION No. 19/2024
Decision Date: 20-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC710

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration What is the scope of jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Whether in the instant case, on a prima facie view, the SRG Group being a non-signatory to the (FAA), can be referred to arbitration. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of arbitrators – Scope of jurisdiction of the referral Court: Held: SBP & Co. case expanded the scope of the Court’s power under Section 11 while 

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.AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.versusJYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8942024 INSC 710Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration What is the scope of jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Whether in the instant case, on a prima facie view, the SRG Group being a non-signatory to the (FAA), can be referred to arbitration. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of arbitrators – Scope of jurisdiction of the referral Court: Held: SBP & Co. case expanded the scope of the Court’s power under Section 11 while
SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2030/2024
Decision Date: 19-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC723

SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below – 

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.SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6092024 INSC 723Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below –
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC.versusMANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14151/2024
Decision Date: 10-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The respondents-allottees had failed to clear the outstanding dues of the allotted booth site, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear the said outstanding dues. Whether the High restoring the allotment and directing them to pay the outstanding amount. Headnotes† Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – Appellants sold the Booth site to the respondents – The 

Summary: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC.versusMANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 947Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The respondents-allottees had failed to clear the outstanding dues of the allotted booth site, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear the said outstanding dues. Whether the High restoring the allotment and directing them to pay the outstanding amount. Headnotes† Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – Appellants sold the Booth site to the respondents – The
JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14138/2024
Decision Date: 10-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.  versus SAHNULAL & ANR. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 719 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court in second appeal u/s.100 CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Suit for specific the respondents-plaintiffs against the original defendant-owner of the property alleging defendant’s unwillingness to perform his part of contract – Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the respondent – Appeal thereagainst, partly allowed – Respondents then filed 

Summary: JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 719Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court in second appeal u/s.100 CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Suit for specific the respondents-plaintiffs against the original defendant-owner of the property alleging defendant’s unwillingness to perform his part of contract – Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the respondent – Appeal thereagainst, partly allowed – Respondents then filed
PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5193/2024
Decision Date: 12-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the allotment of the plot in favour of Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (MRHS) was proper or violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria. Headnotes† Allotment of land – Co-operative Housing Society Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land by the Respondent-State to MRHS: Held: The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to MRCHS shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was not even 

Summary: PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 732Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the allotment of the plot in favour of Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (MRHS) was proper or violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria. Headnotes† Allotment of land – Co-operative Housing Society Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land by the Respondent-State to MRHS: Held: The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to MRCHS shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was not even
SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 597/2012
Decision Date: 03-07-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC462

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under ss. 302 and 307 IPC . Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307, s. 300 exception 1 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting Prosecution case that the appellant- police guard committed murder of the deceased inside the police station while he was on duty – Deceased was having illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife – Deceased and the appellant last seen together in conversation with each other Flip viewPDF

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1632024 INSC 462Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Correctness of the order of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under ss. 302 and 307 IPC . Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307, s. 300 exception 1 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting Prosecution case that the appellant- police guard committed murder of the deceased inside the police station while he was on duty – Deceased was having illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife – Deceased and the appellant last seen together in conversation with each otherFlip viewPDF