Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SHIVANI TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1957/2024
Decision Date: 05-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC343

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL* Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, and their consequential enlargement on bail, in an acid attack case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal, and on victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court suspended the sentence 

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.SHIVANI TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 362024 INSC 343Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL*Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, and their consequential enlargement on bail, in an acid attack case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal, and on victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court suspended the sentence
M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusRAMBHA DEVI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018
Decision Date: 06-11-2024
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC840

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport 

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.M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusRAMBHA DEVI & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 5412024 INSC 840Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport
THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.versusM/S TRIBRO AD BUREAU & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11117/2024
Decision Date: 16-10-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC784

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of the Flip viewPDF

Summary: THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.versusM/S TRIBRO AD BUREAU & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13812024 INSC 784Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of theFlip viewPDF
SUBODH KUMAR SINGH RATHOURversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6741/2024
Decision Date: 09-07-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC486

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Scope of judicial review of the actions of the State in the matters relating to contract/tender disputes under writ jurisdiction; whether the action on the part of the respondent in cancelling the tender was amenable to the High Court; if so, whether the said action could be termed as arbitrary or unfair and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Contract/tender disputes – Judicial review – Scope – Tender awarded to the appellant on Public-Private 

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.SUBODH KUMAR SINGH RATHOURversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 5322024 INSC 486Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Scope of judicial review of the actions of the State in the matters relating to contract/tender disputes under writ jurisdiction; whether the action on the part of the respondent in cancelling the tender was amenable to the High Court; if so, whether the said action could be termed as arbitrary or unfair and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Contract/tender disputes – Judicial review – Scope – Tender awarded to the appellant on Public-Private
SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1234/2017
Decision Date: 18-10-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC790

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides. Headnotes† Child Marriage – Guidelines issued for effective implementation of the Prohibition of Flip viewPDF

Summary: SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 15132024 INSC 790Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides. Headnotes† Child Marriage – Guidelines issued for effective implementation of the Prohibition ofFlip viewPDF
HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS.versusCANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8829/2010
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC467

ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the present suit (claiming title and possession over the suit land) as filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred under Section 11 CPC on principle of res judicata inasmuch as there was no adjudication of the rights of the co-defendants previous suit with regard to the suit land and the issue therein was not directly or indirectly and substantially the same as in the present suit. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11 – Res judicata – Rights of co-defendants – The title suit no.9/89 of the 

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.HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS.versusCANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 292024 INSC 467Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the present suit (claiming title and possession over the suit land) as filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred under Section 11 CPC on principle of res judicata inasmuch as there was no adjudication of the rights of the co-defendants previous suit with regard to the suit land and the issue therein was not directly or indirectly and substantially the same as in the present suit. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11 – Res judicata – Rights of co-defendants – The title suit no.9/89 of the
SIDDIQUEversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4625/2024
Decision Date: 19-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC877

SIDDIQUE  versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 8222024 INSC 877 BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – FIR against the appellant u/ss.376, 506, IPC – Application seeking anticipatory bail rejected by High Court – Challenge to: Held: years the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 – Further, though she had also posted a post on facebook in 2018 making allegations against about 14 people, including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse, however, she did not go to the Justice Hema Committee 

Summary: SIDDIQUEversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8222024 INSC 877Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – FIR against the appellant u/ss.376, 506, IPC – Application seeking anticipatory bail rejected by High Court – Challenge to: Held: years the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 – Further, though she had also posted a post on facebook in 2018 making allegations against about 14 people, including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse, however, she did not go to the Justice Hema Committee
JAGDISH PRASAD SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1635/2013
Decision Date: 08-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC591

SANDEEP MEHTA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The Accountant General, State of Bihar, raised an objection dated 28.01.2003, regarding the promotion accorded to the appellant on 10.03.1991 with a further remark that the promotion given to the appellant on 10.03.1991 would become ineffective after 01.01.1996 in view of and, thus, the pay scale of the appellant would have to be revised and reduced to match that of the lower post, i.e., the Marketing Officer from the post of Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO). Headnotes† Service Law – 

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.JAGDISH PRASAD SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 3772024 INSC 591Coram : SANDEEP MEHTA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The Accountant General, State of Bihar, raised an objection dated 28.01.2003, regarding the promotion accorded to the appellant on 10.03.1991 with a further remark that the promotion given to the appellant on 10.03.1991 would become ineffective after 01.01.1996 in view of and, thus, the pay scale of the appellant would have to be revised and reduced to match that of the lower post, i.e., the Marketing Officer from the post of Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO). Headnotes† Service Law –
K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4113/2024
Decision Date: 03-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC750

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Despite the dispute involved having predominantly overtures of a civil dispute and the matter having been compromised between the parties, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed by the accused persons including the appellants chargesheet. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420, 409, 467, 468, 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing – Of criminal cases having predominantly civil character 

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.K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 6502024 INSC 750Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Despite the dispute involved having predominantly overtures of a civil dispute and the matter having been compromised between the parties, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed by the accused persons including the appellants chargesheet. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420, 409, 467, 468, 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing – Of criminal cases having predominantly civil character