Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SHOOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 249/2013
Decision Date: 20-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC713

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the parents-in-laws and the husband of the victim-daughter-in-law of the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – – Victim-daughter-in-law died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home within one year of marriage – FIR by the father that his daughter was harassed by the appellants-parent- in-laws and husband soon before her death in connection with dowry demand – Order of conviction and 

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.SHOOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8182024 INSC 713Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the parents-in-laws and the husband of the victim-daughter-in-law of the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – – Victim-daughter-in-law died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home within one year of marriage – FIR by the father that his daughter was harassed by the appellants-parent- in-laws and husband soon before her death in connection with dowry demand – Order of conviction and
DUSHYANT JANBANDHUversusM/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14299/2024
Decision Date: 11-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC966

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed an arbitrator. Whether the disputes relating to non- payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination Headnotes† Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – ss.15(2), 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(A) – Disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order, if arbitrable: Held: No – Disputes related to non-payment of 

Summary: Englishनेपाली - 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.DUSHYANT JANBANDHUversusM/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4922024 INSC 966Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed an arbitrator. Whether the disputes relating to non- payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination Headnotes† Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – ss.15(2), 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(A) – Disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order, if arbitrable: Held: No – Disputes related to non-payment of
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14473/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust. Headnotes† Rajasthan Urban Improvement s.60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Condonation of delay in filing writ petition – The appellant challenges the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent, whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case: Held: The 

Summary: URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 993Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust. Headnotes† Rajasthan Urban Improvement s.60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Condonation of delay in filing writ petition – The appellant challenges the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent, whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case: Held: The
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14506/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration By way of the impugned order, whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in framing points for determination by the Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 with respect inquiry proceedings for eviction against the respondents; whether the order was passed by the Principal Judge as a persona designata, so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the same was passed in the capacity of a judicial authority to 

Summary: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 843Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration By way of the impugned order, whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in framing points for determination by the Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 with respect inquiry proceedings for eviction against the respondents; whether the order was passed by the Principal Judge as a persona designata, so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the same was passed in the capacity of a judicial authority to
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusROHIT NANDAN
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14394/2024
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC984

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards entitlement of respondent-employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, when the respondent appointed on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate, the ‘Tanti’ caste was deleted from the list of OBCs and Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.341 – Scheduled Castes list – Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in the list of Scheduled Castes – Entitlement of employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled 

Summary: Englishनेपाली - 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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusROHIT NANDAN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 6172024 INSC 984Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards entitlement of respondent-employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, when the respondent appointed on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate, the ‘Tanti’ caste was deleted from the list of OBCs and Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.341 – Scheduled Castes list – Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in the list of Scheduled Castes – Entitlement of employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled
CDR SEEMA CHAUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1036/2023
Decision Date: 26-02-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC147

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI Issue for Consideration Issues pertains to the grant of Permanent Commission to Women Short Service Commission Officers in the Indian Navy. Headnotes Armed Forces – Indian Navy – Women Short Service Commissioned Officers – Grant – Petitioner commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch of the Indian Navy – Petitioner was considered for permanent commission but denied on the ground that there were no vacancies – Petitioner moved 

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.CDR SEEMA CHAUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 8202024 INSC 147Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLIIssue for Consideration Issues pertains to the grant of Permanent Commission to Women Short Service Commission Officers in the Indian Navy. Headnotes Armed Forces – Indian Navy – Women Short Service Commissioned Officers – Grant – Petitioner commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch of the Indian Navy – Petitioner was considered for permanent commission but denied on the ground that there were no vacancies – Petitioner moved
MRS. BHUMIKABEN N. MODI & ORS.versusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 270/2012
Decision Date: 08-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC395

A.S. BOPANNA*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the issuance of Acceptance-cum-First Premium Receipt gave rise to a presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer; whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the appellants’ complaint and reversing the concurrent orders of the of its revisional jurisdiction, wherein directions were issued for payment of benefits in terms of the subject life insurance policy and for grant of compensation. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional power – Insurance – Life Insurance 

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.MRS. BHUMIKABEN N. MODI & ORS.versusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4522024 INSC 395Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, C.T. RAVIKUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the issuance of Acceptance-cum-First Premium Receipt gave rise to a presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer; whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the appellants’ complaint and reversing the concurrent orders of the of its revisional jurisdiction, wherein directions were issued for payment of benefits in terms of the subject life insurance policy and for grant of compensation. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional power – Insurance – Life Insurance
KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10549/2024
Decision Date: 13-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC689

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the Court can dismiss an election petition at the very threshold on an application u/Ord. VII r. 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 83, 86 – Trial of election petition – Appellant elected in the General Elections to the State Legislative Assembly – Election petition by the respondent-contestant from the same seat, challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant did not disclose her assets 

Summary: Englishनेपाली - 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.KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 3542024 INSC 689Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the Court can dismiss an election petition at the very threshold on an application u/Ord. VII r. 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 83, 86 – Trial of election petition – Appellant elected in the General Elections to the State Legislative Assembly – Election petition by the respondent-contestant from the same seat, challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant did not disclose her assets
BABY SAKSHI GREOLAversusMANZOOR AHMAD SIMON AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14290/2024
Decision Date: 11-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellant (a minor at the time of the accident) sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability and moderate mental retardation. MACT awarded compensation of Rs.5,90,750/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. High Court granted of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization. Appellant sought further enhancement of the compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident – Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident when she was 7 years old and suffered 

Summary: BABY SAKSHI GREOLAversusMANZOOR AHMAD SIMON AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 958Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellant (a minor at the time of the accident) sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability and moderate mental retardation. MACT awarded compensation of Rs.5,90,750/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. High Court granted of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization. Appellant sought further enhancement of the compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident – Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident when she was 7 years old and suffered