Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SWATI PRIYADARSHINIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9758/2024
Decision Date: 22-08-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC620

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration An Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Respondent No.4 deciding not to extend the contract of the appellant as Assistant Project Coordinator from 31.03.2013 on the ground of dereliction of duty, as the work/performance of the appellant was found to Service on contract basis – Non-extension of contract – Appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on contract basis – By an order dated 30.03.2013, the respondent no.4 decided not to 

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.SWATI PRIYADARSHINIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9012024 INSC 620Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration An Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Respondent No.4 deciding not to extend the contract of the appellant as Assistant Project Coordinator from 31.03.2013 on the ground of dereliction of duty, as the work/performance of the appellant was found to Service on contract basis – Non-extension of contract – Appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on contract basis – By an order dated 30.03.2013, the respondent no.4 decided not to
ANANTDEEP SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 267/2024
Decision Date: 06-09-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC673

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant seeking direction to reinstate him into service as civil judge with all the consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 Court in C.A.No. 3082 of 2022. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Matrimonial discord between appellant and his wife – Allegations against the appellant of having an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer – The Full Court of the High Court accepted the report 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.ANANTDEEP SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1352024 INSC 673Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant seeking direction to reinstate him into service as civil judge with all the consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 Court in C.A.No. 3082 of 2022. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Matrimonial discord between appellant and his wife – Allegations against the appellant of having an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer – The Full Court of the High Court accepted the report of
S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3989/2024
Decision Date: 10-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC732

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Respondent sought refund of the entire maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant (wife of respondent). Headnotes† Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – s.25 – Respondent filed an application u/s. 25 of the Act and sought setting by which his appellant-wife was granted Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation – Respondent also sought return of the maintenance amount paid on the ground of fraud: Held: The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the Act 

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.S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 452024 INSC 732Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Respondent sought refund of the entire maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant (wife of respondent). Headnotes† Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – s.25 – Respondent filed an application u/s. 25 of the Act and sought setting by which his appellant-wife was granted Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation – Respondent also sought return of the maintenance amount paid on the ground of fraud: Held: The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the Act
THE STATE OF HARYANAversusASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3959/2024
Decision Date: 11-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC190

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which approved the decision of Accepting Authority altering the Personal Appraisal Report score under All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Secretary, State of Haryana challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh branch, Chandigarh the decision of the Accepting Authority, Chief Minister of Haryana downgrading his Performance Appraisal Report (the “PAR”) score - No provision in the PAR Rules 

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.THE STATE OF HARYANAversusASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3932024 INSC 190Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which approved the decision of Accepting Authority altering the Personal Appraisal Report score under All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Secretary, State of Haryana challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh branch, Chandigarh the decision of the Accepting Authority, Chief Minister of Haryana downgrading his Performance Appraisal Report (the “PAR”) score - No provision in the PAR Rules
RAJIVE RATURIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 243/2005
Decision Date: 08-11-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC858

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however, in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for University of Law was appointed to assess the situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40 

Summary: RAJIVE RATURIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9702024 INSC 858Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however, in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for University of Law was appointed to assess the situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40
PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNIversusMAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1982/2024
Decision Date: 29-01-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC98

Unknown

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.PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNIversusMAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12232024 INSC 98Issue for Consideration Appellant was not able to take benefit of female reservation on account of her inability to produce a valid Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate on the last date of submission of the application form. Later, a corrigendum enabled candidates to submit an the current financial year. However, the High Court held that since the petitioner had applied from Open General Category because she did not hold the NCL certificate, her prayer for change of category cannot be accepted. Headnotes Service Law – Female Reservation – Non-Creamy LayerDecision Date :29-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1982/2024|  Bench :1 Judge
SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGIversusSUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5323/2024
Decision Date: 25-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC339

A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950 Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust, can be condoned. Further, consequence of beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act. Headnotes Appellant was registered as a Public Trust u/s. 18 of the 1950 Act – Mode of succession of managership was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust and the eldest male member of his 

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.SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGIversusSUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 622024 INSC 339Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950 Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust, can be condoned. Further, consequence of beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act. Headnotes Appellant was registered as a Public Trust u/s. 18 of the 1950 Act – Mode of succession of managership was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust and the eldest male member of his
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusNATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8821/2011
Decision Date: 05-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC270

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the notice sent to the Registrar in Form No.5 is an “instrument” as defined u/s.2(l), Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; whether the maximum cap on stamp duty is applicable every time there is an increase in the share capital or is it a 1958 – s.2(l), Article 10 of Schedule-I – “instrument” – Companies Act, 1956 – ss.97, 31(2) – Articles of Association, an instrument within the meaning of s.2(l), Stamp Act and mentioned in Article 10 of Schedule-I, where stamp duty is to be charged on 

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.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusNATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3402024 INSC 270Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the notice sent to the Registrar in Form No.5 is an “instrument” as defined u/s.2(l), Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; whether the maximum cap on stamp duty is applicable every time there is an increase in the share capital or is it a 1958 – s.2(l), Article 10 of Schedule-I – “instrument” – Companies Act, 1956 – ss.97, 31(2) – Articles of Association, an instrument within the meaning of s.2(l), Stamp Act and mentioned in Article 10 of Schedule-I, where stamp duty is to be charged on