Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3599/2024
Decision Date: 29-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC639

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of Respondent No.2-complainant, who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, for not returning the ornaments (gold) which he had given at the time of her marriage with and substance of the present dispute lie in the father’s right over the gifts, i.e.,‘stridhan’ given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.6 – Hindu Succession 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.MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7392024 INSC 639Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of Respondent No.2-complainant, who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, for not returning the ornaments (gold) which he had given at the time of her marriage with and substance of the present dispute lie in the father’s right over the gifts, i.e.,‘stridhan’ given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.6 – Hindu Succession Act,
ANEESversusTHE STATE GOVT. OF NCT
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2015
Decision Date: 03-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC368

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder. Whether the High Court committed the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of s.106 – Murder of appellant-accused’s 

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.ANEESversusTHE STATE GOVT. OF NCT-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 1642024 INSC 368Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder. Whether the High Court committed the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of s.106 – Murder of appellant-accused’s
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusASHOK SIRPAL
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4277/2024
Decision Date: 24-10-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC819

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the order passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the accused who was convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and Prevention 

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.CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusASHOK SIRPAL-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9302024 INSC 819Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the order passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the accused who was convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and Prevention
LENIN KUMAR RAYversusM/S EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC802

PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid down in law. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of “workman” – Determinative factor is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post – Onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman”: Held: Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024  | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024 dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024 allowed.  |  Bench : 2 Judges

Summary: LENIN KUMAR RAYversusM/S EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 23032024 INSC 802Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid down in law. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of “workman” – Determinative factor is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post – Onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman”: Held:Decision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024 dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024 allowed.|  Bench :2 Judges
SHENTO VARGHESEversusJULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2531/2024
Decision Date: 13-05-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC407

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.; does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether. Headnotes† Code of s.102(3) – Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate: Held: The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in section 102(3) has not received judicial construction – The said expression must receive a reasonable construction 

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.SHENTO VARGHESEversusJULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4092024 INSC 407Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.; does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether. Headnotes† Code of s.102(3) – Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate: Held: The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in section 102(3) has not received judicial construction – The said expression must receive a reasonable construction
SARFARAZ ALAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 45/2024
Decision Date: 04-01-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC18

M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s right to make a representation, the communication regarding the same if to be made both orally and in writing. Headnotes Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, – Article 22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right 

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.SARFARAZ ALAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2672024 INSC 18Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s right to make a representation, the communication regarding the same if to be made both orally and in writing. Headnotes Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, – Article 22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right
SAROJ & ORS.versusIFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12077/2024
Decision Date: 24-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC816

SANJAY KAROL*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT accordance with law. Headnotes† Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate: Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification 

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.SAROJ & ORS.versusIFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9392024 INSC 816Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT accordance with law. Headnotes† Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate: Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification
OM RATHODversusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12110/2024
Decision Date: 25-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC836

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was in Flip viewPDF

Summary: OM RATHODversusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 21872024 INSC 836Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was inFlip viewPDF
PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14689/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

PAWAN KUMAR  versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1253 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”), the appellant made an online application for being appointed/ allotted a regular and rural retail outlet. The appellant was selected on draw on lots and he offered a to third parties - Shri Lila Dhar and Shri Dinesh Kumar, whose consent letters were made available along with the application. At the time of application, there was some dispute between Mr. Lila Dhar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as regards the land which was offered by the appellant. But the same 

Summary: PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1253Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”), the appellant made an online application for being appointed/ allotted a regular and rural retail outlet. The appellant was selected on draw on lots and he offered a to third parties - Shri Lila Dhar and Shri Dinesh Kumar, whose consent letters were made available along with the application. At the time of application, there was some dispute between Mr. Lila Dhar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as regards the land which was offered by the appellant. But the same