Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusNORTHERN COAL FIELDS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7614/2014
Decision Date: 03-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC948

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.  versus NORTHERN COAL FIELDS - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 19182024 INSC 948 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE 1918 : 2024 INSC 948 State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields (Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014) 03 October 2024 (Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State Government to realise lease rent from the – Vesting of land or rights in Central Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently, the said land vested in the respondent-government Flip viewPDF

Summary: STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusNORTHERN COAL FIELDS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19182024 INSC 948Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE1918 : 2024 INSC 948 State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields (Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014) 03 October 2024 (Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State Government to realise lease rent from the – Vesting of land or rights in Central Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently, the said land vested in the respondent-governmentFlip viewPDF
SONU CHOUDARYversusSTATE OF NCT DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3111/2024
Decision Date: 06-11-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC864

SONU CHOUDARY versus STATE OF NCT DELHI - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 7862024 INSC 864 BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction of the appellant u/ss.324 and 452 IPC is sustainable; and whether a restaurant can be said to be a place used for dwelling or for worship or for the custody of property for convicting a person u/s.452 IPC for committing offence of – ss.324 and 452 – Voluntarily causing hurt – House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Prosecution case that the appellant inflicted injuries with the blade on the thigh, shoulder and back of the owner of the restaurant, when the owner 

Summary: SONU CHOUDARYversusSTATE OF NCT DELHI-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7862024 INSC 864Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction of the appellant u/ss.324 and 452 IPC is sustainable; and whether a restaurant can be said to be a place used for dwelling or for worship or for the custody of property for convicting a person u/s.452 IPC for committing offence of – ss.324 and 452 – Voluntarily causing hurt – House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Prosecution case that the appellant inflicted injuries with the blade on the thigh, shoulder and back of the owner of the restaurant, when the owner
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusJAGAT RAM
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4964/2024
Decision Date: 03-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC952

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it found order was proved but the official who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) – 

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.CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusJAGAT RAM-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5332024 INSC 952Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it found order was proved but the official who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) –
JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 232/2023
Decision Date: 05-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC862

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and (2) Whether High Court, irrespective of their source of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining service conditions, including post-retirement benefits. Headnotes† High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India – 

Summary: JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10422024 INSC 862Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and (2) Whether High Court, irrespective of their source of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining service conditions, including post-retirement benefits. Headnotes† High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India –
THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARDversusAYYAPPA SPICES & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3866/2024
Decision Date: 06-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC183

A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should have been entertained by the High Court; and whether the appellant- Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1) (j) of the Food Safety and Standards – Public tenders for procurement – Interested party invoking writ jurisdiction, exercise of power of judicial review – Contract by tender for sourcing raw material (cardamom) for preparation of Aravana Prasadam in the Sabarimala Temple – Eventually, respondent no.2 was 

Summary: Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARDversusAYYAPPA SPICES & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3632024 INSC 183Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should have been entertained by the High Court; and whether the appellant- Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1) (j) of the Food Safety and Standards – Public tenders for procurement – Interested party invoking writ jurisdiction, exercise of power of judicial review – Contract by tender for sourcing raw material (cardamom) for preparation of Aravana Prasadam in the Sabarimala Temple – Eventually, respondent no.2 was
RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2018
Decision Date: 09-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC487

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct evidence – 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - 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.RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 4662024 INSC 487Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct evidence –
DEVU G NAIRversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1730/2024
Decision Date: 11-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC228

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, was correct in directing the ‘corpus’ to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist; what guidelines should be followed by courts corpus petitions or petitions for police protection. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Habeas Corpus petition filed in High Court on the ground that Corpus (also referred to as ‘X’) was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody whereas she wished 

Summary: Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.DEVU G NAIRversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12732024 INSC 228Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, was correct in directing the ‘corpus’ to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist; what guidelines should be followed by courts corpus petitions or petitions for police protection. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Habeas Corpus petition filed in High Court on the ground that Corpus (also referred to as ‘X’) was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody whereas she wished
LEELA AGRAWALversusSARKAR & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12538/2024
Decision Date: 19-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC946

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58(c) The dispute centers around a piece of land and the plaintiff-respondent is the undisputed owner of this land – In 1990, the plaintiff in need of funds approached the defendant-appellant and mortgaged the suit land – In pursuant thereto, a mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 was executed 

Summary: LEELA AGRAWALversusSARKAR & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 11302024 INSC 946Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58(c) The dispute centers around a piece of land and the plaintiff-respondent is the undisputed owner of this land – In 1990, the plaintiff in need of funds approached the defendant-appellant and mortgaged the suit land – In pursuant thereto, a mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 was executed
XXXXversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3431/2023
Decision Date: 06-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC181

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 – Punishment for committing rape repeatedly for Criminal intimidation – Complainant’s case against the appellant alleging rape on false pretext of marriage; and that the appellant assured that he would marry her and take care of her daughter if she divorced her husband – However, the appellant refused to marry – 

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.XXXXversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3092024 INSC 181Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 – Punishment for committing rape repeatedly for Criminal intimidation – Complainant’s case against the appellant alleging rape on false pretext of marriage; and that the appellant assured that he would marry her and take care of her daughter if she divorced her husband – However, the appellant refused to marry –