Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
MAN SINGHversusSHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1874/2015
Decision Date: 05-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC323

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss.20, 30 – Deposit of rent in court – When – Held: Tenant can only deposit rent in the court, as long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent – Once the landlord expresses his has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord – Section 30 gives an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the admitted rent in Court, but this arrangement lasts only till the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the rent directly – On facts, rent of the premises
S. NARAHARI AND ORSversusS.R. KUMAR AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4289/2023
Decision Date: 05-07-2023
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC604

KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII r. 7 – Constitution Of India – Art. 141 – Whether liberty granted by Supreme Court to approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special Leave Held: It is necessary for the same to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. If a dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order is not considered law under Article 141 of Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4289/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench  | Direction Issue : Matter be placed before Hon’ble CJI (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA) for constituting a larger Bench.  |  Bench : 2 Judges
STATE OF KERALAversusM/S AKAY FLAVOURS AND AROMATICS LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7330/2009
Decision Date: 02-02-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC716

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Circulars/Government orders/Notifications: Tax Exemption Notification SRO 1727/1993 – Exemption for period of five years from levy of sales tax on purchase of raw materials – Entitlement to exemption – Commencement of exemption, from the date of approval of the project by or from the date of commencement of production – Assessing Authority commuted the period of five years from 16.12.1993 – Held: Letter dated 16.12.1993 on a plain reading appears to be a mere permission – Letter of permission contained standard conditions which described the
WAZIR KHANversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1922/2017
Decision Date: 02-08-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC674

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						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.
						 WAZIR KHAN versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - [2023] 11 S.C.R. 392023 INSC 674 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a case hinging on circumstantial evidence, where the appellant was put to trial u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC for murdering his wife, and he did not dispute his presence at the place of incident and, further, the explanation off ered by him as regards wife was found to be false, whether the High Court was justifi ed in reversing the acquittal order passed by the trial court. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Propriety: Held : When attention of the appellant was drawn to the
KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusKUMAON ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8073/2022
Decision Date: 05-10-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC871

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the demand raised by the State Undertaking from the allottee towards the charges for conversion of nature of use from IT Sector to Hospitality Sector. Land laws – Conversion of nature of use – Payment – Allotment of plot by State undertaking to the respondent- allottee for setting up Information Technology-IT industry on lease cum sale basis, but the allottee later sought conversion of nature of use from IT Sector to Hospitality Sector – Permission of change of use granted on
NHPC LTD.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3948/2009
Decision Date: 06-09-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC810

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i)Whether, by enacting the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act of 1997, the Himachal Pradesh State Legislature had validly removed the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 had been held not to include within its scope the activity of the appellants of providing gratis transport facilities for their employees and their children. (ii) Whether the activity of the appellants of providing gratis transport facilities
MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.versusRAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 24748/2023
Decision Date: 01-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC969

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Dispute inter alia over retention of possession and tenancy right of predecessor of the petitioners in respect of second scheduled property (measurement of which was disputed led by the predecessor of the respondents), as described in his plaint. Suit – As regards the second scheduled property, the case of the petitioners is that it was rented out to their predecessor by its owner ‘AB’ – ‘AB’ had conveyed this property to the
SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANRversusPRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8969/2022
Decision Date: 05-01-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC14

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA 1 S.C.R. 553 553 SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR v. PRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022) JANUARY 05, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGRATHNA JJ.] Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: s.18 of – Auction sale – Amount already been recovered/realised by the secured creditor by selling the mortgaged property through an auction– While calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets,
EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906/2021
Decision Date: 06-09-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC809

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN 861 : 2023 INSC 809 861 CASE DETAILS EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No.7906 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 06, 2023 [B. V. NAGARATHNA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ. ] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellate Tribunal whether justifi ed in upholding the decision of – Appellant submitted its bid dtd.16.07.21 to Respondent No.2-Liquidator in respect of the assets of the corporate debtor (in liquidation) – On 20.07.21, appellant received an E-auction certifi cate from certifying that it had won the auction of the subject property– On
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, VARANASIversusRAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31345/2023
Decision Date: 04-08-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC702

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue under consideration : Order of the High Court dismissing the appeal against an order of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Application u/s.75(c) and Or.26, r.10A of CPC allowed by the District Judge, directing ASI to undertake a scientifi c survey of the property – High Court affi rmed the said order subject to certain observations made and affi davit fi led by the ASI
THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.versusTHE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7224/2009
Decision Date: 06-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC607

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL, ARAVIND KUMAR Contract – State, a party to the contract must abide by Article 14 – Reasonable period to consider an application – Application made by the appellant for reduction to 10000 Kilovolt-Ampere (KVA) – No steps effectuating such repeated follow ups by the appellant – Action of the respondents in taking considerable time from when the said application was made, to when the revised agreement was entered into, if arbitrary and unreasonable – Held: Yes – State action irrespective of being in the
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANRversusJAGDEEP SINGH
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4709/2011
Decision Date: 08-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC503

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Cost: Imposition of, for filing frivolous litigation – On facts, appellant demanding additional price for plot allotted to the respondent – Said land was transferred by the Animal Husbandry Department to the appellants and the rate at which the – Suit filed by the respondent challenging the demand of additional price – Courts below set aside the demand of the additional price of the plot allotted to the respondent in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter – On appeal, held: There
ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 891/2021
Decision Date: 03-02-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC99

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						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.
						 ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2023] 5 S.C.R. 2432023 INSC 99 A.S. BOPANNA, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Citizenship Act, 1955 – s.7B(1) – Through notifications dtd.11.04.2005, 05.01.2009, the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) Cardholders were given the right of parity with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in respect of the facilities as notified, including in the field of education, who in – Impugned notification dtd.04.03.21 issued by Respondent No.1, in exercise of powers u/s.7B(1), took away the existing right of OCI Cardholders of appearing for the Entrance Exams to compete with Indian Citizens for the seats and restricted the admission only as against the seats reserved
M/S. D. N. SINGHversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PATNA AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3738/2023
Decision Date: 16-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC543

K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.69A – Scope and applicability of – s.69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles – Deeming effect of the provision – When applicable – Ambit of the word ‘owner’ in s.69A Joseph, J.) : To apply s.69A of the Act, it is indispensable that the Officer must find that the other valuable article is owned by the assessee – A bailee who is a common carrier is not the owner of the goods – A bailee who is a common carrier would necessarily be entrusted with
SARVESH MATHURversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 351/2023
Decision Date: 06-10-2023
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC891

English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						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.
						 SARVESH MATHUR versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - [2023] 13 S.C.R. 11172023 INSC 891 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Denial of access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode. Directions by Supreme Court – Conduction of hearings through video conferencing/hybrid mode – Considerable variation between High Courts in of technology – Position of the tribunals under various ministries of the Union Government: Held: No High Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant desirous of availing of such a facility – All
CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.versusASHIT CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3462/2023
Decision Date: 08-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC505

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 – Respondent no.1 was appointed in the Corporation as conductor in 1981 when there was no pension scheme in force, only Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme was applicable in 1991 providing for pension scheme for the employees, effective from 01.04.1984 – Existing employees were to give an option to avail benefit under the 1990 Regulations – Respondent no.1 submitted his option within time – He sought voluntary retirement in 2017 – Apart
VARDAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.versusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CENTRAL SECTION & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8302/2023
Decision Date: 31-10-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1087

 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						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.
						 VARDAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CENTRAL SECTION & ORS - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 11182023 INSC 1087 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Consignment was intercepted in the course of inter-state movement, as there was no valid E-way bill. High Court directed that the goods be released subject to payment of the entire amount of the Goods cash and 50% of the penalty imposed also in cash while the remaining 50% by way of bank guarantee. Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 – West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 – Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Appellant executed work contracts for GAIL in the
RAJNISH KUMAR RAIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20054/2023
Decision Date: 06-09-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC862

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whether justifi ed in dismissing the writ petition fi led by the petitioner, relying on Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [2022] 16 SCR 259 and holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction petition which challenged the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi rejecting the petitioner’s application for transfer of the proceeding from CAT, Hyderabad Bench to the Ahmedabad Bench. Judicial Propriety – Ratio laid down by coordinate Bench in
GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRSversusUNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4826/2022
Decision Date: 03-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC199

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Licence – A licence holder, if entitled to allotment of the auction platform adjacent to and/or in front of his shop as a matter of right – Held: To do business in the shop and to carry on business on the auction platform, are both different and distinct is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop – No such rule and/or regulation and/or guideline supporting such a claim was brought by the appellant to the
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORSversusAJIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3663/2023
Decision Date: 17-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC546

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial review – Bid tampering matter, wherein disciplinary proceedings initiated against two employees – Order of imposition of major penalty of withholding five annual increments against the respondent no. 1 and punishment grade against the other employee – Order of punishment against the respondent no.1 upheld by the appellate authority as also the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the punishment imposed set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: During the course of inquiry,
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusSATPAL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2984/2022
Decision Date: 03-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC201

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act – Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – r. 12 – Unauthorised possession – Respondents were alleged to be in the possession of a land, which was claimed to be belonging to Gram Panchayat and was meant thus giving rise to the dispute between the appellant and the respondents – On the application of the sarpanch, the demarcation proceedings were carried out with respect to the land in which the unauthorized possession of the respondent was shown – The eviction proceeding were
INCOME TAX OFFICERversusVIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 911/2022
Decision Date: 06-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC327

M.R. SHAH*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI Income Tax Act, 1961: s.153C – Assessment of income of any other person – Initiation of search u/s.132 prior to the amendment to s.153C – Applicability of the amended s.153C – On facts, search u/s.132 conducted on the premises on 04.09.2013 and s.153C applicable – W.e.f. 01.06.2015, s.153C amended vide Finance Act, 2015 – Books of account or documents or assets seized by the Assessing Officer of the person other than searched on 25.04.2017, subsequent to the amendment of s.153 C – Issuance of notice u/s.153C on 04.05.2018