Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGHversusSUGANDHI AGGARWAL
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6137/2024
Decision Date: 08-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC397

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the guardianship of two minor children till they attain the age of majority. Headnotes Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – ss. 7, 9 and 25 – Custody of two minor children – Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to the visitation rights to the mother – However, the High Court set aside the order and granted the parties shared custody of the minor children – Challenge to: Held: Principal consideration whilst deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in exercise of its parens patriae 

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.COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGHversusSUGANDHI AGGARWAL-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2592024 INSC 397Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the guardianship of two minor children till they attain the age of majority. Headnotes Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – ss. 7, 9 and 25 – Custody of two minor children – Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to the visitation rights to the mother – However, the High Court set aside the order and granted the parties shared custody of the minor children – Challenge to: Held: Principal consideration whilst deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in exercise of its parens patriae
ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5204/2024
Decision Date: 11-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellant was detained under s.3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 to prevent in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Headnotes† Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand 

Summary: ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 637Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellant was detained under s.3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 to prevent in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Headnotes† Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand
M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETCversusTHE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2045/2022
Decision Date: 26-02-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC145

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Whether registry has the power to dismiss a curative ground that no averment has been made to the effect that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. Headnotes Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII r.2 (1) – Curative petition – Registry’s power to dismiss – Dismissal of review petition in open court after 

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.M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETCversusTHE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 7582024 INSC 145Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Whether registry has the power to dismiss a curative ground that no averment has been made to the effect that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. Headnotes Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII r.2 (1) – Curative petition – Registry’s power to dismiss – Dismissal of review petition in open court after
NAVRATAN LAL SHARMAversusRADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14328/2024
Decision Date: 12-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC970

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of a party to get the first appeal restored if compromise decree specifically does not give such liberty. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.23 r.3 – Compromise of suit – Suit for declaration and Dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal – During pendency, compromise reached between parties and in terms thereof, the High Court disposed the first appeal – However, failure of the respondent to comply with compromise terms – Application to restore the 

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.NAVRATAN LAL SHARMAversusRADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4532024 INSC 970Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of a party to get the first appeal restored if compromise decree specifically does not give such liberty. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.23 r.3 – Compromise of suit – Suit for declaration and Dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal – During pendency, compromise reached between parties and in terms thereof, the High Court disposed the first appeal – However, failure of the respondent to comply with compromise terms – Application to restore the
BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2886/2012
Decision Date: 29-02-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC151

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in allowing the amendment application, changing the nature of suit from partition to declaration. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. VI r. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – When allowed – On facts, suit for partition reached the stage of arguments, application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, seeking relief of declaration of the earlier compromise decree being null and void, pleading oversight and mistake, on the part of the respondents No. 1 and 2 – Trial court dismissed 

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.BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 9352024 INSC 151Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in allowing the amendment application, changing the nature of suit from partition to declaration. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. VI r. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – When allowed – On facts, suit for partition reached the stage of arguments, application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, seeking relief of declaration of the earlier compromise decree being null and void, pleading oversight and mistake, on the part of the respondents No. 1 and 2 – Trial court dismissed
THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSINGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 250/2016
Decision Date: 22-02-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC198

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(1)(b) acquittal – Interference by High Court – Scope – Prosecution’s case that the accused persons took the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced for offence 

Summary: Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSINGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 11782024 INSC 198Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(1)(b) acquittal – Interference by High Court – Scope – Prosecution’s case that the accused persons took the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced for offence
SHEIKH NOORUL HASSANversusNAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1389/2024
Decision Date: 08-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC391

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of filing of subsequent pleading- replication as envisaged in Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, during the course of the proceeding of an election petition under the 1951 Act, and in what circumstances leave to pleading may be granted by an election tribunal/court. Headnotes Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – s. 87(1) – Procedure before the High Court – Filing of replication by the election petitioner to the written statement filed by the returned candidate – Grant of leave 

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.SHEIKH NOORUL HASSANversusNAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 532024 INSC 391Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of filing of subsequent pleading- replication as envisaged in Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, during the course of the proceeding of an election petition under the 1951 Act, and in what circumstances leave to pleading may be granted by an election tribunal/court. Headnotes Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – s. 87(1) – Procedure before the High Court – Filing of replication by the election petitioner to the written statement filed by the returned candidate – Grant of leave
RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR.versusKARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3593/2024
Decision Date: 20-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC719

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants-children of the original tenant had also became tenants upon the death of their father, by virtue of s.2(h) of the old Act-West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; and whether the 1997 Act would cover such tenants who 1956 Act. Headnotes† West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.2(h) – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.2(g) – Death of the original tenant in the year 1970, before the commencement of 1997 Act-prior to July 10, 2001 – Devolution of tenancy on the 

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.RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR.versusKARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6442024 INSC 719Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants-children of the original tenant had also became tenants upon the death of their father, by virtue of s.2(h) of the old Act-West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; and whether the 1997 Act would cover such tenants who 1956 Act. Headnotes† West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.2(h) – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.2(g) – Death of the original tenant in the year 1970, before the commencement of 1997 Act-prior to July 10, 2001 – Devolution of tenancy on the