Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS.versusT.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3015/2013
Decision Date: 21-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC884

DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the buyer. High Court allowed the appeal thereagainst and granted decree for specific performance. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court warrants any interdiction in exercise of Whether an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself takes away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed. Headnotes† Specific 

Summary: R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS.versusT.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10992024 INSC 884Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the buyer. High Court allowed the appeal thereagainst and granted decree for specific performance. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court warrants any interdiction in exercise of Whether an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself takes away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed. Headnotes† Specific
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12551/2024
Decision Date: 19-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC875

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants that they had become owners by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove their ownership to the land. In 

Summary: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12572024 INSC 875Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants that they had become owners by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove their ownership to the land. In
M.R. AJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024
Decision Date: 20-11-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC881

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Locus standi of private individual – De novo trial – Permissibility – High Court, if could order de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings – Locus Decision Date : 20-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024  | Direction Issue : Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4887 of 2024 allowed. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7896 of 2023 dismissed.  |  Bench : 2 Judges

Summary: M.R. AJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14482024 INSC 881Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Locus standi of private individual – De novo trial – Permissibility – High Court, if could order de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings – LocusDecision Date :20-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024| Direction Issue :Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4887 of 2024 allowed. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7896 of 2023 dismissed.|  Bench :2 Judges
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.
Case No.: DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 21994/2022
Decision Date: 18-03-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC213

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration When can a litigant apply for modification of a judgment or an order in a matter which stands finally concluded; and can a party file an application after disposal of the statutory appeal powers of the Supreme Court. Headnotes SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Scope thereof, explained – Filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal: Held: Impermissible – A post disposal application for modification and clarification of an order 

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.JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10232024 INSC 213Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration When can a litigant apply for modification of a judgment or an order in a matter which stands finally concluded; and can a party file an application after disposal of the statutory appeal powers of the Supreme Court. Headnotes SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Scope thereof, explained – Filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal: Held: Impermissible – A post disposal application for modification and clarification of an order
LALU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4222/2024
Decision Date: 16-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC782

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committed 

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.LALU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 6392024 INSC 782Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committed
TAPAS KUMAR DASversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4420/2024
Decision Date: 19-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC225

DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide which the writ petition of the Appellant was allowed and the Respondent was directed to proceed with his candidature for for LPG distributorships was cancelled by Respondent on the ground that the land offered by him for the showroom, was beyond the advertised location. Appellant challenged the Cancellation Letter by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge allowed the writ petition and 

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.TAPAS KUMAR DASversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8242024 INSC 225Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide which the writ petition of the Appellant was allowed and the Respondent was directed to proceed with his candidature for for LPG distributorships was cancelled by Respondent on the ground that the land offered by him for the showroom, was beyond the advertised location. Appellant challenged the Cancellation Letter by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 43/2024
Decision Date: 03-01-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC11

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. Headnotes Unlawful Activities Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of s.20(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.STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 732024 INSC 11Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. Headnotes Unlawful Activities Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of s.20(4)
NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITHversusGOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13958/2024
Decision Date: 02-12-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC935

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the liability of the appellant-private college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee. Headnotes† Service law – Ret i ra l benef i ts – L iabi l i ty college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee – Respondent dismissed from service on account of misconduct – Challenge to – Respondent directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found 

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.NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITHversusGOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3662024 INSC 935Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the liability of the appellant-private college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee. Headnotes† Service law – Ret i ra l benef i ts – L iabi l i ty college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee – Respondent dismissed from service on account of misconduct – Challenge to – Respondent directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found
PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1397/2024
Decision Date: 05-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC172

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Act, 1989. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated and 

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.PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1572024 INSC 172Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Act, 1989. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated and