Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 696/2010
Decision Date: 09-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC488

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that on payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret information received by them while patrolling about such offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident made by the grandfather to the Investigating 

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.GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 3332024 INSC 488Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that on payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret information received by them while patrolling about such offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident made by the grandfather to the Investigating
PRASHANT SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusMEENA & ORS. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8743/2014
Decision Date: 25-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC380

SURYA KANT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to any person in respect of a land/property inherited before commencement proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Headnotes U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – officer can grant ownership to a person in respect of a land/property: Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation 

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.PRASHANT SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusMEENA & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4922024 INSC 380Coram : SURYA KANT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to any person in respect of a land/property inherited before commencement proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Headnotes U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – officer can grant ownership to a person in respect of a land/property: Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation
VISHAL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 162/2023
Decision Date: 03-01-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC3

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the Adani-Hindenburg report alleging that the Adani Group manipulated its share price wherein the petitioner is seeking investigation by the Special Investigation Team or by the CBI. Headnotes Constitution of India by an “activist short seller”, Hindenburg Research about the financial transactions of the Adani group alleging that the Adani group manipulated its share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of the regulations 

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.VISHAL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1712024 INSC 3Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the Adani-Hindenburg report alleging that the Adani Group manipulated its share price wherein the petitioner is seeking investigation by the Special Investigation Team or by the CBI. Headnotes Constitution of India by an “activist short seller”, Hindenburg Research about the financial transactions of the Adani group alleging that the Adani group manipulated its share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of the regulations
VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLASversusTHE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4427/2024
Decision Date: 20-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC235

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to MBBS admission to a Maharashtra State domicile in Maharashtra despite his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra as a paramilitary personnel. Headnotes Medical admission – Cancellation – Appellant-domicile of Maharashtra and son of Constable in BSF, passed his SSC and HSC exams from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra – Applied for admission to an MBBS course under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer category 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLASversusTHE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7052024 INSC 235Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to MBBS admission to a Maharashtra State domicile in Maharashtra despite his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra as a paramilitary personnel. Headnotes Medical admission – Cancellation – Appellant-domicile of Maharashtra and son of Constable in BSF, passed his SSC and HSC exams from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra – Applied for admission to an MBBS course under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer category
RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9721/2024
Decision Date: 22-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC621

HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, can claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Headnotes† Service Law – Revised – Article 12, 14, 16 – “authority” under Article 12 – Claim for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC, by the appellants- Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) employees appointed as Junior Accountant, Accountant, UDC, LDC on running pay scales to manage the Compulsory SSD 

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.RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5162024 INSC 621Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, can claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Headnotes† Service Law – Revised – Article 12, 14, 16 – “authority” under Article 12 – Claim for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC, by the appellants- Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) employees appointed as Junior Accountant, Accountant, UDC, LDC on running pay scales to manage the Compulsory SSD
KIRPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052/2009
Decision Date: 18-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC312

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed. Headnotes Penal – Prosecution case was that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she was sleeping – She 

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.KIRPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 7072024 INSC 312Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed. Headnotes Penal – Prosecution case was that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she was sleeping – She
BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1358/2024
Decision Date: 07-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1055

BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVI versus THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 16872024 INSC 1055 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and discharging the accused-respondents in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 149, 120B r/w s.34 – Matters of custodial death – High Court solely relying on the reports of the investigating agencies (CID and CBI) held that the occurrence took place in the exercise Flip viewPDF

Summary: BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 16872024 INSC 1055Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and discharging the accused-respondents in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 149, 120B r/w s.34 – Matters of custodial death – High Court solely relying on the reports of the investigating agencies (CID and CBI) held that the occurrence took place in the exerciseFlip viewPDF
MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999
Decision Date: 25-07-2024
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC554

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The questions which arose for determination are as to what is the true nature of royalty of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; whether royalty is in the nature of tax; what is the scope of Entry 50 List II Seventh Schedule; what is the ambit of the limitations imposable by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 54 List I; does 

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.MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 15492024 INSC 554Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The questions which arose for determination are as to what is the true nature of royalty of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; whether royalty is in the nature of tax; what is the scope of Entry 50 List II Seventh Schedule; what is the ambit of the limitations imposable by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 54 List I; does