Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
K.C. KAUSHIK AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11711/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC803

PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension. Headnotes† Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – Claimed parity with Lecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of pension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment of revised pension sought – Claims rejected – Writ petition filed – During pendency Flip viewPDF

Summary: K.C. KAUSHIK AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17362024 INSC 803Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension. Headnotes† Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – Claimed parity with Lecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of pension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment of revised pension sought – Claims rejected – Writ petition filed – During pendencyFlip viewPDF
KARIKHO KRIversusNUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4615/2023
Decision Date: 09-04-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC289

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration In the year 2019, appellant-KK an independent candidate emerged victorious in Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency. The issue arising for consideration is as to the validity of the High Court’s findings that grounds u/ss. of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were established, warranting invalidation of the election of KK. Headnotes Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 100(1)(b), 100(1) (d)(i), 123 – Election – Filing of nomination – Submission of material 

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.KARIKHO KRIversusNUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3942024 INSC 289Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration In the year 2019, appellant-KK an independent candidate emerged victorious in Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency. The issue arising for consideration is as to the validity of the High Court’s findings that grounds u/ss. of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were established, warranting invalidation of the election of KK. Headnotes Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 100(1)(b), 100(1) (d)(i), 123 – Election – Filing of nomination – Submission of material
SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3821/2023
Decision Date: 06-09-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC664

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in disturbing the custody of the child, aged one year and five months at the time of passing the order, by handing over the custody of the child to her father and paternal side relatives from the custody of her maternal – Art. 226 – Writ of Habeas Corpus under, seeking custody of minor – Minor child aged 11 months, in custody of maternal side relatives after the unatural death of her mother – Arrest of father in connection with mother’s death, however later released on bail – 

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.SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 642024 INSC 664Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in disturbing the custody of the child, aged one year and five months at the time of passing the order, by handing over the custody of the child to her father and paternal side relatives from the custody of her maternal – Art. 226 – Writ of Habeas Corpus under, seeking custody of minor – Minor child aged 11 months, in custody of maternal side relatives after the unatural death of her mother – Arrest of father in connection with mother’s death, however later released on bail –
DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 18802/2017
Decision Date: 15-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC528

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the Resolution passed by the State Government based upon the recommendations by the State Backward Commission that in the list of Extremely Backward Classes, the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste be merged in the the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ mentioned at Serial No. Entry 20 so that they could get benefits of the Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other 

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.DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7962024 INSC 528Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the Resolution passed by the State Government based upon the recommendations by the State Backward Commission that in the list of Extremely Backward Classes, the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste be merged in the the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ mentioned at Serial No. Entry 20 so that they could get benefits of the Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
S.P. PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6186/2018
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC804

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals. Headnotes† Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulations for the Air Force – 

Summary: S.P. PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 23142024 INSC 804Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals. Headnotes† Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulations for the Air Force –
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSHILPA JAIN & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1565/2024
Decision Date: 05-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC278

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court is correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR filed against Respondents. Headnotes Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 482 – Whether High Court proceeded on false premise that the Suit Property State of Madhya Pradesh – Consequently proceeded to quash the FIR against Respondents: Held: The Trial Court categorically found that the Suit Property belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh while dismissing the Civil Suit – This finding was upheld by the High Court – The facts 

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.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSHILPA JAIN & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3722024 INSC 278Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court is correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR filed against Respondents. Headnotes Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 482 – Whether High Court proceeded on false premise that the Suit Property State of Madhya Pradesh – Consequently proceeded to quash the FIR against Respondents: Held: The Trial Court categorically found that the Suit Property belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh while dismissing the Civil Suit – This finding was upheld by the High Court – The facts
M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1565/2022
Decision Date: 08-11-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC861

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose, whether the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction; whether the suit instituted was barred by limitation; and whether the suit for specific performance must be decreed. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVII r.1 – Review of judgments of Supreme Court – Suit fo specific performance – Decision Date : 08-11-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1565/2022  | Direction Issue : Review Petitions allowed.  |  Bench : 3 Judges

Summary: M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 6672024 INSC 861Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose, whether the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction; whether the suit instituted was barred by limitation; and whether the suit for specific performance must be decreed. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVII r.1 – Review of judgments of Supreme Court – Suit fo specific performance –Decision Date :08-11-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1565/2022| Direction Issue :Review Petitions allowed.|  Bench :3 Judges
JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1753/2024
Decision Date: 06-02-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC86

Unknown

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.JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1232024 INSC 86Issue for Consideration Exemption of pre-emption as granted vide notification dated 08.10.1985, if available to the urban immovable property on which right of pre-emption was sought to be exercised by the tenants. Headnotes Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – ss. 16, 8(2), 3(1), (3) – vests in an urban immovable property – Tenants were in the property from the year 1949 onwards where the rolling mill had been set up – Property was an urban immovable property, located in a municipal area of Jagadhri – Owners of the property sold the property to theDecision Date :06-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1753/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed|  Bench :1 Judge
SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2012
Decision Date: 10-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC294

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing accused no. 1 u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 324 – Murder – dangerous weapon or means – Right of private defence, if applicable – On facts, morning incident wherein quarrel between the complainant and accused on account of blocking the way and accused persons hurled abuses to her – In the evening, the complainant informed her father 

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.SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3282024 INSC 294Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing accused no. 1 u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 324 – Murder – dangerous weapon or means – Right of private defence, if applicable – On facts, morning incident wherein quarrel between the complainant and accused on account of blocking the way and accused persons hurled abuses to her – In the evening, the complainant informed her father