Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIAversusSATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3851/2023
Decision Date: 19-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC319

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.236, 73(a) and 235A – Trial of offences by Special Court – 

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.INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIAversusSATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 319Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.236, 73(a) and 235A – Trial of offences by Special Court –
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.versusM/S SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11723/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC805

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and Respondent, a company, entered into a lease agreement for leasing storage space for a period of three years. Clause 16 of the agreement incorporated Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of Respondent from its premises. Respondent invoked arbitration by filing an Flip viewPDF

Summary: CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.versusM/S SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17482024 INSC 805Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and Respondent, a company, entered into a lease agreement for leasing storage space for a period of three years. Clause 16 of the agreement incorporated Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of Respondent from its premises. Respondent invoked arbitration by filing anFlip viewPDF
IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995
Decision Date: 06-03-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC178

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; in Corbett Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution. Headnotes Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and protection of – Whether 

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.IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1872024 INSC 178Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; in Corbett Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution. Headnotes Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and protection of – Whether
REKHA SHARMAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5051/2023
Decision Date: 21-08-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC615

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The High Court while declaring the result of Preliminary Examination for the post of the cadre of Civil Judge, showed the cut off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement, however did not show the cut off marks for the category of Persons Issue arose as to the legality of the action of the High Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 16 (1), (4) – Reservation for the persons with disabilities – Direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge – Appellants, suffering from disabilities 

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.REKHA SHARMAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4882024 INSC 615Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The High Court while declaring the result of Preliminary Examination for the post of the cadre of Civil Judge, showed the cut off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement, however did not show the cut off marks for the category of Persons Issue arose as to the legality of the action of the High Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 16 (1), (4) – Reservation for the persons with disabilities – Direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge – Appellants, suffering from disabilities
BASUDEV DUTTAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13919/2024
Decision Date: 05-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC940

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the termination order of the appellant-employee after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post. Headnotes† Service law Suitability for employment to the post – Employee-Ophthalmic Assistant with the State Government, terminated from service after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post – 

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.BASUDEV DUTTAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4182024 INSC 940Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the termination order of the appellant-employee after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post. Headnotes† Service law Suitability for employment to the post – Employee-Ophthalmic Assistant with the State Government, terminated from service after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post –
BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3291/2009
Decision Date: 16-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC781

ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the treatment to be given to broken period interest, whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed by the Bank, purchaser of the government Securities. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.28 – Interest on Maturity (HTM) government securities – Interest for the broken period, if allowed as a deduction: Held: As the securities were treated as stock-in-trade, the interest on the broken period cannot be considered as capital expenditure and will have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which 

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.BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 8602024 INSC 781Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the treatment to be given to broken period interest, whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed by the Bank, purchaser of the government Securities. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.28 – Interest on Maturity (HTM) government securities – Interest for the broken period, if allowed as a deduction: Held: As the securities were treated as stock-in-trade, the interest on the broken period cannot be considered as capital expenditure and will have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which
RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 935/2021
Decision Date: 21-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC891

RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR. versus VED PRAKASH - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 14662024 INSC 891 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the litigant can be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay in preferring appeal. Headnotes† Delay – Condonation of delay – The petitioners-plaintiffs herein were dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in before the first appellate court by way of an appeal – However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days – First Appellate Court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring appeal on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate 

Summary: RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14662024 INSC 891Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the litigant can be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay in preferring appeal. Headnotes† Delay – Condonation of delay – The petitioners-plaintiffs herein were dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in before the first appellate court by way of an appeal – However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days – First Appellate Court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring appeal on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMAYA DEVI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 15016/2024
Decision Date: 02-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained. Headnotes† Accident resulting in the death of R1 and R2 involved in the accident – Witnesses’ accounts confirmed involvement – Confirmed by Final Report under S. 173, CrPC – Insurance Company could not disprove: Held: Per the MACT award, various witnesses had stated that it was the vehicle described in the complaint that was 

Summary: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMAYA DEVI & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 999Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained. Headnotes† Accident resulting in the death of R1 and R2 involved in the accident – Witnesses’ accounts confirmed involvement – Confirmed by Final Report under S. 173, CrPC – Insurance Company could not disprove: Held: Per the MACT award, various witnesses had stated that it was the vehicle described in the complaint that was
M. VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1078/2024
Decision Date: 21-02-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC177

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Abetment of suicide sustainable – Prosecution case that the appellant and others abducted and wrongful confined the victim for repayment of the balance amount and the inability to withstand the torment, he committed suicide – Conviction of the appellant u/ss. 306, 342 and 365 by the trial court, 

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. VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10542024 INSC 177Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Abetment of suicide sustainable – Prosecution case that the appellant and others abducted and wrongful confined the victim for repayment of the balance amount and the inability to withstand the torment, he committed suicide – Conviction of the appellant u/ss. 306, 342 and 365 by the trial court,