Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
BHARTI ARORAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1699/2011
Decision Date: 13-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was justified in recording the findings against as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.36-A, 58 – In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007 

Summary: BHARTI ARORAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1044Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was justified in recording the findings against as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.36-A, 58 – In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007
TIRITH KUMAR & ORS.versusDADURAM & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13516/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the parties to the instant lis. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.2(2) – Application of the Act – Constitution of India – Articles 366(25), 341, 342 – Central Provinces belonged to Sawara tribe, a notified scheduled tribe and thus, the HSA, 1956 does not apply to them – Granted a portion as property to M’s daughters and their descendants (respondents) on the grounds of justice, equity and good conscience – Correctness: Held: HSA, 1956 

Summary: TIRITH KUMAR & ORS.versusDADURAM & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 665Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the parties to the instant lis. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.2(2) – Application of the Act – Constitution of India – Articles 366(25), 341, 342 – Central Provinces belonged to Sawara tribe, a notified scheduled tribe and thus, the HSA, 1956 does not apply to them – Granted a portion as property to M’s daughters and their descendants (respondents) on the grounds of justice, equity and good conscience – Correctness: Held: HSA, 1956
RAJU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1151/2010
Decision Date: 31-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC633

SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness: Held: 

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.RAJU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11472024 INSC 633Coram : SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness: Held:
M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD.versusGENERAL MANAGER & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13004/2024
Decision Date: 22-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC889

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate; and whether the application filed u/s.29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Time limit for arbitral award – Extension of time – Application u/s.29A(4), for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal – High 

Summary: M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD.versusGENERAL MANAGER & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8502024 INSC 889Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate; and whether the application filed u/s.29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Time limit for arbitral award – Extension of time – Application u/s.29A(4), for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal – High
MUKESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14808/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1026

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi) – Indian – Whether the appellant satisfied the conditions enumerated in s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act and the compromise decree in his favor only asserting his pre-existing rights over the subject land required no registration and was not chargeable with stamp duty: Held: s.17(1), 1908 Act specifies the 

Summary: MUKESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12102024 INSC 1026Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi) – Indian – Whether the appellant satisfied the conditions enumerated in s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act and the compromise decree in his favor only asserting his pre-existing rights over the subject land required no registration and was not chargeable with stamp duty: Held: s.17(1), 1908 Act specifies the
AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14828/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the refusal of Kerala Public Service Commission to expand vacancies despite the directions of the tribunal. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Expansion of rank lists – Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC invited Junior Health Inspector for 14 districts of Kerala – Rank List published for the notified districts – Appellants sought directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the post on account of overlapping candidates in multiple lists, and several vacancies remained unfilled 

Summary: AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1148Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the refusal of Kerala Public Service Commission to expand vacancies despite the directions of the tribunal. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Expansion of rank lists – Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC invited Junior Health Inspector for 14 districts of Kerala – Rank List published for the notified districts – Appellants sought directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the post on account of overlapping candidates in multiple lists, and several vacancies remained unfilled
PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5543/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1020

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house – 

Summary: PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 11602024 INSC 1020Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house –
VIJAYA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2013
Decision Date: 25-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC905

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the 

Summary: VIJAYA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9062024 INSC 905Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 261/2024
Decision Date: 23-09-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC747

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the application filed by applicant seeking his release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence of more Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Presumption and determination of age – As regards incident of 17.01.2002, the applicant convicted by the Special Sessions Judge, however, acquitted by the High Court – Subsequently, this 

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 MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4112024 INSC 747Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the application filed by applicant seeking his release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence of more Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Presumption and determination of age – As regards incident of 17.01.2002, the applicant convicted by the Special Sessions Judge, however, acquitted by the High Court – Subsequently, this
DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 163/2010
Decision Date: 04-01-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC19

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – appellant along with the lady with whom he had illicit relations, administered poison to the appellant’s wife, with the motive to eliminate her and caused her death – Conviction u/s.302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the order of conviction 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.DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2482024 INSC 19Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – appellant along with the lady with whom he had illicit relations, administered poison to the appellant’s wife, with the motive to eliminate her and caused her death – Conviction u/s.302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the order of conviction and
ALAUDDIN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1637/2021
Decision Date: 03-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC376

ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen theory and motive not established. Headnotes Penal Code, Murder and unlawful assembly – Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable u/ ss. 302/149 for committing murder of the victim by the courts below – Correctness – Plea that statements in evidence of prosecution witness full of omissions and contradictions, 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.ALAUDDIN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 202024 INSC 376Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen theory and motive not established. Headnotes Penal Code, Murder and unlawful assembly – Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable u/ ss. 302/149 for committing murder of the victim by the courts below – Correctness – Plea that statements in evidence of prosecution witness full of omissions and contradictions, and
BIJAY AGARWALversusM/S MEDILINES
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4301/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC918

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with the Flip viewPDF

Summary: BIJAY AGARWALversusM/S MEDILINES-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18902024 INSC 918Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with theFlip viewPDF