Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SATISH P. BHATTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42/2024
Decision Date: 03-01-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC16

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the High Court was justified. Headnotes Disregard for – The High Court cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition in an order granting extension of 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiनेपाली - 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.SATISH P. BHATTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2412024 INSC 16Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the High Court was justified. Headnotes Disregard for – The High Court cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition in an order granting extension of
STATE OF HARYANAversusDR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2024
Decision Date: 22-03-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC263

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR complainant for defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed by the High Court on basis of a 

Summary: Englishनेपाली - 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.STATE OF HARYANAversusDR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10042024 INSC 263Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR complainant for defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed by the High Court on basis of a
BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11005/2024
Decision Date: 04-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC757

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant, while accepting the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-Company, and declaring it to be successful bidder, though the respondent no. 8 had not requirement of submitting the important documents relating to the qualification criteria as contained in Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender-NIT. Headnotes† Government Contracts – Judicial Intervention – Scope of – Tender for mega project – Respondent no. 

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.BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4252024 INSC 757Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant, while accepting the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-Company, and declaring it to be successful bidder, though the respondent no. 8 had not requirement of submitting the important documents relating to the qualification criteria as contained in Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender-NIT. Headnotes† Government Contracts – Judicial Intervention – Scope of – Tender for mega project – Respondent no.
NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 654/2017
Decision Date: 03-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC767

NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 14832024 INSC 767 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Victim-deceased was an employee of a company that company wanted some of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office meeting the Flip viewPDF

Summary: NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14832024 INSC 767Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Victim-deceased was an employee of a company that company wanted some of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office meeting theFlip viewPDF
GIRISH GANDHIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 149/2024
Decision Date: 22-08-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC617

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Multiple cases were filed against the petitioner. Though he was granted bail in all of them, he was not able to furnish multiple sureties. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for also. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.441 – Bond of accused and sureties – Constitution of India – Article 21 – 13 FIRs against the petitioner in 6 States – Enlarged on bail with conditions in all of them – Unable to find 

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.GIRISH GANDHIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5612024 INSC 617Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Multiple cases were filed against the petitioner. Though he was granted bail in all of them, he was not able to furnish multiple sureties. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for also. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.441 – Bond of accused and sureties – Constitution of India – Article 21 – 13 FIRs against the petitioner in 6 States – Enlarged on bail with conditions in all of them – Unable to find
RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusRAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9958/2024
Decision Date: 06-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC715

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to foreclosing of the right of the opposite party- appellant to file written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Procedure on admission of complaint – Foreclosing of the right to file written statement – Effect Commission foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement and complainants given six weeks to file affidavit of evidence and the matter directed to be listed after five months – Challenge to: Held: Not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was 

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.RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusRAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6382024 INSC 715Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to foreclosing of the right of the opposite party- appellant to file written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Procedure on admission of complaint – Foreclosing of the right to file written statement – Effect Commission foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement and complainants given six weeks to file affidavit of evidence and the matter directed to be listed after five months – Challenge to: Held: Not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was
MANIKANDANversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1609/2011
Decision Date: 05-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC272

ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the police and its effect on the prosecution case. Headnotes Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses by the police – Effect: Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor witnesses – It amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was 

Summary: Englishनेपाली - 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.MANIKANDANversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2342024 INSC 272Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the police and its effect on the prosecution case. Headnotes Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses by the police – Effect: Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor witnesses – It amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was
NITYA NANDversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1348/2014
Decision Date: 04-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC655

ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly and if he actually took part in the crime or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 was convicted for the murder of his Uncle – Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly – Plea of the appellant that both the courts below erred in convicting him as the allegation against him was that he was carrying a country- made pistol, however, neither were there 

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.NITYA NANDversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 372024 INSC 655Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly and if he actually took part in the crime or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 was convicted for the murder of his Uncle – Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly – Plea of the appellant that both the courts below erred in convicting him as the allegation against him was that he was carrying a country- made pistol, however, neither were there