Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERSversusBABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8356/2017
Decision Date: 14-03-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC203

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had application to the subject Watan lands; whether the appellants (legal heirs of the original Watandar) were right in proceeding against the tenants u/ss.5, 11 & Offices Act, 1874 after the death of the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958; whether the tenancy in question was lawfully subsisting on Tillers’ Day and were the tenants entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands. 

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.BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERSversusBABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 5932024 INSC 203Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had application to the subject Watan lands; whether the appellants (legal heirs of the original Watandar) were right in proceeding against the tenants u/ss.5, 11 & Offices Act, 1874 after the death of the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958; whether the tenancy in question was lawfully subsisting on Tillers’ Day and were the tenants entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands.
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHIversusOWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2668/2024
Decision Date: 17-05-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC447

M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Applicability of Section 196-A of Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989 vis-à-vis the provisions and mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.103 – Code of Criminal ss.4(1)(e), 196-A – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – s.120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 – Para 2(13) – Proceedings initiated under CrPC, 1989, 

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.NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHIversusOWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 10562024 INSC 447Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Applicability of Section 196-A of Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989 vis-à-vis the provisions and mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.103 – Code of Criminal ss.4(1)(e), 196-A – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – s.120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 – Para 2(13) – Proceedings initiated under CrPC, 1989,
KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4003/2024
Decision Date: 25-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC737

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the said FIR and the chargesheet against that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 – Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by respondent no.2-wife making vague 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 622024 INSC 737Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the said FIR and the chargesheet against that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 – Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by respondent no.2-wife making vague
K. VADIVELversusK. SHANTHI & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4058/2024
Decision Date: 30-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC746

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further investigation – Applications filed by the investigation or re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage 

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.K. VADIVELversusK. SHANTHI & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 746Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further investigation – Applications filed by the investigation or re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage
V. SENTHIL BALAJIversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4011/2024
Decision Date: 26-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC739

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam. Headnotes† Prevention of – ss.3, 4, 45(1) (iii) – Offence of money-laundering – Appellant-former Tamil Nadu transport minister’s alleged involvement in the job racket scam – Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Enforcement Case Information Report – 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.V. SENTHIL BALAJIversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 3932024 INSC 739Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam. Headnotes† Prevention of – ss.3, 4, 45(1) (iii) – Offence of money-laundering – Appellant-former Tamil Nadu transport minister’s alleged involvement in the job racket scam – Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Enforcement Case Information Report – Bail
ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6682/2024
Decision Date: 27-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC457

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent. Headnotes Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Or. XLIV – Appellant-original claimant was injured in an accident – She filed a claim of Rs. 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – The Tribunal vide award dated 17.10.2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- – Dissatisfied, the appellant-claimant approached 

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.ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8962024 INSC 457Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent. Headnotes Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Or. XLIV – Appellant-original claimant was injured in an accident – She filed a claim of Rs. 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – The Tribunal vide award dated 17.10.2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- – Dissatisfied, the appellant-claimant approached
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1496/2023
Decision Date: 16-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC431

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the decision by the National Commission which directed the appellant-insurer to release and pay an insurance claim to the respondent-contractor for the collapse of Act, 1986 – Insurance Contract – Exclusion clause – Interpretation – Payment of insurance claim – Contract for design, construction and management of a bridge awarded to the respondent and another company – Issuance of contractor’s all risk insurance 

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.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3552024 INSC 431Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the decision by the National Commission which directed the appellant-insurer to release and pay an insurance claim to the respondent-contractor for the collapse of Act, 1986 – Insurance Contract – Exclusion clause – Interpretation – Payment of insurance claim – Contract for design, construction and management of a bridge awarded to the respondent and another company – Issuance of contractor’s all risk insurance