Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKRISH SPINNING
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7821/2024
Decision Date: 18-07-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC532

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties would operate as a bar to invoke arbitration; as regards the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny that an application u/s. 11(6) of Act 1996 can be subjected to when a plea of “accord and satisfaction” is taken by the defendant; and as regards the effect of the decision of this Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Stamp Act 1899 

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.SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKRISH SPINNING-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 8402024 INSC 532Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties would operate as a bar to invoke arbitration; as regards the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny that an application u/s. 11(6) of Act 1996 can be subjected to when a plea of “accord and satisfaction” is taken by the defendant; and as regards the effect of the decision of this Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Stamp Act 1899
TARUN DHAMEJAversusSUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14005/2024
Decision Date: 06-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR 987 : 2024 INSC 973 Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 14005 of 2024) 06 December 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the arbitration clause between the parties is non-existent or requires agreement of all the parties to the in a partnership deed invoked by Appellant who is the legal representative of a deceased partner – Arbitration clause reads as: “That if at any time either during the continuance of the partnership or after the retirement of any partner, any dispute or difference shall arise between 

Summary: TARUN DHAMEJAversusSUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 987Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR987 : 2024 INSC 973 Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 14005 of 2024) 06 December 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the arbitration clause between the parties is non-existent or requires agreement of all the parties to the in a partnership deed invoked by Appellant who is the legal representative of a deceased partner – Arbitration clause reads as: “That if at any time either during the continuance of the partnership or after the retirement of any partner, any dispute or difference shall arise between
JATINDER KUMAR SAPRAversusANUPAMA SAPRA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6088/2024
Decision Date: 06-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC382

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was it a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage? Headnotes† Factors to be considered jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Explained: Held: Both the Family Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dismissed the petition instituted by the Appellant 

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.JATINDER KUMAR SAPRAversusANUPAMA SAPRA-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8792024 INSC 382Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was it a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage? Headnotes† Factors to be considered jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Explained: Held: Both the Family Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dismissed the petition instituted by the Appellant
SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2807/2024
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC472

ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint filed by the second respondent stating that the contentions raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated and under Section 362 of the Cr. PC. Headnotes† Quashing – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.362 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the agreements for sale filed against the appellants by the second respondent and his brother was later 

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.SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1272024 INSC 472Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint filed by the second respondent stating that the contentions raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated and under Section 362 of the Cr. PC. Headnotes† Quashing – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.362 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the agreements for sale filed against the appellants by the second respondent and his brother was later
DR. RAJIV VERGHESEversusROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12546/2024
Decision Date: 19-11-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC876

DR. RAJIV VERGHESE versus ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS  - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13122024 INSC 876 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before Family Court. Appellant (wife) filed an application for maintenance in the same proceeding and the Family Court by an Order granted a monthly interim (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only) to her. This order was challenged before the High Court by the Respondent. The High Court modified the order of the Family Court by reducing the monthly interim maintenance to Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty thousand only). Before the Supreme Court, the Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12546/2024  | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal No. 12547 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 19922 of 2023 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 4109 of 2023 is dismissed.  |  Bench : 2 Judges

Summary: DR. RAJIV VERGHESEversusROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13122024 INSC 876Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before Family Court. Appellant (wife) filed an application for maintenance in the same proceeding and the Family Court by an Order granted a monthly interim (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only) to her. This order was challenged before the High Court by the Respondent. The High Court modified the order of the Family Court by reducing the monthly interim maintenance to Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty thousand only). Before the Supreme Court, theDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12546/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal No. 12547 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 19922 of 2023 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 4109 of 2023 is dismissed.|  Bench :2 Judges
AKANKSHA ARORAversusTANAY MABEN
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5004/2024
Decision Date: 04-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off

AKANKSHA ARORA versus TANAY MABEN - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 954 PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court can convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into a revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it as per law; Whether s.397 CrPC can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – petition u/s.482 CrPC in the High Court seeking enhancement of interim maintenance – The said petition has been dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned on the ground that it is not maintainable as the appellant-wife has a remedy of a revision u/s.397 CrPC – Correctness: 

Summary: AKANKSHA ARORAversusTANAY MABEN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 954Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court can convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into a revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it as per law; Whether s.397 CrPC can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – petition u/s.482 CrPC in the High Court seeking enhancement of interim maintenance – The said petition has been dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned on the ground that it is not maintainable as the appellant-wife has a remedy of a revision u/s.397 CrPC – Correctness:
MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.versusVITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3573/2024
Decision Date: 28-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC636

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. K (President of a Society), in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of ₹79,54,26,963/- – Further case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 is a 

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.MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.versusVITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7532024 INSC 636Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. K (President of a Society), in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of ₹79,54,26,963/- – Further case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 is a
JAVED AHMAD HAJAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2024
Decision Date: 07-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC187

ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR filed against him for the offence punishable u/s.153-A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.153-A – When not attracted – Appellant- group that consisted of college teachers, students, and parents – He had put up a Whatsapp status protesting against the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and a picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th August-Happy 

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.JAVED AHMAD HAJAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3172024 INSC 187Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR filed against him for the offence punishable u/s.153-A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.153-A – When not attracted – Appellant- group that consisted of college teachers, students, and parents – He had put up a Whatsapp status protesting against the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and a picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th August-Happy
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICEversusJUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4272/2024
Decision Date: 15-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC219

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether gap between the retirement of a District Judge and her subsequent appointment as the Judge of the High Court would constitute ‘break in service’ adversely affecting her benefits. Headnotes The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s. 14, 15, Para 2, Part III of the First Schedule – Entitlement of High Court Judge promoted from District Judiciary to pension and retirement benefits despite break in service – 

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.UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICEversusJUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8482024 INSC 219Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether gap between the retirement of a District Judge and her subsequent appointment as the Judge of the High Court would constitute ‘break in service’ adversely affecting her benefits. Headnotes The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s. 14, 15, Para 2, Part III of the First Schedule – Entitlement of High Court Judge promoted from District Judiciary to pension and retirement benefits despite break in service –