Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7768/2023
Decision Date: 01-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC159

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Appellants, legal representatives of the original opposite party-a sole proprietor (since deceased) who had entered into a Development Agreement with the respondents-complainants, if liable to discharge the obligations which had to in his personal capacity based on his skills and expertise. Headnotes Consumer Protection – Legal representatives of sole proprietor-developer (since deceased), if liable for personal contract of the deceased – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.37, 40 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 

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.VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1272024 INSC 159Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Appellants, legal representatives of the original opposite party-a sole proprietor (since deceased) who had entered into a Development Agreement with the respondents-complainants, if liable to discharge the obligations which had to in his personal capacity based on his skills and expertise. Headnotes Consumer Protection – Legal representatives of sole proprietor-developer (since deceased), if liable for personal contract of the deceased – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.37, 40 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
PARSWANATH SAHAversusBANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14804/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1022

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20, prior to the 2018 Amendment specific performance – Agreement of Sale was executed by the predecessor of the defendants- respondents (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant however, he died before the execution of the Sale deed – Defendants declined to 

Summary: PARSWANATH SAHAversusBANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 11862024 INSC 1022Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20, prior to the 2018 Amendment specific performance – Agreement of Sale was executed by the predecessor of the defendants- respondents (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant however, he died before the execution of the Sale deed – Defendants declined to
HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11758/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC797

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied. Headnotes† Land ss.4, 6, 23(1) – Assessment of Market Value for Acquired Lands – Comparable Sales Method – Deduction for Developmental Charges: Held: Compensation for acquired lands must reflect their fair market value as of the date of the Section 4 notification – The Flip viewPDF

Summary: HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17092024 INSC 797Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration (1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied. Headnotes† Land ss.4, 6, 23(1) – Assessment of Market Value for Acquired Lands – Comparable Sales Method – Deduction for Developmental Charges: Held: Compensation for acquired lands must reflect their fair market value as of the date of the Section 4 notification – TheFlip viewPDF
STATE OF KERALAversusUNION OF INDIA
Case No.: ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1/2024
Decision Date: 01-04-2024
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC253

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration What is the true import and interpretation of the expression “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” contained in Article 131 of the Constitution; Does Article 293 enforceable right to raise borrowing from the Union government and/or other sources and if yes, to what extent such right can be regulated by the Union government; Can the borrowing by State-Owned Enterprises and liabilities arising out of the Public Account be included under the purview of 

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 KERALAversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 132024 INSC 253Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration What is the true import and interpretation of the expression “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” contained in Article 131 of the Constitution; Does Article 293 enforceable right to raise borrowing from the Union government and/or other sources and if yes, to what extent such right can be regulated by the Union government; Can the borrowing by State-Owned Enterprises and liabilities arising out of the Public Account be included under the purview of
RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 13001/2024
Decision Date: 22-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC913

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI versus HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13432024 INSC 913 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Headnotes† Code 1908 – Order 43, 39 – Appeals from Orders – Appellate jurisdiction u/Or.43 – Scope: Held: Appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the 

Summary: RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13432024 INSC 913Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Headnotes† Code 1908 – Order 43, 39 – Appeals from Orders – Appellate jurisdiction u/Or.43 – Scope: Held: Appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the
M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITEDversusA.S. RAGHAVENDRA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5187/2023
Decision Date: 02-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC265

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent would or would not come within the definitional stipulation of a “workman” as laid out under Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Headnotes Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – “workman” – When Business Head (South) in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales performed managerial and supervisory work, if a “workman”: Held: No – Respondent himself described his position as a Member of the senior management cadre, in-charge of supervising the Account Managers in the 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITEDversusA.S. RAGHAVENDRA-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 1002024 INSC 265Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the respondent would or would not come within the definitional stipulation of a “workman” as laid out under Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Headnotes Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – “workman” – When Business Head (South) in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales performed managerial and supervisory work, if a “workman”: Held: No – Respondent himself described his position as a Member of the senior management cadre, in-charge of supervising the Account Managers in the
ACHIN GUPTAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2379/2024
Decision Date: 03-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC369

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – 

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.ACHIN GUPTAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 1292024 INSC 369Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
JAGGOversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14831/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1034

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment. Headnotes† Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally engaged by the Central Water housekeeping and support functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments – Appellants sought regularization of their services on the ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the 

Summary: JAGGOversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12352024 INSC 1034Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment. Headnotes† Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally engaged by the Central Water housekeeping and support functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments – Appellants sought regularization of their services on the ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the
SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusV. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7293/2010
Decision Date: 04-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC165

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration A suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the suit schedule properties. The Judgment of the High Court placed reliance upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed. Whether the High error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965; whether evidence could be led beyond pleadings. Headnotes Pleadings – Evidence beyond pleadings – Appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for the reason that 

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.SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusV. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 462024 INSC 165Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration A suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the suit schedule properties. The Judgment of the High Court placed reliance upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed. Whether the High error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965; whether evidence could be led beyond pleadings. Headnotes Pleadings – Evidence beyond pleadings – Appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for the reason that