Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS.versusSHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14807/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1025

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58-60, 65 – Suit filed by the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff, if was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected at the threshold: Held: Yes – The right to sue 

Summary: SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS.versusSHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14452024 INSC 1025Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58-60, 65 – Suit filed by the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff, if was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected at the threshold: Held: Yes – The right to sue
CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANKversusDOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.
Case No.: No. 7298/2022
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1029

ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of s.5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.5(7), 5(8) – ‘Financial creditors’ – Guarantee as financial debt – Requirement of occurrence of default – 1st respondent-bank claims to be a direct lender and secured financial creditor of reliance RITL- Corporate debtor – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by National Company Law Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 7298/2022  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANKversusDOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20432024 INSC 1029Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of s.5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.5(7), 5(8) – ‘Financial creditors’ – Guarantee as financial debt – Requirement of occurrence of default – 1st respondent-bank claims to be a direct lender and secured financial creditor of reliance RITL- Corporate debtor – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by National Company LawDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 7298/2022|  Bench :Judges
GIRIYAPPA & ANR.versusKAMALAMMA & ORS.
Case No.: No. 30804/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1043

GIRIYAPPA & ANR. versus KAMALAMMA & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 20952024 INSC 1043 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration When can the protection u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be granted in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act 1882 – s.53A – Protection of s.53A is available subject to certain to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence – Exception must be strictly construed – High Court committed no error in impugned judgment and order – SLP dismissed: Held: Respondents Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 30804/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: GIRIYAPPA & ANR.versusKAMALAMMA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20952024 INSC 1043Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration When can the protection u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be granted in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act 1882 – s.53A – Protection of s.53A is available subject to certain to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence – Exception must be strictly construed – High Court committed no error in impugned judgment and order – SLP dismissed: Held: RespondentsDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 30804/2024|  Bench :Judges
ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5581/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1039

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Headnotes† CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – Appeals 

Summary: ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14362024 INSC 1039Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Headnotes† CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – Appeals
MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.
Case No.: No. 14803/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1021

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. In other words, whether the suit would be governed by 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.58 and Art.65 – Original Plaintiff-K instituted suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property – Trial Court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiffs were the Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14803/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 18842024 INSC 1021Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. In other words, whether the suit would be governed by 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.58 and Art.65 – Original Plaintiff-K instituted suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property – Trial Court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiffs were theDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14803/2024|  Bench :Judges
SHAMBHU DEBNATHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Case No.: No. 5579/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1032

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE 2083 : 2024 INSC 1032 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his 20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered: Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail – Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 5579/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: SHAMBHU DEBNATHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20832024 INSC 1032Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE2083 : 2024 INSC 1032 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his 20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered: Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail –Decision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 5579/2024|  Bench :Judges
BIJOY KUMAR MONIversusPARESH MANNA & ANR.
Case No.: No. 5556/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1024

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The dishonoured cheque in question was signed by respondent- accused, in his capacity as Director and Authorised Signatory of the Company Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on the account maintained by the Company with Standard Chartered Bank. By the impugned order, the High punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that in absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the respondent-accused was not maintainable; whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order is the question for Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 5556/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: BIJOY KUMAR MONIversusPARESH MANNA & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 19462024 INSC 1024Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The dishonoured cheque in question was signed by respondent- accused, in his capacity as Director and Authorised Signatory of the Company Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on the account maintained by the Company with Standard Chartered Bank. By the impugned order, the High punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that in absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the respondent-accused was not maintainable; whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order is the question forDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 5556/2024|  Bench :Judges
DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5542/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1019

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 – The complainant filed and her parents-in-law (appellants) u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 – The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR before the High Court – The said application was 

Summary: DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15332024 INSC 1019Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 – The complainant filed and her parents-in-law (appellants) u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 – The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR before the High Court – The said application was
SUGIRTHAversusGOWTHAM
Case No.: No. 14833/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1036

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether a child can be made to travel 300 kms to enable the father to exercise visitation rights to the child. Headnotes† Matrimonial disputes between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have company of both parents – Interest of the and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – Though the child was in the care of the father for only 2 months after his birth, it would not compromise the right of the father to visit Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14833/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: SUGIRTHAversusGOWTHAM-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20892024 INSC 1036Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether a child can be made to travel 300 kms to enable the father to exercise visitation rights to the child. Headnotes† Matrimonial disputes between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have company of both parents – Interest of the and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – Though the child was in the care of the father for only 2 months after his birth, it would not compromise the right of the father to visitDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14833/2024|  Bench :Judges
ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.
Case No.: No. 14805/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1023

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – s.154(1)(e) and s.97 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.18 – The Appellate Court vide order dated 20.04.1993 passed in Title Appeal No. 59/1990 held that the appellant herein was entitled to a decree for Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14805/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 19112024 INSC 1023Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – s.154(1)(e) and s.97 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.18 – The Appellate Court vide order dated 20.04.1993 passed in Title Appeal No. 59/1990 held that the appellant herein was entitled to a decree forDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14805/2024|  Bench :Judges
DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusPRITHVI RAJ SINGH
Case No.: No. 14830/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1030

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree. Headnotes† Requirement of filing separate application for condonation of delay while seeking decree – Not mandatory: Held: Requiring a party to mandatorily file an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, to seek restoration of ex-parte decree under Or.IX R.13 and Section 151 CPC, is a hyper technical view – Endorsing such a view would effectively Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14830/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusPRITHVI RAJ SINGH-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20752024 INSC 1030Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree. Headnotes† Requirement of filing separate application for condonation of delay while seeking decree – Not mandatory: Held: Requiring a party to mandatorily file an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, to seek restoration of ex-parte decree under Or.IX R.13 and Section 151 CPC, is a hyper technical view – Endorsing such a view would effectivelyDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14830/2024|  Bench :Judges
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5273/2008
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1044

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the Respondent organization had the locus to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC); (ii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations, which is the exclusive statutory domain of the (iii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest to be charged by banks from their credit card holders for their failure to make full payment on the due date, at the behest of the Reserve Bank of India & unilaterally direct banks/non-banking financial 

Summary: HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14822024 INSC 1044Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the Respondent organization had the locus to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC); (ii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations, which is the exclusive statutory domain of the (iii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest to be charged by banks from their credit card holders for their failure to make full payment on the due date, at the behest of the Reserve Bank of India & unilaterally direct banks/non-banking financial
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusKASHIF
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5544/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2025INSC1045

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of: Held: While 

Summary: NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusKASHIF-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14062025 INSC 1045Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of: Held: While
NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD.versusFEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
Case No.: No. 14826/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1027

SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The issue concerned a challenge to collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by provisions enumerated in Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between Appellant-NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), the Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS); The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, in Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 14826/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD.versusFEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 19972024 INSC 1027Coram : SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The issue concerned a challenge to collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by provisions enumerated in Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between Appellant-NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), the Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS); The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, inDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14826/2024|  Bench :Judges
PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNEversusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.
Case No.: No. 56230/2024
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1051

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation. Headnotes† Condemnation of unscrupulous from one forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive and meritless pleas Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No :  No. 56230/2024  |  Bench :  Judges

Summary: PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNEversusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 21132024 INSC 1051Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation. Headnotes† Condemnation of unscrupulous from one forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive and meritless pleasDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 56230/2024|  Bench :Judges