Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
UNION OF INDIAversusPRANAV SRINIVASAN
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5932/2023
Decision Date: 18-10-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC792

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts.5, 6, 7, 8 – Citizenship Act, 1955 – ss.5, 8 – Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Respondent’s grandparents were born in India, father in 1963 and mother in 1972 – On 19.12.1998, his parents adopted citizenship of Singapore – Respondent was born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore – On 05.05.2017, respondent sought for resumption of his Indian citizenship, however, he was found ineligible 

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 INDIAversusPRANAV SRINIVASAN-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7362024 INSC 792Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts.5, 6, 7, 8 – Citizenship Act, 1955 – ss.5, 8 – Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Respondent’s grandparents were born in India, father in 1963 and mother in 1972 – On 19.12.1998, his parents adopted citizenship of Singapore – Respondent was born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore – On 05.05.2017, respondent sought for resumption of his Indian citizenship, however, he was found ineligible
MARY PUSHPAMversusTELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9941/2016
Decision Date: 03-01-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC8

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts. Headnotes Judicial Discipline – Rule and importance of: Held: Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ promotes decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions – When a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a 

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.MARY PUSHPAMversusTELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 112024 INSC 8Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts. Headnotes Judicial Discipline – Rule and importance of: Held: Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ promotes decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions – When a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a
DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2809/2024
Decision Date: 06-09-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC667

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the possession as offered by Agra Development Authority on 04.12.2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not. Absence if vitiated the offer of possession made by the ADA. Headnotes† Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 – s.4(5) – RERA Act, 2016 – s.19(10) – Offer of possession 

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.DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 972024 INSC 667Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the possession as offered by Agra Development Authority on 04.12.2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not. Absence if vitiated the offer of possession made by the ADA. Headnotes† Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 – s.4(5) – RERA Act, 2016 – s.19(10) – Offer of possession
ATAMJIT SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 516/2024
Decision Date: 22-01-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC84

Unknown

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.ATAMJIT SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11792024 INSC 84Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2 in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the date of the issuance of the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of interference by the High Court in proceedings u/s.138 of the NI Act qua allegedly time barredDecision Date :22-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 516/2024|  Bench :1 Judge
JYOTI DEVIversusSUKET HOSPITAL & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5256/2024
Decision Date: 23-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC330

SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Post surgery of appendicitis at respondent hospital, the claimant- appellant suffered continuous pains near the surgical site. Eventually upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm needle was present in the abdomen and for removing it another surgery had to be Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant. However, State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakhs. NCDRC applying the eggshell skull rule enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs. Appellant sought enhancement of compensation. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Medical 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.JYOTI DEVIversusSUKET HOSPITAL & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 7572024 INSC 330Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Post surgery of appendicitis at respondent hospital, the claimant- appellant suffered continuous pains near the surgical site. Eventually upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm needle was present in the abdomen and for removing it another surgery had to be Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant. However, State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakhs. NCDRC applying the eggshell skull rule enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs. Appellant sought enhancement of compensation. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Medical
RABBU @ SARVESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449/2019
Decision Date: 12-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC720

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty u/ss. 376A and 302 IPC and of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 450 of the IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s. 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.5(g)/6 – Appellant contended that the instant case 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.RABBU @ SARVESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 372024 INSC 720Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty u/ss. 376A and 302 IPC and of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 450 of the IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s. 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.5(g)/6 – Appellant contended that the instant case
ASHOKversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 771/2024
Decision Date: 02-12-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC919

ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 302, 201 IPC as also SC and ST Act 1989; and as regards the role of the Public Prosecutor and appointment of legal – ss.376, 302, 201 – Rape and murder – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape and murder of a ten year old girl – Victim’s cousin-witness to the incident, and narrated the same to the victim’s father – Dead body found hidden at the place 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.ASHOKversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3352024 INSC 919Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 302, 201 IPC as also SC and ST Act 1989; and as regards the role of the Public Prosecutor and appointment of legal – ss.376, 302, 201 – Rape and murder – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape and murder of a ten year old girl – Victim’s cousin-witness to the incident, and narrated the same to the victim’s father – Dead body found hidden at the place of