Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
S. TIRUPATHI RAOversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7920/2024
Decision Date: 22-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC544

SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration 1. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, exercised the jurisdiction of review in accordance with the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, erroneously entertained contempt Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Power to review, not an inherent power, it has to be specifically conferred by law – Contours and extent of review jurisdiction – Explained: Held: The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherent 

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.S. TIRUPATHI RAOversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10772024 INSC 544Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration 1. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, exercised the jurisdiction of review in accordance with the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, erroneously entertained contempt Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Power to review, not an inherent power, it has to be specifically conferred by law – Contours and extent of review jurisdiction – Explained: Held: The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherent
STATE BANK OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 486/2024
Decision Date: 11-03-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC195

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						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 BANK OF INDIA versus ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 6372024 INSC 195 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA 637 : 2024 INSC 195 State Bank of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 486 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017) WITH (Contempt Petition (Civil) No 138 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017) & (Contempt Petition (Civil) No This case pertains to a Miscellaneous Application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking an extension of time until 30 June 2024 - two days before the expiry of the stipulated deadline - for complying with the directions given by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 15 Decision Date : 11-03-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 486/2024  | Direction Issue : Miscellaneous Application by the SBI dismissed. Contempt Petitions disposed of.   |  Bench : 5 Judges
M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD.versusM/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2032/2011
Decision Date: 21-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC237

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the Standing Orders read in conjunction with the terms of the appointment order restrain the transferability of employees. Headnotes Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Validity of transfers of employees – orders as opposed to terms of appointment – Reconcilable – Transfer of employees were valid under the Standing Orders and the terms of appointment. [Para 12-15] Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Interpretation of terms of appointment and standing orders 

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. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD.versusM/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 9592024 INSC 237Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the Standing Orders read in conjunction with the terms of the appointment order restrain the transferability of employees. Headnotes Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Validity of transfers of employees – orders as opposed to terms of appointment – Reconcilable – Transfer of employees were valid under the Standing Orders and the terms of appointment. [Para 12-15] Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Interpretation of terms of appointment and standing orders
MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1056/2024
Decision Date: 20-02-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC125

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 faced trial u/s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act – Acquitted – Appeal against the acquittal u/s. 378 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay – The said application was allowed – Against the said order, the appellant moved 

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.MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6382024 INSC 125Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 faced trial u/s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act – Acquitted – Appeal against the acquittal u/s. 378 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay – The said application was allowed – Against the said order, the appellant moved
GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12234/2024
Decision Date: 07-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC853

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose, as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant’s application u/s.11 of the Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms the Master Services Agreement executed between the parties. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Scope of inquiry under – Standard of judicial scrutiny – Master Services Agreement between the appellant and the respondent – Dispute 

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.GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 5302024 INSC 853Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose, as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant’s application u/s.11 of the Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms the Master Services Agreement executed between the parties. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Scope of inquiry under – Standard of judicial scrutiny – Master Services Agreement between the appellant and the respondent – Dispute
K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL)versusGYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4785/2024
Decision Date: 08-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC281

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether there was sufficient cause for delay of fourteen years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX Rule 7 – Application filed after delay of 14 years s. 5 – Condonation of delay is discretionary power of the court – Power to be exercised judiciously – Not in cases of gross negligence on part of litigant – 14 years delay cannot be condoned – ‘Sufficient cause’ not shown – Gross negligence on 

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.K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL)versusGYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6162024 INSC 281Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether there was sufficient cause for delay of fourteen years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX Rule 7 – Application filed after delay of 14 years s. 5 – Condonation of delay is discretionary power of the court – Power to be exercised judiciously – Not in cases of gross negligence on part of litigant – 14 years delay cannot be condoned – ‘Sufficient cause’ not shown – Gross negligence on
TAPAS GUHA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4603/2024
Decision Date: 06-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC399

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The Appellants in an Original Application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) contended that there was widespread cutting of shade trees, uprooting of tea bushes and eviction of tea estate workers in the Doloo Tea Estate, the site Airport Project in Assam, without obtaining environmental clearance. It was also contended that this was in violation of the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, which necessitates prior Environmental Clearance and public consultation for Category-A projects in 

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.TAPAS GUHA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 752024 INSC 399Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The Appellants in an Original Application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) contended that there was widespread cutting of shade trees, uprooting of tea bushes and eviction of tea estate workers in the Doloo Tea Estate, the site Airport Project in Assam, without obtaining environmental clearance. It was also contended that this was in violation of the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, which necessitates prior Environmental Clearance and public consultation for Category-A projects in