Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
PARSHURAMversusSTATE OF M.P.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 524/2021
Decision Date: 03-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC973

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the off ences punishable u/s. 302/149, s.326/149, s.324/149, s.323/149, s.147 and s.148 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Accused persons formed an unlawful assembly when the buff alo of the complainant party spoiled the taparia built by the accused, and thereafter grieviously assaulted the complainant and his members
DEBIDUTTA MOHANTYversusRANJAN KUMAR PATTNAIK & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4939/2022
Decision Date: 03-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC203

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 – r. 51(7) – Auction was to be made for grant of lease as per the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules – One of the requirement of the auction notice was that the bidder was required to submit a solvency certificate issued by – The respondent no.1 participated in the tender process and submitted his application along with the solvency certificate issued by the Tehsildar – The solvency certificate was issued despite the specific order passed by the Sub-collector stating that a solvency certificate was to be
M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1278/2023
Decision Date: 17-05-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC547

English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - 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.
						 M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. - [2023] 6 S.C.R. 5702023 INSC 547 KRISHNA MURARI, SANJAY KUMAR Judgments/Orders – Modification of – Vide order dtd. 09.05.2023 passed by Supreme Court, the condition imposed upon the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee for release of the set aside – Appellant was permitted to withdraw the said amount along with 4 percent simple interest payable from 08.05.2006 till the date of actual payment – Modification sought by appellant, in view of various orders passed earlier by the Securities Appellate Tribunal and Supreme
C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5692/2021
Decision Date: 09-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC510

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiதமிழ் - Tamil 




 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.
						 C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS - [2023] 7 S.C.R. 9392023 INSC 510 DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old LA Act) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new LA Act) – Tamil Nadu Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 – Whether the Industrial Purposes Act and the Highways Act are void owing to inherent arbitrariness and infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution – In G. Mohan Rao, the Supreme Court observed that the contention, based on comparative
JITENDRA NATH MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 978/2022
Decision Date: 02-06-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC576

English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.
						 JITENDRA NATH MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR - [2023] 7 S.C.R. 6422023 INSC 576 DIPANKAR DATTA, PANKAJ MITHAL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of power under – Held: What is essential for exercise of the power u/ s.319 is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned – However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by s.319 must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought
KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS.versusNANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413/2023
Decision Date: 31-10-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC964

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Correct application of the principle underlying the rejection of plaints u/Or.VII, r.11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the facts of the case and the legality of rejection of a plaint in part. Code of Civil Procedure, r.11 – Rejection of Plaints – Principle underlying – Application of – Plaintiff s and the Defendants no.1-3 were members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint – Plaintiff s fi led plaint for partition and separate possession
M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHERversusATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7890/2023
Decision Date: 30-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1042

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the application fi led by the appellant u/Or.VII r.11(d) CPC for rejection of the subsequent suit fi led by the respondent-owner for damages for use and occupation of of the lease period. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII r. 11(d) – Application under – First suit fi led by the respondent for possession without claiming any damages for use and occupation – Subsequent suit fi led only for claiming damages for use and occupation
SINGRAULI SUPER THERMAL POWER STATIONversusASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3856/2022
Decision Date: 05-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC618

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s. 19(1) – Non-compliance of principles of Natural justice – Opportunity not given to file objections to the recommendations made by the Committee – NGT constituted an expert committee and sought a violations complained by the first respondent – However, opportunity to raise objections to the report not given to appellants – Held:It is apparent that the appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations made by the Committee constituted
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7versusM/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6126/2021
Decision Date: 06-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC325

M.R. SHAH*, A.S. BOPANNA COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 v. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021) APRIL 06, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.263 – Exercise of jurisdiction under – Respondent filed its income tax return sale proceeds to pay off the shareholders and therefore, the said discharge of encumbrances was “cost of improvement” – Assessment accepted by AO u/s. 143(3) – However, the Commissioner invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the IT Act and held that the assessment order passed
KAMUKAYI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3799/2023
Decision Date: 16-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC541

SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Railways Act, 1989 – ss. 123(c) and 124 – Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 – r. 7 – Claim for compensation – Victim-deceased fell down from the running train between platform and track and sustained grave injuries the spot – FIR was registered – Inquest report and final report submitted clearly revealed that death was an outcome of untoward railway incident – Claim petition was filed before the Railways claims Tribunal – Claims Tribunal held that appellants had failed to prove the
M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONSversusTHE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3461/2023
Decision Date: 09-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC508

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – s.26 – Applicability of Amendment Act, 2015– Whether the provisions of the old Act (pre-Amendment Act, 2015) or the new Act (Amendment Act, 2015) shall be applicable when the notice prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 but application to appoint arbitrator u/s.11(6), 1996 Act is filed post Amendment Act, 2015 – Held: In a case where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 and the application u/s.11(6)is filed post Amendment Act, 2015, the
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1268/2023
Decision Date: 29-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1049

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Union Government has the unilateral power to appoint the Chief Secretary of NCTD and; whether the Union Government has the power to extend the service of the incumbent – Article 239AA(3)(a); VIIth Schedule, State List, Entry 41 – Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991 as amended by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023 – Writ petition fi led by Government of NCTD stating that they have
K. SREEDHARversusM/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7402/2022
Decision Date: 05-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC17

M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 : s. 31(i) – Provisions of the Act not to apply to security interest created in agricultural land – Respondent No. 1-debtor availed credit facilities from the Bank and owing to default Bank issued possession notice of the properties and e-auction held – Challenged to – One of the property purchased by the appellant-auction purchaser – DRT confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant – In writ petition, the High Court set aside the e–auction and
VIJAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4910/2023
Decision Date: 29-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1030

ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the bar of admissibility created by s.35, Stamp Act 1899 applies to the agreement(s) to sell dtd. 04.02.1988 executed by the parties; can a copy of a document be adduced as secondary evidence when the original instrument is not in possession of the party; facts of the present case, would the decision of this Court in Jupadi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subha Rao be binding as held by both the Courts below? Stamp Act, 1899 – s.35 – Applicability – Article 23 of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act – “conveyance”
BALVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 301/2015
Decision Date: 06-10-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC879

J.B. PARDIWALA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The High Court affi rmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court holding appellant-husband guilty of the off ence of murder punishable u/s.302 of the IPC alongwith the off ence punishable u/s. 498A of the IPC and appellant-mother-in-law the IPC r/w. 34 of the IPC, whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, s.498A – Prosecution case was that victim died due to poisoning – At the time of death only her appellant-husband was present –
M/S. SHEKHAR RESORTS LIMITED (UNIT OF ORIENT TAJ)versusUNION OF INDIA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8957/2022
Decision Date: 05-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC15

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 : Deposit of settlement amount under the 2019 Scheme, during moratorium – When impossible in view of the bar under the IBC – Appellant-corporate debtor, if can be made to suffer for no fault of its own and rendered rememediless – On facts, of the appellant u/s. 7 – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the appellant – Appellant subjected to moratorium – Thereafter, Resolution plan approved and the appellant applied for “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 – Appellant could
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusGIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6662/2022
Decision Date: 05-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC12

M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – ss. 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17, 26E – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) – ss. 15-23, 24 – Whether the MSMED Act would prevail recovery proceedings/recoveries under MSMED Act would prevail over the recoveries made/recovery proceedings under provisions of the SARFAESI Act – Held : Sec 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act provides a special mechanism for adjudication of dispute between buyer and seller – But does not
SMT. ROOPA SONIversusKAMALNARAYAN SONI
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5700/2023
Decision Date: 06-09-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC814

SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the trial Court and High Court were justifi ed in adopting a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce, when both the parties had made serious allegations against each other and were living separately for decade Act, 1955 – The appellant-wife registered a complaint u/s. 498A of IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – The respondent-Husband had questioned the character of the appellant-wife – Petition for divorce – Trial Court and the High Court declined decree of
MARKASH JAJARAversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3405/2023
Decision Date: 03-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1015

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.
						 MARKASH JAJARA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 8342023 INSC 1015 SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant was held guilty of having committed the murder of his son-in-law. Whether the off ence attributed to the appellant falls within the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 IPC which defi nes “murder”. Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and – The occurrence took place inside the house of the appellant – The informant had gone to the house of the appellant and found his brother, who had been staying with his in-laws, lying dead – Trial Court on consideration of the evidence held the appellant guilty of committing Decision Date : 03-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3405/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed  | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed  |  Bench : 2 Judges
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusK. SURI BABU
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1320/2010
Decision Date: 29-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1033

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-workman, could be initiated under the Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or it could be done only under the Standing Orders certifi ed Fuel Complex-Hyderabad on 27.08.1973, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Tribunal upheld the initiation of the disciplinary
PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORSversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1545/2023
Decision Date: 08-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC729

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR – Complaint filed by Respondent no.2-wife against appellants (sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law) and her husband for offences punishable u/s.498-A s.4, Dowry Prohibition Act – Petition filed by appellants u/s.482 for quashing, dismissed – On appeal, held: FIR in question as far as appellants are concerned, is an abuse of the process of the Court – Respondent No.2 resided for less than three weeks in the matrimonial home
LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2644/2016
Decision Date: 06-09-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC818

SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court negating the plea of land owner seeking ‘lapse’ of the acquisition proceedings in terms of s. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is liable to be interfered with; whether decision of Nagpur Improvement directed by the High Court, requires interference; and what suitable relief could be granted to land owner on account of delay caused in determination of compensation despite time bound directions by the High Court. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s. 11-A – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act,