Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITEDversusUTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED
Case No.: ARBITRATION PETITION No. 43/2022
Decision Date: 06-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC976

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the dictum as laid down in ICOMM Tele Limited’s case can be made applicable to the instant case, when Clause 55 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for a pre-deposit of claim for the purpose of invoking the arbitration clause; whether there is any direct confl ict between the decisions of this Court in S.K. Jain’s case and ICOMM Tele Limited ’s case; whether this Court while deciding a petition fi led u/s. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 43/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed  | Direction Issue : Application allowed  |  Bench : 3 Judges
VIKAS CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2022
Decision Date: 21-04-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC412

K.M. JOSEPH*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Sentence/Sentencing: Imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission – Correctness of – Victim aged 18 years, kidnapped for ransom and on the same day was killed by strangulation, and the body was burnt, to eliminate evidence – of murder, the accused regularly made ransom calls to the family – Trial court convicted all the accused persons u/ss. 302, 364A, 201, r/w s. 120B – Appellants-A-1 and A-2 also convicted u/s. 411 with A-1 additionally u/ss. 420, 468 and 471 and sentenced to life imprisonment
DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 930/2023
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC491

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 : Applicability of the Act – On facts, suit field comprising 3 acres and 20 guntas – Vide registered sale deed, 2 acres 20 guntas of the suit field purchased by first defendant from second defendant – second defendant – Later on, the co-defendant sold the said suit field to the appellant vide registered sale deed in the year 1979 – Possession disturbed by second defendant-first respondent – Suit for possession by the appellant-plaintiff – Trial court held that
UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusD.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1663/2016
Decision Date: 09-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC995

A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in holding that the respondents would be entitled to the benefi t in terms of para 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission and in that regard whether the contention of the appellant that it ought to have been guided by para 3.1.14. Service Law – Parity in pay scales – Historical similarity – Respondent-Association of Employees in the Head Quarters of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) sought upgradation of the pay scales of
M/S. K.B. TEA PRODUCT PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SILIGURI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2297/2011
Decision Date: 12-05-2023
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC530

M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 – ss.2(17), 17(3)(a)(xi), 39 – West Bengal Finance Act, 2001 – West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 – r.52 – Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 Whether despite s.2(17) of the 1994 Act which was amended w.e.f. 01.08.2001, omitting “tea blending” from the definition of “manufacture”, the appellants shall still be entitled to the exemption from payment of sales tax – Held: Per M.R. Shah, J. Nobody can claim the Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2297/2011 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench  | Direction Issue : Matters to be placed before Hon’ble CJI.  |  Bench : 2 Judges
PRAKASH BANGversusGLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6791/2013
Decision Date: 05-09-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC794

A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether there is suffi cient evidence to establish that the complainant suff ered ‘myositis’ on administration of the vaccine Engerix-B; and whether even if ‘myositis’ being a minimal cause is accepted, the non-mentioning an ‘adverse reaction’ in the literature or ‘vial’, could be considered as ‘defi ciency of service’. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Negligence – Defi ciency in service – Complainant alleging that on account of adverse reaction of the Hepatitis
DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.versusAIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS.
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1721/2023
Decision Date: 14-12-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1046

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Effect of letter dtd.24.05.2011 produced by the applicants herein in computing Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB). As prayed, judgment in Delhi International Airport Limited Regulatory Authority of India whether to be modified or the matter to be remitted to TDSAT to examine the effect of the aforesaid letter for the limited issue qua computation of HRAB. Computation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Effect of letter dtd.24.05.2011 –
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5684/2021
Decision Date: 20-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC402

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity – Change in Law – A new regime for allocation of coal under SHAKTI Policy was brought into effect in 2017 whereunder, the projects approved under the old regime were entitled to continue to get supply of 75% of the Assured Coal 31st March 2017 – Contending that there was a shortfall from 75% ACQ, first respondent filed petition claiming relief for shortfall on account of Change in Law – Claim allowed by CERC – Appeal filed by appellants before APTEL, dismissed – Held: All the grounds raised before
THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.versusCHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1963/2023
Decision Date: 17-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC972

English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu 




 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.
						 THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. versus CHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC. - [2023] 8 S.C.R. 11392023 INSC 972 J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s.69 – Summons issued under – Invocation of s.438, CrPC by the person summoned – Impermissibility of – Held: If any person is summoned u/s.69, 2017 Act for the purpose of recording of his statement, the provision of s.438, – The only way a person summoned can seek protection against the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.226 – This is exactly what the respondents did in the present case – By filing criminal applications u/Art. 226 before the High Court, the
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusGOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU ETC. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5534/2011
Decision Date: 13-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC27

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH Motor Vehicles – Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1972 – s.3A(3) [introduced vide Amending Act of 1999] – Validity of – Special road tax provided under sub-section (3) of s.3A – If manifestly unjust / Regulatory or compensatory in nature – Repugnancy, if any, with Central enactment – Levy of lumpsum tax – Validity – Whether imposition of additional special road tax levied on transport vehicle used without a valid permit is not a tax but a penalty and is ultra vires the
THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusRADHESHYAM AGRAWAL
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4934/2022
Decision Date: 24-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC289

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Contract – Levy of Penalty – When not justified – Penalty imposed on respondents-Contractors while granting extension of time to complete the work awarded – Held: Penalty was levied by the State Government invoking Clause 3.5.5(v) of the Odisha Public Work Department Code where the contract is terminated – Here, it is not a case of termination of the contract – Therefore, Clause 3.5.5(v) shall not be applicable at all – Neither the contract nor the OPWD code provides for imposition of penalty while extending the contract – However, in a
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORSversusRAJESH AGARWAL & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7300/2022
Decision Date: 27-03-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC303

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.[2023] 7 S.C.R. 476 476 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. RAJESH AGARWAL & ORS (Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022) MARCH 27, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND HIMA KOHLI, J.] Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Reserve Audi Alteram Partem – The civil appeals arise out of a challenge to the Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs) Directions 2016 – These directions were challenged before different High Courts primarily on the ground that no
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020
Decision Date: 27-03-2023
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC723

K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 167(2) proviso (a) (ii) – Default Bail – Claim for – 60/90 day period of remand under proviso (a) to s. 167(2) – Computation of – Day on which the Magistrate orders remand to be – Held: s. 167(2) pertains to the power of the Magistrate to remand an accused and there is no reason why the date of the Magesterial Court’s gaze on the accused, should be excluded – Ignoring the date of remand u/s. 167 in the 60/90 day period would militate against the
T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANRversusRANBIR CHAUDHARY
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2514/2023
Decision Date: 28-04-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC462

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Specific Relief – Denial of – Appellants (original defendants), entered into a “sale agreement” with the respondent (original plaintiff) for the sale of a plot of land – A total amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid as earnest money by the respondent – Respondent filed specific performance of the sale agreement and consequential relief of injunction – The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that as per the agreement to sell and on failure of the appellants to execute the sale deed, the respondent shall be entitled to double the amount given
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSANTOSH KARNANI & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1148/2023
Decision Date: 17-04-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC380

SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7, 13(1), 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 41A, 438 – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Tax Department initiated search and seizure action against the complainant’s company Commissioner of Income Tax was handling the case of the complainant – Allegation against the respondent that he made a demand of illegal gratification to help the complainant with his case – The said conversation of demand between the complainant and the respondent was recorded in
ANKITA THAKUR & ORS.versusTHE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7602/2023
Decision Date: 09-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC992

HRISHIKESH ROY*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether relaxation in the essential eligibility qualifi cations could be made post the last date fi xed for receipt of applications; (ii) Essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the Himachal Pradesh, Department Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, if ambiguous to warrant clarifi cation/relaxation; (iii) If there was a statutory regime in place to accord recognition to an Institution, if yes, whether the
M/S. SARAF EXPORTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-III
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4822/2022
Decision Date: 10-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC331

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.80-IB and 28 – Deduction u/s 80- IB – Denial of – For AY 2008-09 the respondent-assessee (partnership firm) filed its return declaring its income as nil, claiming deduction of Rs. 70,197/- on account of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Rs. 76,27,636/- on account of receipts under the Duty Drawback – Respondent claimed the same as “Profit/ gains of business/ profession” under ss. 28(iiic) and (iiib) of the Act of 1961– Deputy commissioner disallowed the deductions – The said order was upheld by
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVARLA RAMAIAH ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2022
Decision Date: 03-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC485

M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Government orders: Misinterpretation of – High Court stayed all the further proceedings pursuant to the GO’s – Correctness of – On facts, by virtue of G.O., the State Government appointed a Cabinet Sub-Committee to examine the allegations of the erstwhile Government – Resolution to hand over investigation to CBI/CID/Lokayukta – By virtue of the second G.O., the State set up the SIT to undertake an investigation of these allegations – Subsequently based upon the letter of SIT, the State Government requested the
KUSUM LATA SHARMAversusARVIND SINGH
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3111/2023
Decision Date: 25-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC429

DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – ss.14(1)(e) and 25-B – Eviction – Grant of – Appellant-landlord had filed eviction petitions seeking to evict her tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement – Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants – On that appellant had not been forthright in the description of the property and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner and the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed – On appeal, held: A comprehensive look at the pleadings along with the site plan attached,
OMPRAKASH SAHNIversusJAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1331/2023
Decision Date: 02-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC478

M.R. SHAH*, J.B. PARDIWALA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – The three respondents were convicted for the murder of the appellant’s brother by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment – The order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was challenged in appeal by the prayed before the High Court that they be released on bail pending the final disposal of their appeals by suspending the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment – High Court suspended sentence and ordered their release on bail – On appeal, held: The endeavour on the
JOSEPHversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 520/2022
Decision Date: 21-09-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC843

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the writ petition fi led by the petitioner seeking appropriate direction to the State Government, to prematurely release him, having been in custody-actual imprisonment for over 26 years, and served a sentence of over 35 years of remission earned, for off ence punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 IPC, should be allowed. Premature release – Convict served over 26 years in actual imprisonment and served 35 years of sentence including 8 years of remission earned for off ences punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 – Case
M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC.versusM. S. MURTHY & ORS. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4049/2023
Decision Date: 15-06-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC581

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Suit – Partition suit – Decree – Preliminary decree – Mathruka property – Whether on facts, the Division Bench of the High Court was right in declaring that the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 was vitiated by fraud and consequently null and void, especially when evidence let in – Held: The preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 could not have determined the claim to title made by the legal heirs seeking partition, as against third parties – Any finding rendered in the preliminary decree, that the properties were Mathruka properties liable to be
K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusL. R. EKNATH & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3626/2023
Decision Date: 11-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC518

KRISHNA MURARI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – ss.3 and 4 – Eviction under – The respondent No.1 filed T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court against the appellants seeking their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424 2014) – On 04.02.2019 Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to pay lease rent of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it, to the respondents, within two months from the receipt of the Order, failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellants –
ROHIT BISHNOIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2078/2023
Decision Date: 24-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC642

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail – On facts, an honour killing matter, wherein victim in extra-marital-live in relationship with the sister-in-law Allegation that the respondents conspired to kill the victim and later shot him dead – FIR lodged by the brother of the victim against the respondents – Respondents charged u/s. 302 and 120B IPC and ss. 3 r/w ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Bail application – Grant of bail
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI – IversusM/S MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3039/2011
Decision Date: 24-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC285

M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Central Excise Act, 1944 – S. 11A and S. 35E – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rules 9 & 49 – Whether the separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of the amount, when an erroneous refund is granted reviewed under Section 35E of the Act – Held: In the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd., Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes – Different time-limits are,
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCONST SUNIL KUMAR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 219/2023
Decision Date: 19-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC55

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service law – Dismissal from service – Allegation that respondent consumed liquor while on duty and threatened senior officers – CRPF dismissed the respondent from service – Order confirmed by the Appellate Authority – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ the High Court reinstated the respondent – It held that dismissal was disproportionate as when the misconduct was committed the respondent was not on active duty – On appeal, held: The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent was of misbehaving with superior and giving
SRI GULAM MUSTAFAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1452/2023
Decision Date: 10-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC511

DINESH MAHESHWARI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Administration of Justice –Abuse of Process of Law – Civil dispute relating to land given the colour of criminality – Held: There is a huge unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land Criminal case was lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits coupled with denial of interim relief to the respondent no.2/her family members – Thus, criminal proceedings were resorted to with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and vengeance – Further, even if the
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION BANK LTD. & ANR.versusR. CHANDRAMOHAN
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7289/2009
Decision Date: 27-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC300

AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(g) – Respondent- complainant filed a complaint against the appellants-bank alleging that two demand drafts of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs, totalling Rs.8 lakhs, were not credited to his company’s account in Construction (P) Ltd.” with the bank – The complainant alleged that he had requested the bank to credit the drafts to the said account, but the bank failed to do so – The complainant sought direction from the State Commission to re-credit the drafts to his account –
P. YUVAPRAKASHversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1898/2023
Decision Date: 18-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC676

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.3,4,5,6,7, 34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.10 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.366 – Acquittal under – appellant-accused and others kidnapped the victim ‘M’ (allegedly 17-year-old girl) – Complaint lodged u/s. 366A of IPC – Appellant solemnized marriage with her and engaged in sexual intercourse – M was traced by police – In her statement recorded,