Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5062/2024
Decision Date: 19-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC327

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty. Whether it was the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 (rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, or the rule 19 that was substituted by an amendment in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 – r.19 – Penalties – Permissible limits of loss of liquor in transit due to leakage, evaporation, wastage etc. 

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.PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6642024 INSC 327Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue as regards the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty. Whether it was the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 (rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, or the rule 19 that was substituted by an amendment in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 – r.19 – Penalties – Permissible limits of loss of liquor in transit due to leakage, evaporation, wastage etc.
SANDEEPversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2224/2014
Decision Date: 14-10-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC771

PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by the High Court. Arms Act, 1959 – s.25/27 – Prosecution case that four persons including appellant shot victim-deceased dead, when he was sitting in his courtyard – Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous 

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.SANDEEPversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7692024 INSC 771Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by the High Court. Arms Act, 1959 – s.25/27 – Prosecution case that four persons including appellant shot victim-deceased dead, when he was sitting in his courtyard – Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
SATYENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12509/2024
Decision Date: 18-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC873

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory? Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law. Headnotes† Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) – Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012 

Summary: SATYENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 16342024 INSC 873Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory? Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law. Headnotes† Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) – Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012
CHANDRAMANI NANDAversusSARAT CHANDRA SWAIN AND ANOTHER
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11100/2024
Decision Date: 15-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC777

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment – Enhancement of compensation – Appellant-claimant having suffered injuries in an accident became mentally unstable Compensation of ₹20,60,385/- awarded by the Tribunal was modified and enhanced to ₹30,99,873/- by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: An enhanced income should be considered for calculation of compensation – However, the courts below assessed the appellant’s annual income 

Summary: Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.CHANDRAMANI NANDAversusSARAT CHANDRA SWAIN AND ANOTHER-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9202024 INSC 777Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment – Enhancement of compensation – Appellant-claimant having suffered injuries in an accident became mentally unstable Compensation of ₹20,60,385/- awarded by the Tribunal was modified and enhanced to ₹30,99,873/- by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: An enhanced income should be considered for calculation of compensation – However, the courts below assessed the appellant’s annual income
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANR.versusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 97/2012
Decision Date: 22-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC622

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service, if entitled to two advance increments given to the Scientists in Agricultural Research Service on acquiring Ph.D. degree in their Incentives – Grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree to Scientists in Agricultural Research Service – Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service seeking the same benefit – Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court – 

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.INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANR.versusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5072024 INSC 622Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service, if entitled to two advance increments given to the Scientists in Agricultural Research Service on acquiring Ph.D. degree in their Incentives – Grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree to Scientists in Agricultural Research Service – Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service seeking the same benefit – Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court –
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9026/2019
Decision Date: 05-11-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC832

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the services of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list and had produced the Course on computer concepts-CCC certificate at the time of the interview could have Termination – Selection to the post of Technician Grade-II – Course on computer concepts certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate mandatory educational qualification to be submitted at the time of interview – Written exam and interview held and final 

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.MUKUL KUMAR TYAGIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 4282024 INSC 832Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the services of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list and had produced the Course on computer concepts-CCC certificate at the time of the interview could have Termination – Selection to the post of Technician Grade-II – Course on computer concepts certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate mandatory educational qualification to be submitted at the time of interview – Written exam and interview held and final
GURDEV SINGH BHALLAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 120/2024
Decision Date: 05-01-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC22

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department. Headnotes Code of s. 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Case of misappropriation of paddy against father of the informant – Application u/s. 319 for summoning the appellant-Inspector investigating the crime and three other police officials 

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.GURDEV SINGH BHALLAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3192024 INSC 22Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department. Headnotes Code of s. 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Case of misappropriation of paddy against father of the informant – Application u/s. 319 for summoning the appellant-Inspector investigating the crime and three other police officials
NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1751/2017
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC464

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Non-questioning the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 on the twin incriminating circumstances during his examination u/s.313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if caused material prejudice to him vitiating the trial qua him. Headnotes† Code of – s.302 r/w s.34 – Non-compliance of s.313 – Non-questioning on the twin incriminating circumstances to the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s. 34, IPC during his examination u/s.313, when the finding of common intention was based on the aforesaid twin incriminating 

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.NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF DELHI-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1782024 INSC 464Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Non-questioning the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 on the twin incriminating circumstances during his examination u/s.313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if caused material prejudice to him vitiating the trial qua him. Headnotes† Code of – s.302 r/w s.34 – Non-compliance of s.313 – Non-questioning on the twin incriminating circumstances to the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s. 34, IPC during his examination u/s.313, when the finding of common intention was based on the aforesaid twin incriminating