Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 48636/2024
Decision Date: 29-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC932

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 12802024 INSC 932 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding that the delay was not explained satisfactorily. Headnotes† Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5 by the appellant-State – Not condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged: Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filing 

Summary: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12802024 INSC 932Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding that the delay was not explained satisfactorily. Headnotes† Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5 by the appellant-State – Not condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged: Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filing
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXESversusFEMC PRATIBHA JOINT VENTURE
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3940/2024
Decision Date: 01-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC364

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issues for Consideration (1) Whether the timeline for refund prescribed under s. 38(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 must be mandatorily followed while recovering dues under the Act; and (2) Whether the Tax Assessing Officer could pass an Respondent’s claim for refund against default notices issued subsequently. Headnotes† Tax-VAT – Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. – ss. 38(3) and 42 – Respondent claimed refund of excess tax credit along with interest for 4th quarter of 2015-2016 and 1st quarter of
AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2643/2023
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration The appellant-wife herein is challenging the grant of divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Cruelty and desertion – The High Court found that the respondent- husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty the appellant’s false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony to the respondent, amounting to cruelty – Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted desertion – Thus, the High Court 

Summary: AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 755Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration The appellant-wife herein is challenging the grant of divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Cruelty and desertion – The High Court found that the respondent- husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty the appellant’s false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony to the respondent, amounting to cruelty – Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted desertion – Thus, the High Court
MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4307/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC806

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate Flip viewPDF

Summary: MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14482024 INSC 806Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriateFlip viewPDF
MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS.versusSALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4211/2009
Decision Date: 19-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Under Mohammedan law, whether an owner of property can, in his lifetime, transfer said property to his heirs by way of partition; whether, in the facts of this case, the requisites of a valid gift were met and also whether nomenclature employed in Mutation Entry can be of intentions. Headnotes† Mohammedan law – Partition under, during the lifetime of the owner – If permissible: Held: No – Under Mohammedan Law, partition while a person is alive between him and his heirs is impermissible – Under the Mohammedan Law, the right of 

Summary: MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS.versusSALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 923Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Under Mohammedan law, whether an owner of property can, in his lifetime, transfer said property to his heirs by way of partition; whether, in the facts of this case, the requisites of a valid gift were met and also whether nomenclature employed in Mutation Entry can be of intentions. Headnotes† Mohammedan law – Partition under, during the lifetime of the owner – If permissible: Held: No – Under Mohammedan Law, partition while a person is alive between him and his heirs is impermissible – Under the Mohammedan Law, the right of
MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4882/2024
Decision Date: 26-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC897

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society which would require further investigation and does not warrant interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376, 420, 504 and 506 – Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had cheated on her by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent in his house and in the rented rooms from 2008 

Summary: MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8862024 INSC 897Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society which would require further investigation and does not warrant interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376, 420, 504 and 506 – Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had cheated on her by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent in his house and in the rented rooms from 2008
INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12097/2024
Decision Date: 24-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC827

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting stay on the execution of the award conditional on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Arbitral award – Stay on enforcement – Dispute between parties – Invocation of arbitration agreement – Arbitral award passed directing the respondent to pay the appellant certain sum with 9% interest which would be increased to 12% p.a. if not paid within three months Flip viewPDF

Summary: INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 15032024 INSC 827Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting stay on the execution of the award conditional on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Arbitral award – Stay on enforcement – Dispute between parties – Invocation of arbitration agreement – Arbitral award passed directing the respondent to pay the appellant certain sum with 9% interest which would be increased to 12% p.a. if not paid within three monthsFlip viewPDF
AYUB KHANversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5388/2024
Decision Date: 17-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Adverse observations were made against the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service by the Rajasthan High Court. High Court observed that while rejecting the bail application, the appellant did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of form in terms of the directions issued to the Trial Courts by the High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan. Granting bail to the accused by the impugned order, High Court observed that non- compliance of the directions by the appellant, not only amounted to indiscipline 

Summary: AYUB KHANversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 680Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Adverse observations were made against the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service by the Rajasthan High Court. High Court observed that while rejecting the bail application, the appellant did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of form in terms of the directions issued to the Trial Courts by the High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan. Granting bail to the accused by the impugned order, High Court observed that non- compliance of the directions by the appellant, not only amounted to indiscipline
BHIKCHAND S/O DHONDIRAM MUTHA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusSHAMABAI DHANRAJ GUGALE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5026/2023
Decision Date: 14-05-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC411

HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the present is a fit and suitable case for exercising power under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing restitution in favour of the appellant-judgment debtor by placing the parties in would have occupied before the execution. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.144 – Application for restitution – Decree passed by the Trial Court was varied by the appeal court by reducing the decretal amount of Rs.27694/- to Rs.17120/- –However, in the 

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.BHIKCHAND S/O DHONDIRAM MUTHA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusSHAMABAI DHANRAJ GUGALE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 6242024 INSC 411Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the present is a fit and suitable case for exercising power under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing restitution in favour of the appellant-judgment debtor by placing the parties in would have occupied before the execution. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.144 – Application for restitution – Decree passed by the Trial Court was varied by the appeal court by reducing the decretal amount of Rs.27694/- to Rs.17120/- –However, in the
RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297/2024
Decision Date: 22-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC887

ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 – Abduction and Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that accused persons abducted the victim, thereafter murdered him and the next day the torso with other body parts of the deceased were recovered from the canal – Conviction of the appellants-accused along with others u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 

Summary: RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14252024 INSC 887Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 – Abduction and Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that accused persons abducted the victim, thereafter murdered him and the next day the torso with other body parts of the deceased were recovered from the canal – Conviction of the appellants-accused along with others u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201
PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4633/2024
Decision Date: 02-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC259

SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration A suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Application for execution was filed before the Tehsildar (settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. The application was rejected on 29.01.2005. The Tehsildar observed that plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not. Headnotes Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14 – J&K Limitation Act – Art.182 – The High Court dismissed the 

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.PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 372024 INSC 259Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration A suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Application for execution was filed before the Tehsildar (settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. The application was rejected on 29.01.2005. The Tehsildar observed that plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not. Headnotes Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14 – J&K Limitation Act – Art.182 – The High Court dismissed the
YOGARANIversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477/2017
Decision Date: 23-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC721

SANJAY KUMAR*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. Headnotes† Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5 

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.YOGARANIversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6252024 INSC 721Coram : SANJAY KUMAR*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. Headnotes† Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2646/2024
Decision Date: 26-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC928

SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent-government servant from the complainant for encashment of 

Summary: THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14722024 INSC 928Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent-government servant from the complainant for encashment of