Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
COX & KINGS LTD.versusSAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Case No.: ARBITRATION PETITION No. 38/2020
Decision Date: 09-09-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC670

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the application of the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator deserves to be allowed. Whether the requirement of prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stipulated u/s. 11 of the Act, 1996, is satisfied. Whether a party to the arbitration agreement or not. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) r/w. s.11(12) (a) – Petitioner has filed the present petition in terms of s.11(6) r/w.s.11(12)(a) of the Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.COX & KINGS LTD.versusSAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1992024 INSC 670Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the application of the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator deserves to be allowed. Whether the requirement of prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stipulated u/s. 11 of the Act, 1996, is satisfied. Whether a party to the arbitration agreement or not. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) r/w. s.11(12) (a) – Petitioner has filed the present petition in terms of s.11(6) r/w.s.11(12)(a) of the Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of
VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5153/2024
Decision Date: 30-01-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC332

VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Headnotes Service Law – appointment – The appellants’ pleaded for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed: Held: The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of 

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.VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12302024 INSC 332Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Headnotes Service Law – appointment – The appellants’ pleaded for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed: Held: The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of
M K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 838/2019
Decision Date: 21-03-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC280

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Conservation and protection of the endangered species of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). Headnotes Environment – Rapid and steady decline in the population of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) – Apart from various other existing population of these endangered birds was partly attributed to overhead transmission lines – Vide order dtd. 19.04.2021, a Committee was appointed for assessing the feasibility of laying high voltage underground power lines; direction was also issued imposing blanket prohibition 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.M K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 13202024 INSC 280Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Conservation and protection of the endangered species of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). Headnotes Environment – Rapid and steady decline in the population of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) – Apart from various other existing population of these endangered birds was partly attributed to overhead transmission lines – Vide order dtd. 19.04.2021, a Committee was appointed for assessing the feasibility of laying high voltage underground power lines; direction was also issued imposing blanket prohibition
DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2806/2024
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC480

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon, if detrimental to the failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer, if would invalidate the consideration of the statement of the deceased recorded u/s. 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration; and disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the discovery and 

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.DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2182024 INSC 480Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon, if detrimental to the failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer, if would invalidate the consideration of the statement of the deceased recorded u/s. 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration; and disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the discovery and
KIRPAL SINGHversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12849/2024
Decision Date: 21-11-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC944

KIRPAL SINGH  versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13292024 INSC 944 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be condoned u/s.14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporated in the National Highways – s.14 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 and s.37 – National Highways Act, 1956 – A land belonging to appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award dated 25.07.2011 – A Regular First Appeal was filed before the High 

Summary: KIRPAL SINGHversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13292024 INSC 944Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be condoned u/s.14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporated in the National Highways – s.14 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 and s.37 – National Highways Act, 1956 – A land belonging to appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award dated 25.07.2011 – A Regular First Appeal was filed before the High
M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10409/2014
Decision Date: 20-11-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC880

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether the mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings etc. can take the benefit of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Headnotes† CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Rules 3, 2(k), 2(a)(A)(i), (iii) – “inputs”; “goods”/“capital goods” – General Clauses 

Summary: M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 15252024 INSC 880Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether the mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings etc. can take the benefit of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Headnotes† CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Rules 3, 2(k), 2(a)(A)(i), (iii) – “inputs”; “goods”/“capital goods” – General Clauses
KRISHNADATT AWASTHYversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4806/2011
Decision Date: 04-04-2024
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC252

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN* Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. V. Viswanathan pronounced separate Judgments. In view of divergent views, vide a common order, it was inter alia directed that the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a for Consideration Matter pertains to the selection and appointment of appellants and four others to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade wherein the selection process, if vitiated by bias, candidates being close relatives of the members of selection committee and non-joinder of parties in the Decision Date : 04-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4806/2011 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench  | Direction Issue : Matter to be placed before Hon’ble CJI for constitution of larger Bench  |  Bench : 2 Judges
UNION OF INDIA & ANRversusM/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023
Decision Date: 18-10-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC799

UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 21832024 INSC 799 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. Headnotes† Ground for recall Supreme Court declared unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible – There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of a law Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023  |  Bench : 3 Judges

Summary: UNION OF INDIA & ANRversusM/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 21832024 INSC 799Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. Headnotes† Ground for recall Supreme Court declared unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible – There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of a lawDecision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023|  Bench :3 Judges
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusLT. COL. RAHUL ARORA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2459/2017
Decision Date: 09-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC672

PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Legality of the appointment of Judge Advocate who was admittedly junior to the respondent. Headnotes† Service Law – Army Medical Corps – Respondent was charge-sheeted for: (i) extraneous consideration declaring an army recruit as ‘fit’ after (ii) absenting himself without leave from 11.04.2004 to 19.04.2004; (iii) conduct of unbecoming of an officer and the character expected of his position – Upon conclusion of trial by General Court Martial and two of the three charges proven, he was dismissed from service 

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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusLT. COL. RAHUL ARORA-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1862024 INSC 672Coram : PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Legality of the appointment of Judge Advocate who was admittedly junior to the respondent. Headnotes† Service Law – Army Medical Corps – Respondent was charge-sheeted for: (i) extraneous consideration declaring an army recruit as ‘fit’ after (ii) absenting himself without leave from 11.04.2004 to 19.04.2004; (iii) conduct of unbecoming of an officer and the character expected of his position – Upon conclusion of trial by General Court Martial and two of the three charges proven, he was dismissed from service