Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 427/2022
Decision Date: 18-08-2023
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC745

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The role of a ‘support person’ as envisaged in the Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Rules, 2020. Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 – Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Rules, 2020 – Role of HELD: A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child – This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings
THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS.versusC.P. MUNDINAMANI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2471/2023
Decision Date: 11-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC352

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 – Regulation 40(1) – As per Regulation 40(1) an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned – Appellant-KTCL denied the annual increment to on the ground that the day on which the increment accrued, the respondents were not in service – Whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment – Held: Merely because,
GANESH PRASADversusRAJESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1699/2023
Decision Date: 14-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC228

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, J.B. PARDIWALA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI, R.17 – Or. IX, R.8,9 – Respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against the appellant- defendant for a declaration that respondents are the lawful owners of the suit property and decree of eviction on the ground of non- payment of rent and written statement stating that the father of the respondent-plaintiff was mortgagor of the suit property who executed a mortgage deed in favour of father of appellant- defendant (mortgagee) and that is how his father was put in possession of the suit property and suit should fail as mortgage was
JUHRU & ORSversusKARIM & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 549/2023
Decision Date: 21-02-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC148

SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Additional accused – Summoning of –Appeal filed by the father-in- law(appellant no.1), sister-in-law(appellant no.2), and brother-in- law(appellant no.3) of the deceased against the High Court judgment wherein the High Court accused – Earlier, respondent no. 1 (brother of the deceased woman) had filed an FIR u/s 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC against the husband of the deceased, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the abovementioned appellants – The investigating agency did not find any
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHERversusM/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6033/2009
Decision Date: 04-07-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC591

KRISHNA MURARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Central Excise Act, 1944: s. 11A – Demand for differential duty of excise – Invocation of extended period of limitation – Allegation that the assessee incorrectly determined the assessable goods by not including the monetary value of the duty benefits that it had obtained from its customers as a result of the transfer of the advance licenses – Demand of differential duty during the material period by the Department invoking the extended period of limitation available
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSversusRACHNA HILLS & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1882/2023
Decision Date: 27-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC441

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA 969 969 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023) APRIL 27, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Service Law: Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921: ss. 16-E, 16-FF – Appointment of of Schools-DIOS for approval – However, before the grant of the requisite approval, Regn 17 was amended, prescribing a new selection procedure – Thereafter, DIOS returned the proposal for compliance with the new procedure – Writ petitions challenging the decision of DIOS
ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6805/2022
Decision Date: 21-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC271

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Abolition of, by Notification No. GSR 552(E) dt 2 August 2019 – Constitutional Validity of the Notification – Held: Abolition of OAT is constitutionally valid – Challenge validity of the impugned notification dated 2 August 2019 by which the OAT was abolished is rejected - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s. 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 21. Article 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Abolition of –
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusM/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8980/2012
Decision Date: 28-04-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC446

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968– s.16-B– Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.35–Held: s.16-B of the HPGST Act is not ultra vires any provision of law – It is legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitution and/ or the Banking Companies Act as erroneously held in the decision of the High Court impugned in CA No.9212 of 2012– Further, in view of the decision in Central Bank of India case, any observation in the decision impugned in CA No.8980
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT & ORS.versusRATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8550/2022
Decision Date: 13-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC33

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Contract: Rights and liabilities of the parties stand crystallized on the date of entering into the agreement – In the instant case, appellant and respondent No.1 entered into agreement dated 22.05.2012 which categorically No.1 would pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare towards irrigation restoration charge – On the same day, respondent No.1 also gave an undertaking that it would pay the stipulated sum within a specific period of time – Thus, right from the very beginning i.e., in the sanction order,
UNION OF INDIAversusUZAIR IMRAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6668/2023
Decision Date: 11-10-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC901

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the concurrent fi ndings returned by the tribunal and the High Court that denial of appointment to the third respondent was unwarranted, is justifi ed. Service Law – Appointment/selection – Post of Postal Assistant – Third respondent merit list, sent for training but later excluded on basis of the certifi cate of educational qualifi cation, whereby he completed 10+ 2 education from the vocational stream – Tribunal and the High Court decided in favour of the respondent – Correctness: Held: Third respondent was not
M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8486/2011
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC487

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – ss.14, 15 – Finance Act, 1988 – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Chapter 21, 24 of the Schedule – Additional Duties of Excise Importance) Act, 1957 – Finance Act, 2001 – Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 – Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Taxability of pan masala or gutka/gutkha under the aforesaid State enactments – Whether pan masala was an
SHINHAN BANKversusCAROL INFO SERVICES LIMITED
Case No.: ARBITRATION PETITION No. 1/2019
Decision Date: 13-03-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC217

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss.7, 8 – Arbitration agreement – Leave and License agreement as also amenties agreement between the petitioner and the respondent – Disputes between Invocation of Arbitration clause by the petitioner by Proposing appointment of a sole arbitrator for settlement of disputes – However, denial of existence of an arbitration agreement by the respondent – Case of the respondent that the Amenities agreement contained an arbitration
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8819/2022
Decision Date: 20-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC144

KRISHNA MURARI*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Land Acquisition Act, 1894– U.P. Land Acquisition (determination of compensation and declaration of award by agreement) Rules, 1997 – Payment of compensation – Classification of landholders as Pushtaini or Gair-Pushtaini Held: Classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the purposes of awarding differential compensation is bad in law – Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners – Classification made between
SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR.versusMADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1854/2023
Decision Date: 15-12-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1081

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The trial Court referred the matter to arbitration and the said decision was upheld by the High Court. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly referred the matter to arbitration or the dispute is of such a liable to be referred to arbitration, as there was no arbitration clause in the Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 or if there was, yet the matter in any case is such that it is not arbitrable. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A civil suit was fi led by the appellants-plaintiff s
K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3626/2020
Decision Date: 01-02-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC91

K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA Environment Protection Act, 1986 – 2011 Notification issued under the 1986 Act – Respondent No.1 granted ex post facto clearance to the appellant purportedly invoking paragraph-4.3 of the aforesaid Notification, for laying of pipeline for the the Chennai Port to the storage terminal tank and for the establishment of the storage transit terminal – NGT held that the activity of putting up a storage tank transit terminal being contrary to the 2011 Notification was illegal as the storage terminal was not located ‘in’
SATBIR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2634/2023
Decision Date: 29-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC786

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Courts below, if justifi ed in rejecting the application of the appellant u/s.311, CrPC for his recall as a witness in the trial for further examination. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power under – Exercise of – Appellant fi accused-ex-employees of his company had stolen company data and used it to manufacture equipment, which was manufactured by his company – Evidence of the appellant was recorded before the CFSL Report came – Though, the CFSL expert in his examination described the data found on the
PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusFRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2924/2023
Decision Date: 18-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC386

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, ARAVIND KUMAR Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s. 34 – Respondent purchased the suit property wherein the appellant-bank was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner in the ground floor of Respondent availed various credit facilities from the appellant-bank to the tune of Rs.42.74 crore by mortgaging, inter alia, the suit property as collateral – Thereafter, a purported settlement agreement, dated 29.11.2010, filed in the ejectment suit which was filed earlier by the previous
GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITEDversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3259/2023
Decision Date: 01-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC470

DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.8 – Arbitrability of the dispute in question – Held: Except the principal licence agreement, none of the other agreements contained any arbitration clause, even if they related to the same property and also involved the appellant and the original licence agreement is said to be the genesis of the contractual relations of the appellant and the respondent No.1, that does not ipso facto lead to the availability of the arbitration agreement in relation to the dispute in question emanating from the tripartite agreement and which cannot
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSIDDHARTH KAPOOR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1596/2023
Decision Date: 13-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC215

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. and declared with respect to the land in question deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – It is the specific case of the appellant-State that the possession of the land was taken – Held: The case relied on by High Court has been overruled by the subsequent Constitution
UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusAIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14524/2015
Decision Date: 14-12-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1074

 




 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.
						 UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus AIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 10262023 INSC 1074 ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal could have issued a direction to the Government to frame a policy for filling up the post of Judge Advocate General (Air) and; whether the Tribunal could have directed that the Respondent would capacity despite non-acceptance of the Promotion Board’s recommendation till such time that the policy is framed by the Government and be given an opportunity for consideration by the promotion board constituted under such new policy. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Jurisdiction of
VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2015
Decision Date: 25-09-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC735

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sustainablility of the findings of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34 IPC; as also the approach of the High Court, if in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brother- in-law of the victim – Conviction 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.VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1082024 INSC 735Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sustainablility of the findings of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34 IPC; as also the approach of the High Court, if in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brother- in-law of the victim – Conviction and
SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORSversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2024
Decision Date: 14-03-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC202

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any interim order. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for anticipatory bail was filed in November 2022 and brought up for hearing on 04.04.2023, on which it was dismissed – Meanwhile, proclamation was issued u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2023 and thereafter process u/s.83 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 15.03.2023 – The core 

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.SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORSversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4212024 INSC 202Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any interim order. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for anticipatory bail was filed in November 2022 and brought up for hearing on 04.04.2023, on which it was dismissed – Meanwhile, proclamation was issued u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2023 and thereafter process u/s.83 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 15.03.2023 – The core