Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJEEV BANSAL
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2024
Decision Date: 03-10-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC754

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether after 01 April 2021, the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read along with the substituted provisions; whether Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 01 section 3(1) of TOLA overrides section 149 of the Income Tax Act; whether TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151 of the Income Tax Act; whether the directions in Ashish Agarwal will extend to all the reassessment notices issued Flip viewPDF

Summary: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJEEV BANSAL-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 16332024 INSC 754Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether after 01 April 2021, the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read along with the substituted provisions; whether Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 01 section 3(1) of TOLA overrides section 149 of the Income Tax Act; whether TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151 of the Income Tax Act; whether the directions in Ashish Agarwal will extend to all the reassessment notices issuedFlip viewPDF
RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3403/2023
Decision Date: 07-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC846

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of the 

Summary: RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 6412024 INSC 846Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of the
SUKHPAL SINGHversusNCT OF DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 55/2015
Decision Date: 07-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC385

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be read as a piece of substantive the links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.299 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 – Appellant murdered his wife owing to her suspected infidelity however, fled 

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.SUKHPAL SINGHversusNCT OF DELHI-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3152024 INSC 385Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be read as a piece of substantive the links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.299 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 – Appellant murdered his wife owing to her suspected infidelity however, fled
RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8315/2014
Decision Date: 14-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC773

PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, r.99 – Predecessor of the from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit, if could file application under Or. XXI, r.99 against dispossession: Held: Yes – Under Or.XXI, r.99, where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for Flip viewPDF

Summary: RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13592024 INSC 773Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, r.99 – Predecessor of the from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit, if could file application under Or. XXI, r.99 against dispossession: Held: Yes – Under Or.XXI, r.99, where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree forFlip viewPDF
REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS.versusAKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5218/2024
Decision Date: 22-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC329

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree – Objections u/s. 47 – Property originally owned by defendant No.1 – Execution of agreement to sell the property by the brother of defendant No.1- 

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.REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS.versusAKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6942024 INSC 329Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree – Objections u/s. 47 – Property originally owned by defendant No.1 – Execution of agreement to sell the property by the brother of defendant No.1-
PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31248/2018
Decision Date: 08-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC286

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal against the judgment of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by some of the Claimant who died pending the reference and who were not impleaded in the reference proceeding. Headnotes Limitation – Object of the law of limitation – Explained Held: The law of limitation is based on public policy and is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest 

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.PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2412024 INSC 286Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal against the judgment of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by some of the Claimant who died pending the reference and who were not impleaded in the reference proceeding. Headnotes Limitation – Object of the law of limitation – Explained Held: The law of limitation is based on public policy and is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest
G.M. SHAHUL HAMEEDversusJAYANTHI R. HEGDE
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1188/2015
Decision Date: 09-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC493

DIPANKAR DATTA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by Section 151 of the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.151 – Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.33-35, 58 – GPA insufficiently stamped, admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit – No objection from the 

Summary: Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.G.M. SHAHUL HAMEEDversusJAYANTHI R. HEGDE-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 3162024 INSC 493Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by Section 151 of the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.151 – Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.33-35, 58 – GPA insufficiently stamped, admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit – No objection from the
BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERSversusDHARAMDEO DAS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6977/2015
Decision Date: 23-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC549

HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether promotion ought to be reckoned from the date it is granted or from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. Headnotes† Service law – Promotion – Reckoning of – From the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created: Held: Promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created – On facts, respondent-physically challenged and 

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.BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERSversusDHARAMDEO DAS-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7632024 INSC 549Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether promotion ought to be reckoned from the date it is granted or from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. Headnotes† Service law – Promotion – Reckoning of – From the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created: Held: Promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created – On facts, respondent-physically challenged and
CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8355/2024
Decision Date: 02-08-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC570

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The issue pertains to rights of the parties to a lease of a Plot vested with the State Government and the manner in which the said rights can be transferred. Headnotes† State Largesse – Grant of – Method to be adopted: Held: Rights of the State as the only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which the State fetches the best possible price – Rights of the State as the lessor can only be sold by a public auction or by any other transparent method by which, apart from the lessee, others too, get a right to submit their 

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.CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 232024 INSC 570Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The issue pertains to rights of the parties to a lease of a Plot vested with the State Government and the manner in which the said rights can be transferred. Headnotes† State Largesse – Grant of – Method to be adopted: Held: Rights of the State as the only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which the State fetches the best possible price – Rights of the State as the lessor can only be sold by a public auction or by any other transparent method by which, apart from the lessee, others too, get a right to submit their