Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 664/2024
Decision Date: 06-02-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC154

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co- accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused armed with pistol in her death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main 

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.STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10392024 INSC 154Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co- accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused armed with pistol in her death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main
PARVIN KUMAR JAINversusANJU JAIN
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14277/2024
Decision Date: 10-12-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC961

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the parties were married and have a son born from their wedlock, however, the realtionship soured and they have been living separately for more than two decades. The main issue between the parties all these years, since separation, is the quantum of appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Quantum of maintenance – Permanent alimony – The respondent’s application for enhanced interim maintenance rested on her assertion of significant changes in circumstances since the last 

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.PARVIN KUMAR JAINversusANJU JAIN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5432024 INSC 961Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration In the instant case, the parties were married and have a son born from their wedlock, however, the realtionship soured and they have been living separately for more than two decades. The main issue between the parties all these years, since separation, is the quantum of appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Quantum of maintenance – Permanent alimony – The respondent’s application for enhanced interim maintenance rested on her assertion of significant changes in circumstances since the last
DHANRAJ ASWANIversusAMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2501/2024
Decision Date: 09-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC669

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his involvement in a Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Accused already in judicial custody in connection with one case, if can apply for anticipatory bail in a different case – Maintainability of such anticipatory bail applications – Divergent opinions expressed by different High Courts: Held: An 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - 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.DHANRAJ ASWANIversusAMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 2572024 INSC 669Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his involvement in a Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Accused already in judicial custody in connection with one case, if can apply for anticipatory bail in a different case – Maintainability of such anticipatory bail applications – Divergent opinions expressed by different High Courts: Held: An
SOMJEET MALLICKversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4190/2024
Decision Date: 14-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC772

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, that as per agreement between the parties, the Truck/Trailor was rented to the accused-respondents for plying for 21 months at monthly rent but after payment of first month’s rent, the rent was not paid despite assurances – Chargesheet filed and cognizance was taken by CJM while 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.SOMJEET MALLICKversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 8932024 INSC 772Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, that as per agreement between the parties, the Truck/Trailor was rented to the accused-respondents for plying for 21 months at monthly rent but after payment of first month’s rent, the rent was not paid despite assurances – Chargesheet filed and cognizance was taken by CJM while the
P.J. DHARMARAJversusCHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14029/2024
Decision Date: 06-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC938

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the claim of the appellant seeking retirement age as sixty five years. Headnotes† Service law – Retirement age – Age of superannuation, enhancement to 65 years – Appellant appointed as Director in CSIIT, affiliated with University State of Telangana – At the time of issuance of the appointment letter, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education-AICTE and University Grants Commission-UGC Regulations was sixty years – Subsequently, the regulations were revised and the age 

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.P.J. DHARMARAJversusCHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3742024 INSC 938Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the claim of the appellant seeking retirement age as sixty five years. Headnotes† Service law – Retirement age – Age of superannuation, enhancement to 65 years – Appellant appointed as Director in CSIIT, affiliated with University State of Telangana – At the time of issuance of the appointment letter, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education-AICTE and University Grants Commission-UGC Regulations was sixty years – Subsequently, the regulations were revised and the age
MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS.versusSHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9642/2010
Decision Date: 10-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC293

PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Appellants if had easementary right of the way over the land owned by the respondents i.e. the disputed rasta. Appellants’ reliance upon the evidence of their Power of Attorney holder/Manager of the property (PW-1) to prove their easementary right disputed rasta, if proper. Headnotes Easements Act, 1882 – ss.4, 13, 15 – “Easementary right” – Easementary right by prescription or necessity – When not proved: Held: ‘Easement’ u/s.4 is a right which the owner or occupier of a land possesses for 

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.MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS.versusSHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3572024 INSC 293Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Appellants if had easementary right of the way over the land owned by the respondents i.e. the disputed rasta. Appellants’ reliance upon the evidence of their Power of Attorney holder/Manager of the property (PW-1) to prove their easementary right disputed rasta, if proper. Headnotes Easements Act, 1882 – ss.4, 13, 15 – “Easementary right” – Easementary right by prescription or necessity – When not proved: Held: ‘Easement’ u/s.4 is a right which the owner or occupier of a land possesses for
RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHAversusGURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7946/2024
Decision Date: 23-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC552

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Suit for partition of the joint property was filed by the appellant- plaintiff. High Court whether justified in passing the impugned judgment holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 liable to render any accounts. Headnotes† Suit – Rendition of accounts by co-sharers – Defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19, if were liable to render accounts: Held: Yes – Admittedly, defendant No.3(a) had rented out a portion of the property and collected rent 

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.RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHAversusGURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14172024 INSC 552Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Suit for partition of the joint property was filed by the appellant- plaintiff. High Court whether justified in passing the impugned judgment holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 liable to render any accounts. Headnotes† Suit – Rendition of accounts by co-sharers – Defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19, if were liable to render accounts: Held: Yes – Admittedly, defendant No.3(a) had rented out a portion of the property and collected rent