Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
ZUNAIDversusSTATE OF UP. & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2628/2023
Decision Date: 29-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC778

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 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.
						 ZUNAID versus STATE OF UP. & ORS. - [2023] 11 S.C.R. 7152023 INSC 778 BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: CJM rejected the fi nal report submitted by the investigating offi cer and accepted the Protest Petition as the Complaint Case, whether the course opted by the CJM was just, legal and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Code of Criminal The Investigating Offi cer, after completing the investigation, submitted the Final Report – Appellant- complainant fi led a Protest Petition – The concerned CJM vide order dated 15.11.2018 rejected the Final Report of the Investigating Offi cer and directed that the Protest Petition
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusTAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10563/2017
Decision Date: 11-04-2023
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC350

AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law – Direction for creations of posts – Impermissibility of – Held: Courts cannot direct for creations of posts – In the present case, the respondents were not in employment or holding a civil post or appointed against the cadre post in any of the Government establishment where the service conditions are governed/regulated by the statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 – In absence of sanctioned post, the State cannot be compelled to create
MANMOHAN GOPALversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
Case No.: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 858/2021
Decision Date: 20-10-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC953

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 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.
						 MANMOHAN GOPAL versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.  - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10732023 INSC 953 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Applications fi led by the daughter-in-law (original comlainant and R-2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance. Constitution of India – Art. 142 – persistent defiance by husband, and the petitioner-father-in-law, who have, through one pretext or another stalled compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court – Husband has abandoned wife and virtually fl ed to Australia – Documents reveal that considerable amounts of money were
ANIL MINDA AND OTHERSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 345/2012
Decision Date: 24-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC287

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 132, 158, 158BC, 158BE(b) – Period of Limitation – Commencement of – Whether the period of limitation of two years for the block assessment under Section 158BC/158BE would commence from the date of the date of the last authorization – Held: Supreme Court in the case of VLS Finance Limited held that the relevant date would be the date on which the Panchnama is drawn and not the date on which the authorization/s is/are are issued – It cannot be disputed that the block assessment
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR.versusMANISH SETHI AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 945/2023
Decision Date: 17-02-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC137

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. [2023] 2 S.C.R. 392 392 LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH SETHI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 945 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 [M. R. SHAH, C.T RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KAROL JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench
RAJIV KUMAR JINDAL AND OTHERSversusBCI STAFF COLONY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10127/2011
Decision Date: 27-04-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC439

AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 : ss. 20(4), 21(c) – Winding up of sick industrial company – Operating agency to prepare complete inventory – On facts, Operating Agency- IDBI initiated process to sell the sick industrial company-BCI in terms of the order passed by the BIFR – Submission of solitary bid by the appellant – Operating authority accepted the same – However, the appellant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of Asset Sale Committee (ASC) – In view thereof,
SEEMANT KUMAR SINGHversusMAHESH PS & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 872/2023
Decision Date: 21-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC272

English हिन्दी - Hindiಕನ್ನಡ - Kannadaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu 




 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.
						 SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH versus MAHESH PS & ORS. - [2023] 3 S.C.R. 5872023 INSC 272 KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Bail – Adverse remarks – Expunction of – During the pendency of bail proceedings of respondent no.1, the High Court made adverse remarks against the appellants, who had no lis in the proceedings – Further, the High Court issued direction for seeking reports against Remarks made by High Court against appellant no.2 are unreasonable and without justification as appellant no.2 has no personal involvement in the case – No evidence against appellant no.2 has been analysed and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself – Also,
VISHALAKSHI AMMAversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1720/2023
Decision Date: 17-03-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC255

M.R. SHAH*, MANOJ MISRA Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972: ss. 40, 40A – Time for declaration of custody or possession of any captive animal or animal article – Relaxation of – On facts, the appellant filed the application/ declaration on 25.05.2011 much beyond the prescribed period – Refusal of the of the deer horn found from the house of the appellant which was in custody and possession of the appellant on the ground of delay in the application/declaration – Writ petition by the appellant – Single Judge directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider whether time has been
PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1538/2008
Decision Date: 13-09-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC841

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the closure of the slaughter house was eff ected after following due process of law. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 – Permanent Lok Adalat Board to close down the slaughter house for violation of rules and regulations, causing pollution in the area – SPCB issued directions u/s. 33A of the 1974 Act for closure of the slaughter house – Order of Permanent Lok Adalat challenged in writ petition – Writ petition
ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS.versusIL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6411/2023
Decision Date: 03-10-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC867

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Order 8 Rule 1 – Being a for fi ling written statements expired on 08.03.2020 – On 06.06.2020, the further condonable period of 90 days also expired – No written statements were fi led within the said timelines – Appellants fi led applications on 20.01.2021 for acceptance of written statements by
SUBHASH DESAIversusPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 493/2022
Decision Date: 11-05-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC516

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Constitution of India: Art.191(2) – Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules – r.95 – Coalition Government – Split in Political Party – Losing Confidence of the House – Power of Floor Test – After the State elections in 2019, a coalition government of Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) [a post-poll alliance of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Indian National Congress (INC) and some independent MLAs] was formed in Maharashtra, with Mr. Thackeray of Shiv Sena as the
SWEETY KUMARIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6072/2023
Decision Date: 22-09-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC853

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the rejection of the candidatures of the appellants due to non-production of the original certifi cate at the time of interview by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) is justifi ed and what relief can be granted to (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment), Rules, 1955 – rr.7(b), 9 – Non-production of original certifi cate at the time of interview – Rejection of candidatures – Impermissible: Held: The language of the rules makes it clear that the production of the original certifi cates
BICHITRANANDA BEHERAversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6664/2023
Decision Date: 11-10-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC902

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in dismissing the appeal fi led by the appellant against the judgment of State Education Tribunal whereby the State was directed to approve the appointment of Respondent No.5 on the post of Physical Education Trainer in question and release of block grant in his favour. Service Law – Delay/Laches – Solitary post of PET in the school in question – Respondent No.5 challenged the approval order dtd. 02.04.2005 of the appellant before the Tribunal, claiming to be continuing as the PET in the
KAMALAKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1485/2011
Decision Date: 12-10-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC989

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant-accused u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 498A and s.306 – The prosecution alleges that after two years of marriage, all the three accused, i.e., started ill-treating and assaulting victim-deceased – Appellant brought victim back to her parents’ house – The appellant refused to take her back to his house and told the informant that he will be remarried – After two months, victim poured kerosene oil on her body Decision Date : 12-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1485/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed  | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed.  |  Bench : 2 Judges
EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10499/2022
Decision Date: 16-01-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC42

AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law : Removal from service – Constable found guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline – Suppression of pending criminal litigation in the verification form submitted at the time of appointment – Departmental inquiry – Order of removal Single Judge of the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the constable – However, the Division Bench set aside the order – On appeal, held: Constable has committed gross misconduct – There was deliberate suppression of fact which was an
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERSversusR. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1580/2022
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC490

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Land Grabbing: Land grabbing matters – By a Government Order, the State of Tamil Nadu, constituted Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu for investigating the cases pertaining to land grabbing, however, without defining land grabbing cases – By the other grabbing cases were ordered to be transferred to the Special Courts constituted to exclusively deal with the land grabbing cases – Writ Petitions against the said G.Os – High Court set aside the G.Os on the ground that the same does not lay down any yardstick or guideline to pick and
JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2352/2019
Decision Date: 28-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC453

M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.245, 245C(1), 245HA, 245D – Application u/s.245C(1) was filed by the appellants before the Settlement Commission – Order dtd. 31.03.2008 passed by the Settlement Commission – High Court while dismissing the writ petition, filed by the cause notice for re-assessment issued in terms of order dtd. 31.03.2008, observed that the said order was a nullity – Justification of – Held: Settlement Commission specifically observed in the order dtd. 31.03.2008 that it was not practicable to examine the records, investigate the
TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2164/2023
Decision Date: 28-03-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC309

K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Service law: Selection process – Quashing of – Selection process conducted for appointment of drug inspectors – 64 persons including some appellants selected and appointed as drug inspectors and are serving on the said posts – However, the challenged alleging discrepancies in the selection procedure – High Court quashed the selection and appointment – Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the
PRAKASH NAYI @ SENversusSTATE OF GOA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2010/2010
Decision Date: 12-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC24

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and s.84 – Plea of Insanity – “Schizophrenia” – Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC for having caused the death of the victim-deceased by attacking him at a store in which the deceased was working, with an iron of trial, the defence pleaded insanity – At one of the hospitals where the accused was undergoing the treatment before the date of incident, it was recorded that the accused was suffering from anxiety neurosis with reactive depression and has symptoms of acid peptic disease and mild
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSURENDER SINGH & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1548/2023
Decision Date: 11-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC358

ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Writ petitions u/s. 24(2) claiming that Act had lapsed as neither the possession was taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid – High Courts relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners – On appeal, held: The
JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.versusJAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1497/2008
Decision Date: 17-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC373

AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:ss. 4, 15, 19, 20 , 21 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – ss. 118, 121, 123 – Right of pre-emption – Suit for possession of the suit lands by the respondent against the appellants-buyer, on the ground that he in the joint khewat along with the owner-vendor had a superior right to pre- empt the sales, and that he was not put to any notice of sale of the suit lands to the appellants by the owner-vendor – Dismissed by the trial court on the ground that khewat had remained no more joint as per the
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2340/2023
Decision Date: 08-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC683

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR was registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls within the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether the plain reading of of dacoity punishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidation punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether the allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering the delay of one year in lodging the FIR. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.
AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIAversusC. NATARAJAN & ANR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2545/2023
Decision Date: 10-04-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC341

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 : ss. 13(4), 17 – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r. 9 – Contract Act – ss. 73, 74 – Power of forfeiture by the Authorized Officer – Exercise forfeiture order by the High Court – Justification of – On facts, default committed by one in discharging its debts to the Bank and declared as non-performing asset – E- auction held by the Authorized Officer for secured asset of the defaulter– Respondent declared the
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusDILIP PAUL
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6190/2023
Decision Date: 06-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC975

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the High Court by which it allowed the writ petition fi led by respondent and thereby set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% of his pension for all times upon the respondent in connection with disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on allegations of a lady employee of sexual harassment at workplace, the following questions arose for consideration:- I. Whether the Central Complaints Committee constituted by the Competent authority to