Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999
Decision Date: 14-08-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC607

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the 9-judge bench judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr. Etc given prospective effect? Headnotes† Constitution of the United States – Evolution of Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Objectives and Purpose – Factors to be considered for its applicability – Discussed: Held: The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied 

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.MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5402024 INSC 607Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the 9-judge bench judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr. Etc given prospective effect? Headnotes† Constitution of the United States – Evolution of Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Objectives and Purpose – Factors to be considered for its applicability – Discussed: Held: The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12527/2024
Decision Date: 19-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC890

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.  versus M/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.  - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13352024 INSC 890 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.89(4) Stamp Act – Arts. 18 and 23 of first Schedule – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 94 – Successful auction purchaser – Sale certificate issued – Whether it is mandatory to deposit stamp duty in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the 

Summary: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13352024 INSC 890Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.89(4) Stamp Act – Arts. 18 and 23 of first Schedule – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 94 – Successful auction purchaser – Sale certificate issued – Whether it is mandatory to deposit stamp duty in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.versusDELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 108/2022
Decision Date: 10-04-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC292

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the curative petition is maintainable; and (ii) Whether this Court (two-judge Bench) was justified in restoring had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. Headnotes Curative Petition – Curative Jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice: Held: The Supreme Court laid down an overarching principle in Rupa Cited In

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.DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.versusDELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 4732024 INSC 292Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANTIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the curative petition is maintainable; and (ii) Whether this Court (two-judge Bench) was justified in restoring had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. Headnotes Curative Petition – Curative Jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice: Held: The Supreme Court laid down an overarching principle in RupaCited In
AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023
Decision Date: 18-10-2024
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC791

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023  | Direction Issue : Matters directed to be listed before the Regular Bench.  |  Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF

Summary: AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14042024 INSC 791Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT,Decision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023| Direction Issue :Matters directed to be listed before the Regular Bench.|  Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF
PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1338/2010
Decision Date: 05-01-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC21

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution – Conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety: Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However, the deceased 

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.PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3062024 INSC 21Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution – Conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety: Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However, the deceased
SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3257/2024
Decision Date: 07-08-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC586

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had rightly affirmed the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case moved for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by its judgment dated 03.03.2023. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – that respondent had borrowed rupees two lakhs from him – Against the said loan the respondent issued a cheque, as a guarantee against repayment – Since the respondent failed to repay the loan despite repeated requests, the appellant presented the concerned cheque for encashment, as 

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.SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1212024 INSC 586Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court had rightly affirmed the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case moved for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by its judgment dated 03.03.2023. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – that respondent had borrowed rupees two lakhs from him – Against the said loan the respondent issued a cheque, as a guarantee against repayment – Since the respondent failed to repay the loan despite repeated requests, the appellant presented the concerned cheque for encashment, as
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMALversusSTATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 863/2019
Decision Date: 03-01-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC13

SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – “in the custody of a police officer” – Interpretation – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant was taken into custody during the course of investigation for the murder of 

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.PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMALversusSTATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 872024 INSC 13Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – “in the custody of a police officer” – Interpretation – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant was taken into custody during the course of investigation for the murder of
AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 700/2024
Decision Date: 22-07-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC543

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether while imposing a sentence for an offence punishable under Section 307 part 2, IPC (attempt to commit murder – causing hurt to any person), a term of imprisonment beyond a period of ten years is permissible not to be given by the Courts below. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 – Part II – When the Court decided not to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life – Can a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years be imposed: Held: In case the victim suffered hurt 

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.AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7562024 INSC 543Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether while imposing a sentence for an offence punishable under Section 307 part 2, IPC (attempt to commit murder – causing hurt to any person), a term of imprisonment beyond a period of ten years is permissible not to be given by the Courts below. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 – Part II – When the Court decided not to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life – Can a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years be imposed: Held: In case the victim suffered hurt