Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
DABLU KUJURversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511/2024
Decision Date: 12-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC197

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL 614 : 2024 INSC 197 Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024) 12 March 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was the compliance of the requirements of a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of 1973: Held: The Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. being a very important piece of document from the view point of the prosecution, the defence and the court, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, 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.DABLU KUJURversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 6142024 INSC 197Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL614 : 2024 INSC 197 Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024) 12 March 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was the compliance of the requirements of a Police Report under Section 173(2) of the Code of 1973: Held: The Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. being a very important piece of document from the view point of the prosecution, the defence and the court, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, as
RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 432/2023
Decision Date: 17-05-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC436

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (i) What is the scope of principle of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ in service jurisprudence; and (ii) Whether promotion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges in accordance with Rule 5(1) of the Service Rules, 2005 and the Recruitment Notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by the High Court of Gujarat is contrary to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as laid down in All India Judges’ Association (3). Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 32 and Art.226 

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.RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 10742024 INSC 436Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (i) What is the scope of principle of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ in service jurisprudence; and (ii) Whether promotion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges in accordance with Rule 5(1) of the Service Rules, 2005 and the Recruitment Notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by the High Court of Gujarat is contrary to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as laid down in All India Judges’ Association (3). Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 32 and Art.226
ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4120/2024
Decision Date: 14-06-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC460

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in directing the trial court to accept the respondent’s memo and pass appropriate order. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XXXVII – Summary suits – Suit u/Ord. XXXVII by respondents against the of money – Respondent filed memo requesting the trial court to decree the suit in terms of Ord. XXXVII r. 3(6)(b) – Trial court rejected the memo – However, the High Court set aside the order directing the trial court to accept the memo submitted by the respondents and pass 

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.ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 9592024 INSC 460Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in directing the trial court to accept the respondent’s memo and pass appropriate order. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XXXVII – Summary suits – Suit u/Ord. XXXVII by respondents against the of money – Respondent filed memo requesting the trial court to decree the suit in terms of Ord. XXXVII r. 3(6)(b) – Trial court rejected the memo – However, the High Court set aside the order directing the trial court to accept the memo submitted by the respondents and pass
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNLversusSUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4053/2024
Decision Date: 12-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC208

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Huge chunk of land measuring 13000 acres was acquired by the State of Karnataka for the appellant-Corporation for different projects. High Court while passing the impugned orders enhancing the compensation for the acquired land, relied upon its own decisions which favour with this Court in earlier litigation as regards the same chunk of land and were remanded to High Court for reconsideration. Headnotes Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Award of compensation – Big chunk of land acquired for different projects at different points in time – 

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.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNLversusSUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 6612024 INSC 208Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Huge chunk of land measuring 13000 acres was acquired by the State of Karnataka for the appellant-Corporation for different projects. High Court while passing the impugned orders enhancing the compensation for the acquired land, relied upon its own decisions which favour with this Court in earlier litigation as regards the same chunk of land and were remanded to High Court for reconsideration. Headnotes Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Award of compensation – Big chunk of land acquired for different projects at different points in time –
V. VINCENT VELANKANNIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8617/2013
Decision Date: 30-09-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC748

SANDEEP MEHTA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the date of induction/initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/ confirmation in the skilled grade. Headnotes† Service Law – Promotion – Seniority – Date of induction – issued by the Ordinance Factory Board placed on record clarifies the position regarding counting of seniority by laying down that seniority will be counted from the date of promotion to skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry/promotion in semi- skilled grade – 

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.V. VINCENT VELANKANNIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1262024 INSC 748Coram : SANDEEP MEHTA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the date of induction/initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/ confirmation in the skilled grade. Headnotes† Service Law – Promotion – Seniority – Date of induction – issued by the Ordinance Factory Board placed on record clarifies the position regarding counting of seniority by laying down that seniority will be counted from the date of promotion to skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry/promotion in semi- skilled grade –
LAKHA SINGHversusBALWINDER SINGH & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10893/2024
Decision Date: 27-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC744

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding execution of the disputed agreement; alleged payment of Rs.16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant and alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of sub-registrar in the purported deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement was fraud and concoction. Headnotes† Contract – Specific Performance – Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of an agricultural plot of land – In alternative, 

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.LAKHA SINGHversusBALWINDER SINGH & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 792024 INSC 744Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff regarding execution of the disputed agreement; alleged payment of Rs.16,00,000/- in cash to the appellant-defendant and alleged appearance of the respondent-plaintiff in the office of sub-registrar in the purported deed executed in terms of the disputed agreement was fraud and concoction. Headnotes† Contract – Specific Performance – Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of an agricultural plot of land – In alternative,
BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUFversusASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4049/2020
Decision Date: 17-05-2024
Disposal: IA disposed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC445

J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The interlocutory applications have been filed seeking direction for payment of rent and other associated benefits in connection with the property which is the subject matter of the dispute. Headnotes† Rent Control and Eviction – The lis governs four different tenancies – Petitioner-applicant landlord alleges non-payment of rent and has filed applications in the pending SLPs seeking direction for payment of ‘monthly occupational charges’ following the prevalent market rate: Held: On account 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.BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUFversusASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8592024 INSC 445Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The interlocutory applications have been filed seeking direction for payment of rent and other associated benefits in connection with the property which is the subject matter of the dispute. Headnotes† Rent Control and Eviction – The lis governs four different tenancies – Petitioner-applicant landlord alleges non-payment of rent and has filed applications in the pending SLPs seeking direction for payment of ‘monthly occupational charges’ following the prevalent market rate: Held: On account of