Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6591/2024
Decision Date: 13-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC871

HRISHIKESH ROY*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Award passed by Labour Court wherein Labour Court allowed the reinstatement of the employee with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits that the employee in the absence of the order of removal from service. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Whether the appellant, as a family member of a land-loser, whose land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project, had legally secured the job as the son in-law, of the land-loser: 

Summary: GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 16282024 INSC 871Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Award passed by Labour Court wherein Labour Court allowed the reinstatement of the employee with full back wages, continuity of service, and all other consequential benefits that the employee in the absence of the order of removal from service. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Whether the appellant, as a family member of a land-loser, whose land was acquired for the Kaiga Atomic Power Project, had legally secured the job as the son in-law, of the land-loser:
IDBI BANK LTD.versusRAMSWAROOP DALIYA AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11115/2024
Decision Date: 16-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC780

PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether there was any default on part of the respondents-auction purchasers in depositing the balance auction amount within the time prescribed pursuant to the auction sale so as to attract Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and allow the which had already been confirmed. Headnotes† Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r.9(4), (5) – When not applicable: Held: The period to deposit the balance sale consideration under r.9(4) is not absolute/sacrosanct and is extendable with the consent in writing of Flip viewPDF

Summary: IDBI BANK LTD.versusRAMSWAROOP DALIYA AND ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13712024 INSC 780Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether there was any default on part of the respondents-auction purchasers in depositing the balance auction amount within the time prescribed pursuant to the auction sale so as to attract Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and allow the which had already been confirmed. Headnotes† Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r.9(4), (5) – When not applicable: Held: The period to deposit the balance sale consideration under r.9(4) is not absolute/sacrosanct and is extendable with the consent in writing ofFlip viewPDF
THE MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.versusBAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1095/2013
Decision Date: 04-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC829

DIPANKAR DATTA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether s.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has application to a demand raised by appellants-distributor on the first respondent for recovery of sums payable under the Electricity Act, 1910 if it be treated as one under the 1910 Act, is sustainable having regard to long delay. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(2) – Electricity Act, 1910 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Matter pertaining to electricity consumption – Appellants-distributor and first 

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 MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.versusBAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 3402024 INSC 829Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether s.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has application to a demand raised by appellants-distributor on the first respondent for recovery of sums payable under the Electricity Act, 1910 if it be treated as one under the 1910 Act, is sustainable having regard to long delay. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(2) – Electricity Act, 1910 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Matter pertaining to electricity consumption – Appellants-distributor and first
JALALUDDIN KHANversusUNION OF INDIA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3173/2024
Decision Date: 13-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC604

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Factors to be taken into consideration, under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while deciding Bail Applications for offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. Headnotes† Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception – – Applicability of: Held: The Court while deciding an application of bail falling under the provisions of Section 43D (5) is not required to conduct a mini- trial – Only a prima facie case has to be established – The Court has to examine the material forming a part of the 

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.JALALUDDIN KHANversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 6332024 INSC 604Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Factors to be taken into consideration, under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while deciding Bail Applications for offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. Headnotes† Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception – – Applicability of: Held: The Court while deciding an application of bail falling under the provisions of Section 43D (5) is not required to conduct a mini- trial – Only a prima facie case has to be established – The Court has to examine the material forming a part of the
CHALASANI UDAYA SHANKAR AND OTHERSversusM/S. LEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5735/2023
Decision Date: 09-09-2024
Disposal: Case Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC671

SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration NCLT and NCLAT, if justified in dismissing the company petition by the appellant seeking rectification of the Register of Members of respondent No.1-Company by entering their names therein u/ss. 59 and 88 of the Companies Act, 2013, and against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for oppression and mismanagement, and criminal proceedings u/ss. 447 and 448 of the 2013 Act, for committing fraud. Headnotes† Companies Act, 2013 – ss. 59 and 88 – Rectification of registrar of members – Allegations of fraudulent 

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.CHALASANI UDAYA SHANKAR AND OTHERSversusM/S. LEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 2352024 INSC 671Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration NCLT and NCLAT, if justified in dismissing the company petition by the appellant seeking rectification of the Register of Members of respondent No.1-Company by entering their names therein u/ss. 59 and 88 of the Companies Act, 2013, and against respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, for oppression and mismanagement, and criminal proceedings u/ss. 447 and 448 of the 2013 Act, for committing fraud. Headnotes† Companies Act, 2013 – ss. 59 and 88 – Rectification of registrar of members – Allegations of fraudulent
ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10193/2024
Decision Date: 03-09-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC651

J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the execution court had jurisdiction to deal with the application for rescission of contract and extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; and if execution court had the jurisdiction, whether those applications ought to have in the suit on original side, if yes, then, whether, in the facts of the case, on that ground alone, the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of jurisdiction Art 136 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 28 – Rescission in certain 

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.ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 651Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the execution court had jurisdiction to deal with the application for rescission of contract and extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; and if execution court had the jurisdiction, whether those applications ought to have in the suit on original side, if yes, then, whether, in the facts of the case, on that ground alone, the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of jurisdiction Art 136 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 28 – Rescission in certain
M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE
Case No.: ARBITRATION PETITION No. 31/2023
Decision Date: 07-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC850

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 maintainable in India; (b) whether seat of arbitration designated under the aforesaid Distributorship Agreement is in India; (c) whether could be said to be governed by the Indian laws. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Application of Part-I: Held: Part I of the Act, 1996 and the provisions thereunder only applies where the arbitration takes place in India i.e., where either (I) the seat of 

Summary: M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 11422024 INSC 850Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (a) Whether the present petition under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 maintainable in India; (b) whether seat of arbitration designated under the aforesaid Distributorship Agreement is in India; (c) whether could be said to be governed by the Indian laws. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Application of Part-I: Held: Part I of the Act, 1996 and the provisions thereunder only applies where the arbitration takes place in India i.e., where either (I) the seat of
DEEP MUKERJEEversusSREYASHI BANERJEE
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4722/2024
Decision Date: 05-04-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC274

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to subjecting the husband to undergo potentiality test. Headnotes Matrimonial laws – Matrimonial disputes – Medical tests – Potentiality test for husband – Divorce petition by the wife on the ground that the marriage between the of the husband’s impotency – Application by husband for subjecting the husband to undergo potentiality test and referring the wife for fertility test and psychological/mental health test for both the parties – Allowed by the trial court, however set aside by the High Court 

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.DEEP MUKERJEEversusSREYASHI BANERJEE-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 722024 INSC 274Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to subjecting the husband to undergo potentiality test. Headnotes Matrimonial laws – Matrimonial disputes – Medical tests – Potentiality test for husband – Divorce petition by the wife on the ground that the marriage between the of the husband’s impotency – Application by husband for subjecting the husband to undergo potentiality test and referring the wife for fertility test and psychological/mental health test for both the parties – Allowed by the trial court, however set aside by the High Court
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR.versusHIMAL KUMARI & ANR. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7815/2024
Decision Date: 16-07-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC531

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration The issue pertains to the selection and appointment to the post of City Manager under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar. The said post is governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 – Rule 5 and Rule 11 – Appellants issued an advertisement for appointment to posts of City Managers in the State of Bihar – 

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 STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR.versusHIMAL KUMARI & ANR. ETC.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9702024 INSC 531Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration The issue pertains to the selection and appointment to the post of City Manager under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar. The said post is governed by the Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 – Rule 5 and Rule 11 – Appellants issued an advertisement for appointment to posts of City Managers in the State of Bihar –