Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
KIRAN JYOT MAINIversusANISH PRAMOD PATEL
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2915/2024
Decision Date: 15-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC530

VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Long-standing separation between the parties, multiple prolonged litigations pending adjudication, several failed attempts at reconciliation. Issue was as regards interim maintenance however, in view of irretrievable break down of marriage, marriage between the in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under – Dissolution of marriage in view of its 

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.KIRAN JYOT MAINIversusANISH PRAMOD PATEL-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9422024 INSC 530Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Long-standing separation between the parties, multiple prolonged litigations pending adjudication, several failed attempts at reconciliation. Issue was as regards interim maintenance however, in view of irretrievable break down of marriage, marriage between the in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Amount of permanent alimony to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under – Dissolution of marriage in view of its
DR. VIJAY DIXIT & ORS.versusPAGADAL KRISHNA MOHAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1970/2020
Decision Date: 22-08-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC627

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the application(s) seeking condonation of delay to file written statement preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date India Assurance 2, must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.13 – Statutory period to file written statement – Condonation of delay to file written statement – In the both civil appeals 

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.DR. VIJAY DIXIT & ORS.versusPAGADAL KRISHNA MOHAN & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7682024 INSC 627Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the application(s) seeking condonation of delay to file written statement preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date India Assurance 2, must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.13 – Statutory period to file written statement – Condonation of delay to file written statement – In the both civil appeals
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusOFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 348/2023
Decision Date: 05-08-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC578

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration Whether the Lt. Governor can exercise power of nomination under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 as a statutory duty attached to his office or he is bound by the aid and advice of Ministers of NCTD as provided in Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – s.3(3)(b)(i) – Interpretation – Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act No. 67 of 1993 – Constitution (Sixty-Ninth Amendment) 

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.GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusOFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 2072024 INSC 578Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration Whether the Lt. Governor can exercise power of nomination under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 as a statutory duty attached to his office or he is bound by the aid and advice of Ministers of NCTD as provided in Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – s.3(3)(b)(i) – Interpretation – Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act No. 67 of 1993 – Constitution (Sixty-Ninth Amendment)
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR -IIversusM/S MIRAJ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 143/2010
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC470

ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the commodity sold by the respondent-assessee will attract Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.4A – Valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price – When not applicable & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 – rr.2 (q), (g), (x)(iii), 34 – HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene Bag) bags containing 100 poly packs containing 33 plus one smaller pack of chewing tobacco sold by the respondent, if was meant for retail sale and therefore be treated 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.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR -IIversusM/S MIRAJ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1172024 INSC 470Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the commodity sold by the respondent-assessee will attract Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Headnotes† Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.4A – Valuation of excisable goods with reference to retail sale price – When not applicable & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 – rr.2 (q), (g), (x)(iii), 34 – HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene Bag) bags containing 100 poly packs containing 33 plus one smaller pack of chewing tobacco sold by the respondent, if was meant for retail sale and therefore be treated as
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS.versusM/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 2948/2023
Decision Date: 03-10-2024
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC756

ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the definition of “plant and machinery” in the explanation appended to Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to the expression “plant or machinery” used in clause (d) of sub-section (5) it is held that the explanation does not apply to “plant or machinery”, what is the meaning of the word “plant”; and whether clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act are unconstitutional. Headnotes† Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 

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.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS.versusM/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7932024 INSC 756Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the definition of “plant and machinery” in the explanation appended to Section 17 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to the expression “plant or machinery” used in clause (d) of sub-section (5) it is held that the explanation does not apply to “plant or machinery”, what is the meaning of the word “plant”; and whether clauses (c) and (d) of Section 17(5) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act are unconstitutional. Headnotes† Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURESversus
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 295/2022
Decision Date: 13-11-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC866

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the executive should be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as a measure for infliction of penalty on a person who is accused in a crime. In other words, whether properties of persons, who are accused of committing certain crimes or for for commission of criminal offences, can be demolished without following the due process of law. Headnotes† Demolition of property – Demolition of property of a person by the State machinery merely because he is an accused or a convict, that too without following due process 

Summary: IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURESversus-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7222024 INSC 866Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the executive should be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as a measure for infliction of penalty on a person who is accused in a crime. In other words, whether properties of persons, who are accused of committing certain crimes or for for commission of criminal offences, can be demolished without following the due process of law. Headnotes† Demolition of property – Demolition of property of a person by the State machinery merely because he is an accused or a convict, that too without following due process
ANOOP M. AND OTHERSversusGIREESHKUMAR T.M. AND OTHERS ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12173/2024
Decision Date: 04-11-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC828

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Candidates with Diploma in Computer Applications-DCA/higher qualifications, if could be considered for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority, when the qualification prescribed was Certificate in Data Entry and named Institute or from a similar/equivalent government approved institution. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk-LDC in the Kerala Water Authority – Notification by Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC – 

Summary: Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - 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.ANOOP M. AND OTHERSversusGIREESHKUMAR T.M. AND OTHERS ETC.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 3252024 INSC 828Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Candidates with Diploma in Computer Applications-DCA/higher qualifications, if could be considered for selection to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Kerala Water Authority, when the qualification prescribed was Certificate in Data Entry and named Institute or from a similar/equivalent government approved institution. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk-LDC in the Kerala Water Authority – Notification by Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC –
M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISESversusKAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 5583/2022
Decision Date: 09-04-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC288

ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if so, whether the respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of s. 118/139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Headnotes – ss. 118/139 – Dishonour of cheque – Sum involved therein, if advanced in discharge of a legally enforceable debt – Raising of presumption u/s. 139 – Complaint by partnership firm alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent no. 1 on the ground 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.M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISESversusKAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2552024 INSC 288Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if so, whether the respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of s. 118/139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Headnotes – ss. 118/139 – Dishonour of cheque – Sum involved therein, if advanced in discharge of a legally enforceable debt – Raising of presumption u/s. 139 – Complaint by partnership firm alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent no. 1 on the ground of