Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
SATYENDAR KUMAR JAINversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1638/2024
Decision Date: 18-03-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC217

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants have been able to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in s. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the persons accused of the offence under the PMLA is not guilty of such is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 45 – Offence of money laundering – Conditions to be satified for grant of bail – Appellant-Minister in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi was the conceptualizer, initiator, 

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.SATYENDAR KUMAR JAINversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7782024 INSC 217Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants have been able to satisfy the twin conditions laid down in s. 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the persons accused of the offence under the PMLA is not guilty of such is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 45 – Offence of money laundering – Conditions to be satified for grant of bail – Appellant-Minister in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi was the conceptualizer, initiator,
JADUNATH SINGHversusARVIND KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2170/2024
Decision Date: 19-04-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC325

VIKRAM NATH*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the offenses including murder. The incident occurred on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where Arvind Kumar and his associates, armed with firearms, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and others, resulting in the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuries to Ravita. The accused were convicted 

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.JADUNATH SINGHversusARVIND KUMAR & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5612024 INSC 325Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Criminal appeal filed by appellant Jadunath Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, and Rishi Kumar, who were convicted for life imprisonment under the offenses including murder. The incident occurred on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where Arvind Kumar and his associates, armed with firearms, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and others, resulting in the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuries to Ravita. The accused were convicted
M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAHversusTR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13981/2024
Decision Date: 01-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1059

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioners u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques and sentencing them to imprisonment and to pay the cheque amounts as compensation, in each of the complaints. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds – Petitioners borrowed certain sum in five instalments as a hand loan from the 

Summary: M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAHversusTR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22482024 INSC 1059Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the courts below were justified in convicting the petitioners u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques and sentencing them to imprisonment and to pay the cheque amounts as compensation, in each of the complaints. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds – Petitioners borrowed certain sum in five instalments as a hand loan from the
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHADversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3855/2024
Decision Date: 05-03-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC210

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in quashing the acquisition in respect of the Khasra on the ground that the tenure holders were not accorded opportunity to submit objections against the proposed acquisition in accordance with s. 29 of the UP Avas Evam Vikas UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s. 29 – Issuance of pre-acquisition notice to tenure-holders – Requirement of – Public notice issued by the Board regarding Housing Scheme, however no notice served on respondents who claimed to be tenure holders but 

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.U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHADversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 5852024 INSC 210Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in quashing the acquisition in respect of the Khasra on the ground that the tenure holders were not accorded opportunity to submit objections against the proposed acquisition in accordance with s. 29 of the UP Avas Evam Vikas UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s. 29 – Issuance of pre-acquisition notice to tenure-holders – Requirement of – Public notice issued by the Board regarding Housing Scheme, however no notice served on respondents who claimed to be tenure holders but
PRASHANTversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4721/2024
Decision Date: 20-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC879

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether FIR u/ss.376(2)(n) and s.506 IPC lodged against the appellant should be quashed; whether allegations in the FIR are correct; whether relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(n) and s.506 – contact with each other in the year 2017 and after some time they got to know each other – Complainant alleged that in the year 2019 appellant had a forceful sexual relationship her – Further, it was alleged that appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual 

Summary: PRASHANTversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8252024 INSC 879Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether FIR u/ss.376(2)(n) and s.506 IPC lodged against the appellant should be quashed; whether allegations in the FIR are correct; whether relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(n) and s.506 – contact with each other in the year 2017 and after some time they got to know each other – Complainant alleged that in the year 2019 appellant had a forceful sexual relationship her – Further, it was alleged that appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7420/2010
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC796

SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed while considering objections against the acquisition; (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on grounds of violation of Article 14 of differential treatment of similarly placed landowners; (iii) Whether appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent developments like ‘settlement’ between the parties; (iv) Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given prior dismissal of other appeals by the 

Summary: HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22782024 INSC 796Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the mandatory procedure under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was followed while considering objections against the acquisition; (ii) Whether the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on grounds of violation of Article 14 of differential treatment of similarly placed landowners; (iii) Whether appeals are liable to be dismissed as infructuous in view of subsequent developments like ‘settlement’ between the parties; (iv) Whether the doctrine of merger applies, given prior dismissal of other appeals by the
RATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 11000/2024
Decision Date: 21-10-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC801

DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the delay of more than one year in issuing a reasoned order after oral dismissal in open court proceedings as ante-dated by the High Court constitutes a breach of the principles of fairness, propriety, and discipline required to be followed by administration of justice? Headnotes† Appellant filed a civil application u/Art.227 of the Constitution before the High Court – Dismissed on 01.03.2023 in open Court without saying “reasons would follow” – Appellant pleaded that he was under the impression that the 

Summary: RATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22272024 INSC 801Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the delay of more than one year in issuing a reasoned order after oral dismissal in open court proceedings as ante-dated by the High Court constitutes a breach of the principles of fairness, propriety, and discipline required to be followed by administration of justice? Headnotes† Appellant filed a civil application u/Art.227 of the Constitution before the High Court – Dismissed on 01.03.2023 in open Court without saying “reasons would follow” – Appellant pleaded that he was under the impression that the
THE STATE OF PUNJABversusPARTAP SINGH VERKA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1943/2024
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC483

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as sanction u/s. 19 of the P.C. Act was Act, 1988 – s. 19 – Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – On facts, the trial court summoned the respondent-public servant u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the P C Act – High Court set aside the order of the trial court as 

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.THE STATE OF PUNJABversusPARTAP SINGH VERKA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 622024 INSC 483Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as sanction u/s. 19 of the P.C. Act was Act, 1988 – s. 19 – Previous sanction necessary for prosecution – On facts, the trial court summoned the respondent-public servant u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the P C Act – High Court set aside the order of the trial court as
KARAKKATTU MUHAMMED BASHEERversusTHE STATE OF KERALA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291/2023
Decision Date: 05-11-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC838

ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Main 201 for murder of one lady during night, at the house of other accused – Other accused convicted and sentenced u/s. 201 – Prosecution case that motive for murder was illicit relation between the two accused – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court – 

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.KARAKKATTU MUHAMMED BASHEERversusTHE STATE OF KERALA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 4982024 INSC 838Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Issue as regards sustainability of the order of conviction and sentence of the accused, when the case not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Main 201 for murder of one lady during night, at the house of other accused – Other accused convicted and sentenced u/s. 201 – Prosecution case that motive for murder was illicit relation between the two accused – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the High Court –