Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
AMAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5234/2024
Decision Date: 12-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1040

AMAR SARDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 12672024 INSC 1040 B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Whether High Court considered the evidence on record independently thereby by the Fast Track Court: Held: While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction – It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such 

Summary: AMAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12672024 INSC 1040Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Whether High Court considered the evidence on record independently thereby by the Fast Track Court: Held: While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction – It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such
ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOORversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2819/2024
Decision Date: 16-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC986

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether the NIA can investigate only the same accused who is present in the NIA investigation qua Scheduled Offences and for non-scheduled offence by virtue of Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, 2008; In other words, can the accused person who, although not being investigated for any Scheduled Offences could be investigated by NIA because there exists a link between the two namely, Scheduled and non-scheduled offences, thereby connecting every co-accused; Whether, the expression “the accused” in Section 

Summary: ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOORversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 17432024 INSC 986Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether the NIA can investigate only the same accused who is present in the NIA investigation qua Scheduled Offences and for non-scheduled offence by virtue of Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, 2008; In other words, can the accused person who, although not being investigated for any Scheduled Offences could be investigated by NIA because there exists a link between the two namely, Scheduled and non-scheduled offences, thereby connecting every co-accused; Whether, the expression “the accused” in Section
ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC.versusGEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 12411/2024
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC1003

DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reading down Reg.10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018. Headnotes† University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the 

Summary: ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC.versusGEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) & ORS. ETC. ETC.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 17952024 INSC 1003Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reading down Reg.10(f)(iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018. Headnotes† University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the
RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHERversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604/2024
Decision Date: 17-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC990

J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Respondent Nos.5 (original allottee of the plot) and 6 (Respondent No.5’s power of attorney) without any approval from the competent authority, unauthorizedly constructed commercial shops on the subject property which was residential in nature and sold Impugned order passed by High Court ordering demolition and directing criminal as well as departmental action against the erring officials. Headnotes† Illegal/Unauthorized constructions – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.83 – High Court allowed 

Summary: RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHERversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 13202024 INSC 990Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Respondent Nos.5 (original allottee of the plot) and 6 (Respondent No.5’s power of attorney) without any approval from the competent authority, unauthorizedly constructed commercial shops on the subject property which was residential in nature and sold Impugned order passed by High Court ordering demolition and directing criminal as well as departmental action against the erring officials. Headnotes† Illegal/Unauthorized constructions – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.83 – High Court allowed
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusM/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1878/2024
Decision Date: 17-12-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC988

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION  versus M/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 15812024 INSC 988 ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the Arbitrator had become functus officio after passing of the award dated 16.12.1997 and had no jurisdiction to issue the clarification dated 15.03.2005. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 and s.33(1) (a) – Appellant functus officio and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the clarification: Held: The interpretation given to Section 33(1) of the 1996 Act and on a cumulative assessment of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the clarification sought for and 

Summary: NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusM/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15812024 INSC 988Coram : ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the Arbitrator had become functus officio after passing of the award dated 16.12.1997 and had no jurisdiction to issue the clarification dated 15.03.2005. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 and s.33(1) (a) – Appellant functus officio and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the clarification: Held: The interpretation given to Section 33(1) of the 1996 Act and on a cumulative assessment of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the clarification sought for and
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995
Decision Date: 18-12-2024
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC997

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Protection of the sacred groves/Orans of Rajasthan. Headnotes† Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – s.2 – Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 – Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 – s.36-C – Scheduled Tribes and Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 – ss.3, 5 – Rajasthan State Forest Policy, 2010 – Rajasthan Forest Policy, 2023 – Sacred groves/Orans of the Rajasthan – Protection of – Identification and notification of sacred groves as ‘forests’ 

Summary: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 18382024 INSC 997Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Protection of the sacred groves/Orans of Rajasthan. Headnotes† Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – s.2 – Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 – Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 – s.36-C – Scheduled Tribes and Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 – ss.3, 5 – Rajasthan State Forest Policy, 2010 – Rajasthan Forest Policy, 2023 – Sacred groves/Orans of the Rajasthan – Protection of – Identification and notification of sacred groves as ‘forests’