title,decision_date,case_no,disposal_nature,bench,judges,summary,nc_display,scraped_at ELDECO HOUSING AND INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusASHOK VIDYARTHI AND OTHERS,30-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7891/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: A suit for specifi c performance was fi led seeking enforcement of MoU dated 31.08.1998. It is in the aforesaid suit that application was fi led by respondent No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint on terms of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C., the suit was barred by law. In the review application fi led by the respondent no.1, an application fi led under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by the High Court was allowed and the suit fi led by the appellant was rejected. Whether the order passed by the High Court in Decision Date : 30-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7891/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1043,2025-06-12T21:53:13.174939 RAM LALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.,04-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7935/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the dismissal of the appellant- constable from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry was justifi ed; and what is the eff ect of the acquittal, ordered by the appellate judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal passed in Service law – Dismissal from service pursuant to the departmental enquiry on allegation of commission of fraud – Justifi cation – Eff ect of acquittal ordered by the appellate judge in the criminal trial, on the order of dismissal – Allegation against the Decision Date : 04-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7935/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1047,2025-06-12T21:53:00.935992 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusNAROTTAM DHAKAD & ANR.,25-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2592/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In cases relating to off ences arising out of the Vyapam Scam, respondents-accused fi led applications seeking direction to supply a Hindi translation of the charge sheet fi led by the appellant in English language. Rejected by Magistrate High Court whether justifi ed in interfering and inter alia holding that Hindi was the only language of the Criminal Courts in the State of MP and therefore, the respondents were entitled to seek translation of the charge sheet into the language of the Court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Decision Date : 25-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2592/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC770,2025-06-12T21:52:59.428805 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusV SHANKAR,08-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 527/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA SEBI (Buyback of Securities) Regulations, 1998 – Regulation 19(3) – Interpretation of – Notice to show cause was issued by the Whole Time Member (WTM) of SEBI to Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited (DCHL), its Chairperson, Vice-chairperson – A penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed on the respondent – Respondent was held liable on the ground that he was the Company Secretary when a buyback offer worth Rs.270 crores was made by the company in violation of regulatory provisions – Order set aside by the Securities Decision Date : 08-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 527/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC719,2025-06-12T21:52:58.904265 ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,07-02-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3006/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Motor Vehicles Act 1988 : ss. 2(1A), 93, 96 – Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 – Aggregator’s License – Claim of the petitioner to provide the service of an aggregator for two wheeler vehicles across the State Application for grant of license – Rejected by the RTO since it did not comply with the Guidelines of 2020 – Challenged to, before the High Court – However, during the course of hearing, the State government issued a notification wherein it noted that the issue of whether non- Decision Date : 07-02-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3006/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC102,2025-06-12T21:53:05.864580 RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDALversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.,25-08-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 252/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Petitioner serving a sentence of life imprisonment for commission of off ences punishable u/ss.302/34 of the IPC, 1860 and s.27 of the Arms Act, 1959 sought direction for his premature release on the ground that he has been in custody for 24 years without or parole. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remission – Grant of: Held: Remission Board rejected the petitioner’s application for premature release twice – The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application was the adverse report submitted by the presiding Decision Date : 25-08-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 252/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC771,2025-06-12T21:53:01.567491 ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,19-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 643/2015,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC/Commission) on pay, pension, gratuity, age of retirement etc.– Revision of pay vide order dtd. 27.07.2022 – Review petitions filed by some States and the Union were dismissed vide order dtd. 05.04.2023 – Benefits of the recommendations as regards pay be given w.e.f 01.01.2016 – No change in percentage of pension for retirees on or after 01.01.2016 – Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 643/2015 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC564,2025-06-12T21:52:58.176652 M/S. GAIL (INDIA) LIMITEDversusM/S. INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORP. LTD. & ORS.,08-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3504/2010,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 12, 14 – Commercial Contract – Unequal bargaining power – Maintainability of writ petition – Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued a letter for allocation of natural a PSU) – IPCL entered into a contract with GAIL for supply of natural gas – As per the allocation terms, IPCL had to lay down its own pipelines and those pipelines alone were utilised for carrying gas – IPCL laid down pipelines – However, GAIL levied charge for Decision Date : 08-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3504/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC103,2025-06-12T21:52:53.244111 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusTHE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER & ORS.,08-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4769/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA Insurance – MOU entered into between Appellant-Insurance company and Respondent No.1 to provide insurance cover to the persons deployed for election related work for Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections in 2000 – a Constable died due to sun stroke while performing election duty – Respondent No.2 sought compensation in 2008 – Respondent No.1 acknowledged the eligibility for payment, Single Judge assigned the liability to pay the amount on the Respondent No.1 and the DM – Appeal filed by Decision Date : 08-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4769/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC104,2025-06-12T21:52:56.134996 THE KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusAMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER,01-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7903/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY versus AMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 8412023 INSC 1065 B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Application fi led by the Respondent seeking condonation of delay in fi ling the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed by Trial Court. Consequently, the petition fi led under Order IX Rule 13 aside of the ex-parte decree was also dismissed. In revision, High Court set aside the order by which the application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed thereby allowing the petition fi led under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Order of the High Court whether Decision Date : 01-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7903/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1065,2025-06-12T21:53:07.835373 PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHADversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA,19-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1636/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Evidence – Case of circumstantial evidence – Six year old child was sexually assaulted, killed and thrown her into a ‘nala’ – Appellant was arrested on the basis of suspicion – Charged for having committed 377, 302 and 201, IPC –Concurrently convicted, death sentence imposed for the charge u/s.302 and sentenced for other offences – Correctness of – Held: There were yawning gaps in the chain of circumstances rendering it far from being established, pointing to the guilt of the Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1636/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC561,2025-06-12T21:53:00.413980 RAJKUMARversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,06-02-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2169/2022,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act 1938 – Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Rules 1938 – Standing Policy formulated on 01.08.2018, amended release of persons sentenced to suffer life imprisonment on conviction under IPC, directions issued by Supreme Court in Rashidul Jafar case – Despite the said judgment and the convicts having fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for the grant of premature release, cases were not being Decision Date : 06-02-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2169/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC718,2025-06-12T21:53:08.463520 STATE BANK OF INDIAversusA.G.D. REDDY,24-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11196/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court were justifi ed in quashing the order passed by the Appointing Authority imposing a punishment of “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) (Supervising Staff ) Service Rules and treating the period spent by the delinquent offi cer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only. Service Law – Misconduct – Commission of certain acts of misconduct by the employee while working as Decision Date : 24-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11196/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC766,2025-06-12T21:53:05.779565 DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANRversusTHE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.,30-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7700/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, his tenure was for a period four years. As the tenure of the respondent No. 4 was coming to initiated steps for selection and appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor. The Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State of Kerala issued notifi cation inviting applications from eligible candidates. However, the respondent no. 4 herein was re-appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Decision Date : 30-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7700/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1032,2025-06-12T21:53:10.446218 MUKESH SINGHversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI),24-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1554/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing the appeal fi led by the appellant convict and thereby affi rming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the alleged off ences?; (ii) Whether an accused in the TIP on the ground that he was already shown to the eye witnesses prior to the conduct of the TIP and in such circumstances, the TIP would be nothing short of creating evidence against him?; (iii) Can an accused decline to participate in the TIP that the investigating offi cer may Decision Date : 24-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1554/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC765,2025-06-12T21:53:11.299306 SENTHIBALAJI VversusA.P. GEETHA AND ORS,19-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3895/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss.83, 123 – Failure to plead material facts in the election petition concerning alleged corrupt practice – Held: s.123 defines corrupt practices – s.83(1)(a) mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of When the allegation is of corrupt practice, the basic facts constituting corrupt practice must be pleaded in order to comply with s.83(1)(a) – In the present case, such concise facts were not at all pleaded – Basic facts cannot be pleaded only by stating that the same find place in Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3895/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC571,2025-06-12T21:53:10.099469 BHAGWAN SINGHversusDILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER,23-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2560/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Single Judge of the High Court was justifi ed in granting bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the FIR registered against them by the appellant-uncle of the minor girl alleging gang rape, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and u/ss. 376D, 384, 506 IPC, s. 3 to 6 of POCSO Act, s. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and s. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Decision Date : 23-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2560/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC761,2025-06-12T21:53:15.080180 SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,01-12-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3663/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prima facie ingredients of the off ence punishable u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were made out against the appellants. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504 – Scheduled Castes and of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Appellants, at the outset, conceded that so far as the off ences punishable under IPC are concerned, the prayer for discharge would require extensive evaluation of evidence and hence, challenge to the order framing charges was given up Decision Date : 01-12-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3663/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1036,2025-06-12T21:53:05.021327 M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,24-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4658/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue is with respect to the interpretation of a contract condition, which required the measurement of quantities used for payment for embankment construction with soil or with pond; and the relevance of of the arbitrators. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34, 37 – Arbitral award – Scope of intereference u/ss. 34 and 37 – On facts, three technical member arbitration passed an award which was unanimous on most questions while, on others, there was a dissenting Decision Date : 24-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4658/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC768,2025-06-12T21:53:03.496519 DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER,25-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7580/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Three Government orders (G.Os) issued enhancing the retirement age of doctors in medical category, however, were made prospective in nature. Appellants questioned the decision of the State of not incorporating a clause in the three G.O’s. retrospective, which would have otherwise enured to their benefi t. Kerala Service Rules – r. 60(a) or 60(c) Part-I – The Government Order dated 14.01.2010 enhanced the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 Decision Date : 25-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7580/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC772,2025-06-12T21:52:55.624533 ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR.,08-02-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 5112/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM PRESIDENT SHRI RAM CHANDRA MUNDRA S/O LATE MURLIDHAR MUNDRA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE SECRETARY GENERAL & ANR. - [2023] 10 S.C.R. 3682023 INSC 106 M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA Judgments/Orders – Correction of – [2023] 10 SCR 289 – Separate judgments of Hon’ble Mr. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna – Judgments were passed disposing of Writ Petition(C) No.59/2013 along with the connected writ petition – Substantial amendments were made to the original writ petitions however, such amendments were not brought to the notice of Supreme Decision Date : 08-02-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 5112/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC106,2025-06-12T21:53:00.533501 SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWALversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER,24-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5409/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question for consideration was whether the High Court was justifi ed in upholding the order of the Executing Court holding that the decree property is not executable against the judgement debtor, merely because the decree-holder lost possession to an encroacher. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XXI rr 97 to 101 – Execution of judgment and orders – Executing Court holding an execution decree as Decision Date : 24-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5409/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC764,2025-06-12T21:53:09.814440 ASHOK KUMAR MEWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS,05-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7956/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASHOK KUMAR MEWARI versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 15352023 INSC 1092 J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant made a composite prayer for voluntary retirement on medical ground subject to the condition that his son may be appointed in his place on compassionate ground, in terms of the Circular dtd.14.06.2006. Whether the respondents were justified his prayer for voluntary retirement, without accepting the prayer of compassionate appointment to his son. Service Law – Conditional voluntary retirement application, partially accepted – Impermissibility: Held: A conditional request was made by the appellant to retire him Decision Date : 05-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7956/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1092,2025-06-12T21:52:59.930650 DR. P.N. SHUKLA AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,30-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7747/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the legality of the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the prayer made by the appellants- Assistant Scientifi c Offi cer for grant of the same pay-scale and perquisites as had been granted to the respondent cer (Medicine). Service Law – Pay scale – Single post of same cadre – One offi cer given higher pay scale than the other – Correctness: Held: If governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by Decision Date : 30-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7747/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1048,2025-06-12T21:53:11.811662 CENTRAL GST DELHI - IIIversusDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,19-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8996/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Airports Authority of India Act, 1994: ss. 22, 22A – Finance Act, 1994 – ss. 67 and 68 (1) –User development fee-UDF, levied and collected u/s. 22A by the airport operation, maintenance and development entities-Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Pvt. Ltd., and Hyderabad International Airport Pvt. Ltd., from the domestic/international passengers departing the airport – Levy of service tax – Held: User development fee levied and collected by the airport entities is a statutory levy, thus, not subject to service tax levy under Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8996/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC572,2025-06-12T21:52:55.541040 SANJAY PANDURANG KALATEversusVISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS,04-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7467/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether appeal instituted before the NCLAT was within limitation. In its impugned order, the NCLAT concluded that the appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that it was instituted of 45 days permissible under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – s.61 – The appellant fi led an interlocutory application before the NCLT alleging inter alia that the reply to the s.7 application on behalf of the Corporate Decision Date : 04-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7467/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1063,2025-06-12T21:53:02.770494 RANA AYYUBversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,07-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 12/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, J.B. PARDIWALA Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 3, 4, 44 and 45 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 4.3, 406, 418, 420 – Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 – s. 66D – Black Money Act – s. 4 – Act, 1999 – s. 37 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 133(6) – Petitioner during the pandemic did the crowdfunding campaign using an online crowdfunding platform “Ketto” – Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated inquiry under FEMA Decision Date : 07-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 12/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC101,2025-06-12T21:53:02.815965 MAMTA DEVI & ORS.versusTHE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR,19-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3904/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, ARAVIND KUMAR Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – s.20 – Notification issued under – “Contested claim” – When not – Deceased who was employed by the second respondent as truck driver met with a road accident and succumbed to the injuries – Compensation sought Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded Rs.4,31,671/- and with interest @ 6% p.a – Challenged by appellants – High Court held that the award itself was without jurisdiction on the ground that it was a contested matter on account of the written Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3904/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC566,2025-06-12T21:53:14.200141 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR & ANRversusURMILA G. & ORS.,30-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7938/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to issue positive directions for correction of revenue records. Kerela Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 – s. 12 – Reports of Lok Ayukta – Jurisdiction of Lokayukta – Directions by Upa-Lokayukta for correction of or Upa Lokayukta is satisfi ed with any action or inaction of the party which has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant, it shall by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority to remedy such injustice or hardship – On facts, the writ Petition was Decision Date : 30-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7938/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1044,2025-06-12T21:53:14.669922 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.versusM/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.,25-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2453/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Writ petition was fi led by respondent against the illegal sealing of its shop by the offi cers of Department of Excise and Taxation. While disposing off the petition, High Court whether justifi ed in passing the impugned directions for against the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner, holding that he had fi led an affi davit taking a false defence. Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Expunction of: Held : Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary circumstances, or unless Decision Date : 25-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2453/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal of State allowed and connected appeal disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC773,2025-06-12T21:52:57.791162 OM PRAKASH BANERJEEversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.,19-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4210/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Service Law – Regularisation of service – Denial of – Held: Non-regularisation of the services of the appellant is a violation of the fundamental rights of equality before law and equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State, as 16(1) – The principles of natural justice, too, demand that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees were granted the said benefit – Appellant entitled to receive back wages and benefits from 1991 with 10% Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4210/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC567,2025-06-12T21:52:53.345656 TATA MOTORS LIMITEDversusTHE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS,19-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3897/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Constitution of India – Power of Judicial review – Contractual/ commercial matters – Held: Courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising Powers of judicial review in – In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant – Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer – In the present case, TATA Motors deviated from the material and the essential term of Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3897/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC574,2025-06-12T21:53:07.032595 M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA,19-05-2023,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 51/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.11(6), 12(5) – Ministry of Home Affairs floated tender – Applicant’s bid was accepted as per the terms and conditions of the tender which provided for arbitration clause which enabled Affairs to appoint an officer in the Ministry of Law as the arbitrator – Applicant invoking arbitration, nominated a retired Judge of the High Court as the Sole Arbitrator which as per the respondent was contrary to the Conditions of Tender – Application filed u/s.11(6) before Supreme Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 51/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC568,2025-06-12T22:31:15.370342 SEBIL ELANJIMPALLYversusTHE STATE OF ODISHA,18-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1578/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SEBIL ELANJIMPALLY versus THE STATE OF ODISHA - [2023] 6 S.C.R. 5632023 INSC 557 K.M. JOSEPH, ARAVIND KUMAR Bail – Denial of – When not proper – Appellant charged for commission of offences u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act had been in custody for two years and 11 months – Bail denied – On appeal, held: The fact that the co-accused who was released on bail did not surrender Impugned order set aside – Matter to be reconsidered by the High Court – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.20(b)(ii)(C). CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1578 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2023 of the High Court Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1578/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC557,2025-06-12T22:31:31.496211 THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR,18-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 23/2016,Unknown,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, to Animals (Karnataka Second Amendment) Act, 2017 – Held: The expressions Jallikattu, Kambala and Bull Cart Race as introduced by the Amendment Acts of the three States have undergone substantial change in the manner they were used to be practiced or performed and the factual conditions Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 23/2016 | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC548,2025-06-12T22:31:35.951908 CHANCHALPATI DASversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.,18-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – FIR and charge-sheet – Quashing of – FIR was registered against appellant-accused u/ss. 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC – Appellant-accused claim themselves to be spiritual leaders and are related to a religious/ spiritual society – had committed theft as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of a bus – Appellant-accused sought quashing of the criminal proceedings – High Court dismissed the criminal revisions – On appeal, held: As per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC554,2025-06-12T22:31:20.522433 K. C. NINANversusKERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.,19-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2109/2004,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Electricity Act, 2003 – ss. 42 and 61 – Liability of subsequent owner to pay electricity charges due on previous owner – Whether the arrears of unpaid electricity dues outstanding from the erstwhile owner can be claimed owner, who has acquired the property in proceedings initiated to enforce mortgages or to pay off the dues of creditors – Held: In order to provide a supply of electricity to consumers, a distribution licensee is required to lay down infrastructure such as electricity lines, transformers, Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2109/2004 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC560,2025-06-12T22:31:09.940608 M/S B AND T AGversusMINISTRY OF DEFENCE,18-05-2023,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 13/2023,Rejected,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA 7 S.C.R. 599 M/S B AND T AG v. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (Arbitration Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2023) MAY 18, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, J.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11– Limitation period – Cause of action – When accrues – Period of limitation for commencing an arbitration runs from the date on which the “cause of arbitration” accrued i.e., from the date when the claimant first acquired either a right of action or a right to require arbitration – An application u/ s.11 is governed by Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 13/2023 | Disposal Nature : Rejected | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In",,2023INSC549,2025-06-12T22:31:23.572655 RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,19-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1617/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss. 3(1)(x), 18 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 325, 392, 452, 504, 506 – Prosecution case that the appellant was engaged in an altercation with the second respondent-complainant over the issue – It was alleged that during this altercation, the appellant verbally hurled caste related abuses towards the complainant and his family members, and subsequently physically assaulted the complainant causing him multiple injuries – Two FIRs were filed – First FIR by the Decision Date : 19-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1617/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC569,2025-06-12T22:31:17.555386 CAPTAIN MANJIT SINGH VIRDI (RETD.)versusHUSSAIN MOHAMMED SHATTAF & ORS.,18-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1399/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for discharge – Victim’s body was found in a pool of blood in his bedroom – After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against respondent nos.1 & 2 – Trial Court had not yet framed charges – Immediately after was filed – The same was dismissed by the Trial Court – However, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and discharged respondent nos. 1 & 2 – On appeal, held: The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on charges entire Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1399/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC555,2025-06-12T23:02:08.344295 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusVEDIC RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT. LTD.,17-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4979/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Insurance – Repudiation of claim under exclusionary clause in a policy – Respondent-complainant running a resort obtained two insurance policies in respect of buildings of the Resort with plant and machine accessories and furniture etc. – As per respondent, a mob of about 200-250 and damaged the property – Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.202.216 lakhs – Appellant-insurance company had repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that the loss caused to the respondent was an outcome of the malicious act/acts on the part of the respondent Decision Date : 17-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4979/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC545,2025-06-12T23:02:17.974624 SAKSHI ARHAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS,18-05-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 16428/2022,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI* Judicial Service – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – r. 10 – Selection for the post of Civil Judge – Submission of caste certificate – Certificate not accepted – Benefit of Reservation not given – An advertisement issued by respondent dated Judge – Appellants being members of Other backward Classes (Non-creamy layer), More Backward Class (NCL) and from the Economically weaker Section (EWS), applied for the post in their respective reserved category – Exam conducted – Appellants scored higher marks in their Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 16428/2022 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matter be placed before Hon'ble CJI for Constitution of appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC559,2025-06-12T23:01:57.161518 RAVI MANDALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,18-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 511/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, MANOJ MISRA Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 34 and 201 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 4 and 25 – Acquittal under – FIR lodged by PW-1 (father of deceased) after founding dead body of his son at 0730 hours on 01.11.2001 in a forest, alleging that deceased was with ‘R’ and with ‘S’ in written information – Both accused (R and S) were convicted by the Trial Court u/s.302 r/w. s.34, s.201 of IPC and ss. 4/25 of the Arms Act – Trial Court relied on testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5 to conclude that deceased was last seen alive in the company Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 511/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC552,2025-06-12T23:02:00.614915 ARTI DIXIT & ANRversusSUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA & ORS,18-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3858/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887: s. 17 – Decree passed by a court of Small Causes ex-parte, under the proviso to s.17 – Application to set aside the ex-parte decree – Mandatory requirements – Held: Applicant must deposit in the court, the amount or should give security for the performance of the decree ‘on a previous application’ made by him in this behalf – Such application can be filed up to the date of the application u/ Ord. IX r. 13 and the security must be made available along with such application – On Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3858/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC556,2025-06-12T23:02:11.147781 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAVINDER KUMAR JAIN & ORS.,18-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3621/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Locus of a subsequent purchaser to invoke s.24(2) to claim lapse of acquisition – Writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 invoking s.24(2) was allowed, – Correctness of – Held: A subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – In the present case, notification u/ s.4 of 1894 Act was issued on 25.11.1980 and the sale deed in favour of the Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3621/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC558,2025-06-12T23:02:15.714596 SALEM MUSLIM BURIAL GROUND PROTECTION COMMITTEEversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS,18-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7467/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Wakf – Suit land was declared as wakf property by Single Judge – Order set aside by Division Bench – Held: Under the Muslim law, a wakf can be created in several ways but primarily by permanent dedication of any movable and professing Islam for any purpose recognized by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable purpose and in the absence of such dedication, it can be presumed to have come into existence by long use – In the present case, on the admitted facts, the wakf by dedication of the suit land is Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7467/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC551,2025-06-12T23:02:02.821382 STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.versusRAVI KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS,18-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4983/2009,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Tenancy laws: Title claim – On facts, land leased out to one in 1924 for thirty years under the 1895 Act, who sold it to predecessor-in-interest of the respondents vide sale deed of 1947 and thereafter the land was recorded in his name and on his death are continuously recorded as Bhumidhar of the said land – Different set of legal proceedings which proceeded in parallel – Issues pertaining to sale of ownership rights or leasehold rights to the respondents; status of the respondents under the applicable tenancy law and if the Decision Date : 18-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4983/2009 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC550,2025-06-12T23:02:04.542112 SRI. K.M. KRISHNA REDDYversusSRI. VINOD REDDY & ANR.,06-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4471/2010,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: When in a suit simpliciter for a perpetual injunction based on title, the defendant pleads perfection of his title by adverse possession against the plaintiff or his predecessor, is it necessary for the plaintiff to claim a declaration For perpetual injunction based on title – Perfection of title by adverse possession pleaded by defendant – If necessary for plaintiff to claim a declaration of title: Held: Respondents admitted the ownership of the appellant’s father through whom the appellant claimed title Decision Date : 06-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4471/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC877,2025-06-13T11:04:16.026640 V. SENTHIL BALAJIversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ORS.,07-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2284/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whether writ of Habeus Corpus would lie; (ii) Whether s.41 CrPC has got any made under PMLA, 2002; (iii) The actual import of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 as to whether the 15 days period of custody in favour of the police should be only within the fi rst 15 days of remand or spanning over the entire period of investigation - 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, as a Decision Date : 07-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2284/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC677,2025-06-13T11:02:47.607337 TRUST ESTATE KHIMJI KESHAWJI & ANRversusTHE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.,05-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4230/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – s. 238 and s.271 – Validity of notice under – A Notice was issued to the apellant- owner (occupying ground and sixth floor) of the building consisting ground plus six floors, which stated that appellant the Act by using water supplied for domestic purpose, for purpose other than domestic – It also stated that s. 271 prohibits use of water supply for domestic purpose for any other purpose – High Court held notice to be valid – On appeal, held: Impugned notice does not mention any Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4230/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC609,2025-06-13T11:02:38.124250 SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ORS.versusDR. MANU & ANR.,16-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3752/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Service Law – Respondent No.1 joined the service of the Appellant-University in July 1999 as a Lecturer – He was placed in the senior scale and granted four advance increments by virtue of Cl 6.16 of the UGC Scheme dtd.21.12.1999 which provided that degree at the time of recruitment as lecturers would be eligible for four advance increments – Later, Respondent No.1 was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer however, while fixing the pay, two advance increments payable on placement of a Lecturer holding a Ph.D. degree as a Selection Decision Date : 16-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3752/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC539,2025-06-13T11:01:45.481535 STATE OF U.PversusSONU KUSHWAHA,05-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1633/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: ss. 6, 5 clause (m) – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Punishment for – Prosecution case that accused had put his penis into mouth of the victim aged about 10 years and discharged semen – Conviction u/s. 377 and the POCSO Act, and sentenced accordingly – However, the High Court held that the act committed by the accused was of penetrative sexual assault punishable u/s. 4 and reduced the sentence – Correctness of – Held: Accused committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1633/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC603,2025-06-13T11:02:30.862387 RANJAN KUMAR CHADHAversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,06-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2239/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : The contention raised was that the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of off ence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not contended that the High Court committed error in recording the fi nding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case as the recovery of the contraband substance was not made as a result of the personal search of the accused but on account of the search of his bag. The Decision Date : 06-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2239/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC878,2025-06-13T11:04:02.721948 SNEHASIS GIRI AND ORS.versusSUBHASIS MITRA,02-02-2023,CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 352/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Contempt of Court – Certain provisions of the West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008 regulating the process of appointment of teachers in aided Madrasas recognized as minority institutions, were declared unconstitutional by High Court – However, Supreme Court declared Act to be valid and binding – During the pendency of the appeals, some appointments were made by the madrasas – Contempt proceedings filed seeking release of salaries of teachers appointed after the provisions of the Act were declared unconstitutional by the High Court – Held: Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 352/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC97,2025-06-13T10:59:06.917821 DINGANGLUNG GANGMEIversusMUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS,07-08-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19206/2023,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for Consideration: The sectarian violence and strife in Manipur – Violence against women. Directions – Sectarian violence and riots in Manipur – Two broad objects which the directions must subserve: a need to ensure that the violence ceases, the perpetrators of violence are punished according to the procedure established by law, and that consequently, the faith and confi dence of the community in the justice system is restored – Secondly, there is a pressing need to ensure that the Decision Date : 07-08-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19206/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No 19206 of 2023 | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DINGANGLUNG GANGMEIversusMUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS-[2023] 12 S.C.R. 10832023 INSC 698Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAHEADNOTES Issue for Consideration: The sectarian violence and strife in Manipur – Violence against women. Directions – Sectarian violence and riots in Manipur – Two broad objects which the directions must subserve: a need to ensure that the violence ceases, the perpetrators of violence are punished according to the procedure established by law, and that consequently, the faith and confi dence of the community in the justice system is restored – Secondly, there is a pressing need to ensure that theDecision Date :07-08-2023| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19206/2023| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Direction Issue :Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No 19206 of 2023| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2023INSC698,2025-06-13T11:02:55.343128 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORSversusM/S. SATHYANARAYANA SERVICE STATION & ANR,09-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3533/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996: s. 34 – Application for setting aside arbitral award – Appellant-IOC entered into petrol pump dealer agreement with the first respondent – After three years, the first respondent sought to withdraw and the said request was notarised, and thereafter accepted by the appellant – Subsequently, first respondent expressed his intention to withdraw the resignation from the dealership, however, the same was not accepted – IOC took possession of the petroleum outlet and new dealer was Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3533/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC507,2025-06-13T11:00:46.868176 MADHYAMAM BROADCASTING LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,05-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8129/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022) APRIL 05, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND HIMA KOHLI, J.] Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) – Freedom of Speech and Expression – Freedom of Press – Reasonable Restriction a news and current affairs television channel called “Media One” – MIB revoked the permission that was granted to uplink and downlink ‘Media One’ because of the denial of a security clearance – Appellants initiated proceedings under Article 226 of the Decision Date : 05-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8129/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC324,2025-06-13T11:00:18.172461 MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION EXEMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,02-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 778/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Service Law– Pay revision – Application of Fifth Pay Commission to the employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation with effect from retrospective cut-off date, but limited to only existing employees in service as on the date of implementation (including retirees, legal representatives of those who had expired, and those who had availed of voluntary retirement scheme) who were in service as on the retrospective cut-off date, but not on the date of implementation, filed writ petition complaining of discrimination – Held: Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 778/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC96,2025-06-13T10:58:54.496115 JINI DHANRAJGIR & ANRversusSHIBU MATHEW & ANR. ETC.,16-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3758/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : s. 47, Ord. XXI r. 97 – Execution of decrees– Resistance to delivery of possession to decree- holder or purchaser – Original plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants – Suit decreed in and the defendants directed to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property – In appeal, decree modified to the extent of paying compensation to defendants in lieu of part-payment of purchase consideration made by defendant no. 1 and thereafter, the defendants would surrender the Decision Date : 16-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3758/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC544,2025-06-13T11:02:07.499993 TATA SONS PVT LTD (FORMERLY TATA SONS LTD)versusSIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LTD & ORS,05-01-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2680/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 29A (as amended) – Time limit for arbitral award – Time limit of under the amended s. 29A (1) for passing an arbitral award – Applicability of, to international commercial arbitrations – Held: Timeline of twelve months for making an arbitral award is not applicable to ‘international commercial arbitrations’ – In terms of the Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2680/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC13,2025-06-13T10:58:24.032261 M/S IVECO MAGIRUS BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBHversusNIRMAL KISHORE BHARTIYA & ANR,05-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1959/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether, while considering a private complaint alleging defamation, the Magistrate before summoning the accused ought to confi ne himself to the allegations forming part of the petition only or he may, applying the exceptions to s.499, IPC, dismiss the complaint holding that the facts alleged do not make out a case of defamation? (ii) Whether and, if at all, to what extent, is it open to the High Courts to exercise inherent power saved by s.482, Cr. PC to quash proceedings for defamation by setting Decision Date : 05-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1959/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC880,2025-06-13T11:04:23.024828 STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICEversusS. SUBBEGOWDA,03-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1598/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers u/s. 482 of CrPC could have discharged the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him for the off ences u/s. 13(1)(e) punishable u/s. 13(2) of the said Act, despite the fact that pressed for his second application for discharge by submitting the Memo dated 02.12.2014 and despite the fact that after framing of the charge by the Special Court on 23.12.2014, the trial had proceeded further and the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses in support of its case? (ii) Whether the Decision Date : 03-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1598/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC669,2025-06-13T11:03:01.290780 M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.,09-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1434/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.102 – Freeze orders and bank guarantee in furtherance there of were imposed against the appellant company on grounds of necessity of investigation of an alleged crime initiated against one ‘D’ allegedly connected to the appellant company an employee/ share holder/director or a key managerial person in the appellant company – Since ‘D’ was in no way connected to the appellant company, the trial faced by him, was in his individual capacity, and not vicariously on behalf of the appellant company – No Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1434/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC509,2025-06-13T11:00:44.262046 "COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), MUMBAIversusM/S GANPATI OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA & ANR.",06-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4735/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the tribunal was justifi ed in holding that enhancement of value of the imported goods and the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs on the sustained and consequently in setting aside the same. Customs Act, 1962 – 14 – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 – r. 4, 8, 5, 6 and 7 – Transaction value of imported goods – Determination of – Allegations of under- Decision Date : 06-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4735/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC881,2025-06-13T11:03:59.381779 VISHNU KUMAR SHUKLA & ANRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR,28-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3618/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the accused in a criminal case and quashing an FIR calls for interference. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 239-240 – Trial of warrant- cases Application for discharge – Permissible extent of scrutiny – On facts, refusal of the High Court to discharge the accused- appellant in a criminal case and quash an FIR – Interference with: Held: Case for interference made out – There is no suspicion, much less strong or Decision Date : 28-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3618/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1026,2025-06-13T11:05:21.794253 N. RAMKUMARversusTHE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,06-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2006/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant in fi t of rage, dashed head of the victim against the wall, resulting in death of victim. Appellant convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Whether judgment, order and sentence passed by the Sessions Court and affi rmed by rmed or the sentence is to be converted and punishment to be awarded u/s. 304 of IPC and if so, which part of s.304 IPC? Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and 304 Part II – Limited question before the Supreme Court regarding the affi rmation of sentence u/s. 302 IPC or conversion of sentence Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2006/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC812,2025-06-13T11:03:46.978076 PREMCHANDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,03-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 211/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Penal Code,1860 – ss. 300,302 307 and 304 – The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence of murder of the victim- deceased and attempt to murder three others – The judgment of the trial Court was challenged by the appellant by preferring appeal before the High Court On appeal, held: The trial court and the High Court did not consider written Statement (Ext. 96) of the appellant u/s 313(5) Cr.P.C. in its entirety, non-consideration of the same has made the conviction vulnerable to interference – Trial Court failed to appreciate the defence version Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 211/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC207,2025-06-13T10:59:34.529829 PAVANA DIBBURversusTHE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,29-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2779/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the off ence u/s.120B, IPC included in Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be treated as a scheduled off ence even if the criminal conspiracy alleged is to commit an off ence which is not a part Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Paragraph 1 of the Schedule – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120B – Appellant purchased the fi rst property from Alliance Business School and the second property from accused no.1 against whom an FIR was registered alleging that he Decision Date : 29-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2779/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1029,2025-06-13T11:05:06.377124 K. HYMAVATHIversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.,06-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2743/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in quashing the criminal proceedings fi led by appellant against respondent No.2-accused u/ss.138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that it was a fi t case for quashing since the complaint fi led seeking prosecution recoverable debt. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Debt if legally enforceable – Exercise of power u/s. 482, CrPC – Scope: Held: Whether the debt in question is a legally enforceable debt or other liability would arise on the facts and circumstance of each case and in that Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2743/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC811,2025-06-13T11:03:49.446543 KISHORE BALKRISHNA NANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,02-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2291/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KISHORE BALKRISHNA NAND versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. - [2023] 11 S.C.R. 342023 INSC 675 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the allegations made in the complaint in the good faith addressed to the lawful authority-Sub Divisional Magistrate, make out an off ence of defamation under Section 500 IPC or not. Penal Code, 1860 – s.499, eighth exception, s. 500 in good faith – When not defamation: Held : Accusation in the complaint preferred in good faith against any person, to a person in lawful authority with regard to the subject-matter of accusation, is not a defamation – By perusing the allegations made in the complaint, no case for Decision Date : 02-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2291/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC675,2025-06-13T11:03:06.346084 "E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTORversusM/S. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB",02-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3368/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Date from which the respondent establishment, a pathological laboratory will be covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.1(5) – Notifi cation in terms of the power conferred u/s.1(5) –High Court held that the provisions of the 1948 Act will be applicable to the respondent w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002 – Legality: Held : Respondent would be covered under the Act in terms of the Notifi cation dtd.06.09.2007 issued Decision Date : 02-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3368/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC665,2025-06-13T11:03:09.564879 "AMD INDUSTRIES LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. ASHOKA METAL DECOR PVT. LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW & ANR",09-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 108/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI U.P Trade Tax Act – s.4-A(5) – Whether for the goods, manufactured by use of modern technologies can be said to be “diversification”, and manufacturing of the goods of a nature different from the goods manufactured earlier if entitles exemption from trade tax provided u/s.4-A(5) – Held: In case of “diversification” the goods manufactured by diversification shall be different from the goods manufactured before such diversification – In the present case, the earlier product being manufactured by the Decision Date : 09-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 108/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC20,2025-06-13T10:58:06.751811 Y. BALAJIversusKARTHIK DESARI & ANR. ETC.,16-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1671/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3, 2(1)(u) – Offence of Money Laundering – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Jobs-for-cash scam in the State of Tamil Nadu – Whether without identifying the proceeds of crime/a of crime and any process or activity connected to proceeds of crime as required by s.3, which constitute the foundational/ jurisdictional fact, can ED initiate an investigation and issue summons – Held: All the three FIRs alleged that the accused had committed offences included in the Decision Date : 16-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1671/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC542,2025-06-13T11:01:48.515093 HARYANA POWER PURCHASE CENTREversusSASAN POWER LTD. & ORS,06-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11826/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Electricity Laws – Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), if empowered to disregard the express words of a contract and create a new bargain – Held: In a case where the matter is governed by express terms of the contract, it may the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission even donning the garb of a regulatory body to go beyond the express terms of the contract – While it may be open for a regulation to extricate a party from its contractual obligations, in the course of its adjudicatory power it may not be open Decision Date : 06-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11826/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC326,2025-06-13T11:00:02.419243 NITISHA AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,03-11-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1913/2022,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue pertains to the women offi cers of the Indian Army, who were granted Permanent Commission in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in and Others vs Union of India and Others, are aggreived by the non-empanelment for promotion to the rank of Colonel by selection. Armed forces – Women offi cers – Promotion to the rank of Colonel by selection – Women offi cers granted Permanent Commission-PC pursuant to Decision Date : 03-11-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1913/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC985,2025-06-13T11:04:33.837771 DR NARENDRA GUPTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,05-04-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 131/2013,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. DR NARENDRA GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 131 of 2013) APRIL 05, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, J.] Directions by Supreme Court – Unnecessary Hysterectomies – Constitution of India – of unnecessary hysterectomies being performed under various government healthcare schemes in various States – Petitioner has brought to Supreme Court’s notice the fact that women, who should not have been subjected to hysterectomies and to whom alternative treatment could have been Decision Date : 05-04-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 131/2013 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC322,2025-06-13T11:00:10.694219 KAMALversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI),07-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 465/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a prosecution case where father was found dead by the complainant-brother of the deceased, and suspicion arose on the son of the deceased on account of the property dispute between the father and the son, and the son fl ed from the scene of incident and later, whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting the son u/s. 302/34 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w 34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory – Conviction on basis of, by the courts Decision Date : 07-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 465/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC678,2025-06-13T11:02:53.197290 SHAKEEL AHMEDversusSYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN,01-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1598/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in affi rming the judgment of the Trial Court whereby it decreed the suit for possession and mesne profi ts fi led by the respondent with respect to the property in question on the basis of unregistered documents namely a Power to sell, an affi davit and a will. Deeds and Documents– Unregistered documents – Title with respect to immovable properties, if could be transferred on the basis of unregistered documents: Held: No title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an Decision Date : 01-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1598/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1016,2025-06-13T11:04:49.302984 "SIVAMANI AND ANR.versusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT",28-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3619/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Victims sustained simple injuries. Whether Courts below were justifi ed in convicting appellants u/s. 307 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 324 and 307 – Trial Court Nos.3 and 4) u/s. 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – High Court reduced the imprisonment from 10 years to 5 years – Propriety: Held: PW1 and accused no.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between their houses – A civil case regarding the same was Decision Date : 28-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3619/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1027,2025-06-13T11:05:25.493535 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORSversusKAMAL KISHORE PRASAD,09-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 175/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law – SBIOSR, 1992 – Rules 19(1) & 19(3) – Dismissal from Service – Respondent was dismissed from service as per order dated 11.08.1999 by the Appointing Authority – Writ petition by the respondent – Single Bench of the High Court by order dated the High Court stayed the operation of order passed by the Single Bench, however, finally the LPA was dismissed on 22.04.2010 – Meanwhile, respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009 – SLP filed by the appellant-bank was allowed with the direction to the Appointing Decision Date : 09-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 175/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC21,2025-06-13T10:58:03.897760 ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER,02-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 967/2017,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Representation of the People Act, 1951: s. 33(7) – Constitutional validity of –s. 33(7) permitting person to contest from more than one constituency for the same office simultaneously – Plea that a person should not from more than one seat at a time – Held: Such relief cannot be granted – Permittinga candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy – Thisis a matter where Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 967/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC94,2025-06-13T10:58:51.018383 VINOD KUMAR & ORS.versusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU & ORS.,07-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5107/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA National Highways Authority Act, 1956: s. 3H – Deposit and payment of amount – Compulsory acquisition – Apportionment of compensation – Land of the appellants acquired for public purpose – Determination of the compensation payable to landowners by the Special Land of the compensation between themselves and the appellants – Competent authority, SLAO determined the shares of parties in the subject land and the appellants were satisfied with the same – However, the respondents challenged the same before the District Magistrate by Decision Date : 07-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5107/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC606,2025-06-13T11:02:24.253666 VISHAL CHELANI & ORS.versusDEBASHIS NANDA,06-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3806/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The decision of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal that the home buyer as benefi ciary of a decree by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the order of the Resolution Professional proposing that they be treated diff erently from other home challenge. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.5(8)(f) explanation – Financial Creditor – Home buyers allottees in real estate project who secured the decree from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for a refund of their investment, if could be treated as fi nancial Decision Date : 06-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3806/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC913,2025-06-13T11:04:18.394977 ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR.versusM/S VIPUL LTD.,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5858/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The interpretation of the word and expression “Commercial Purpose” defi ned u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – ‘Commercial purpose’ – Not defi ned in the Act – The (Amendment) Act 50 of 1993: Held: The expression ‘commercial purpose’ has not been defi ned under the Act – In the absence thereof one have to go by its ordinary meaning – ‘Commercial’ denotes “pertaining to commerce”; it means Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5858/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC807,2025-06-13T11:03:22.053131 SHYAM KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.versusSHUBHAM JAIN,02-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 765/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – s.17 r/w Or. IX, r.13 of CPC – Court of Small Causes – Application for setting aside ex-parte decree – Maintainability – Requirement u/s. s.17 of the Act of 1887 of depositing the amount due and payable under the decree at the aside ex-parte decree – Respondent, purported owner of a shop, filed suit against the predecessor of appellants, who was a tenant in the shop – The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction on ground of default in payment of rent – Trial Court decreed the Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 765/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC98,2025-06-13T10:59:04.823999 PARSHURAMversusSTATE OF M.P.,03-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 524/2021,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the off ences punishable u/s. 302/149, s.326/149, s.324/149, s.323/149, s.147 and s.148 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – 302/149, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 147 and 148 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Accused persons formed an unlawful assembly when the buff alo of the complainant party spoiled the taparia built by the accused, and thereafter grieviously assaulted the complainant and his members Decision Date : 03-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 524/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC973,2025-06-13T11:04:38.342614 DEBIDUTTA MOHANTYversusRANJAN KUMAR PATTNAIK & ORS.,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4939/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 – r. 51(7) – Auction was to be made for grant of lease as per the Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules – One of the requirement of the auction notice was that the bidder was required to submit a solvency certificate issued by – The respondent no.1 participated in the tender process and submitted his application along with the solvency certificate issued by the Tehsildar – The solvency certificate was issued despite the specific order passed by the Sub-collector stating that a solvency certificate was to be Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4939/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC203,2025-06-13T10:59:25.928486 M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.,17-05-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1278/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. - [2023] 6 S.C.R. 5702023 INSC 547 KRISHNA MURARI, SANJAY KUMAR Judgments/Orders – Modification of – Vide order dtd. 09.05.2023 passed by Supreme Court, the condition imposed upon the appellant to furnish a bank guarantee for release of the set aside – Appellant was permitted to withdraw the said amount along with 4 percent simple interest payable from 08.05.2006 till the date of actual payment – Modification sought by appellant, in view of various orders passed earlier by the Securities Appellate Tribunal and Supreme Decision Date : 17-05-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1278/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC547,2025-06-13T11:01:33.645943 C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS,09-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5692/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiதமிழ் - Tamil Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. C.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS - [2023] 7 S.C.R. 9392023 INSC 510 DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KUMAR Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old LA Act) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new LA Act) – Tamil Nadu Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 – Whether the Industrial Purposes Act and the Highways Act are void owing to inherent arbitrariness and infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution – In G. Mohan Rao, the Supreme Court observed that the contention, based on comparative Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5692/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC510,2025-06-13T11:00:35.193091 JITENDRA NATH MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR,02-06-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 978/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JITENDRA NATH MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR - [2023] 7 S.C.R. 6422023 INSC 576 DIPANKAR DATTA, PANKAJ MITHAL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Exercise of power under – Held: What is essential for exercise of the power u/ s.319 is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned – However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by s.319 must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought Decision Date : 02-06-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 978/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC576,2025-06-13T11:01:19.942638 "KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS.versusNANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.",31-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Correct application of the principle underlying the rejection of plaints u/Or.VII, r.11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the facts of the case and the legality of rejection of a plaint in part. Code of Civil Procedure, r.11 – Rejection of Plaints – Principle underlying – Application of – Plaintiff s and the Defendants no.1-3 were members of a joint family owning properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint – Plaintiff s fi led plaint for partition and separate possession Decision Date : 31-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7413/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC964,2025-06-13T11:04:53.812575 M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHERversusATM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,30-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7890/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the application fi led by the appellant u/Or.VII r.11(d) CPC for rejection of the subsequent suit fi led by the respondent-owner for damages for use and occupation of of the lease period. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII r. 11(d) – Application under – First suit fi led by the respondent for possession without claiming any damages for use and occupation – Subsequent suit fi led only for claiming damages for use and occupation Decision Date : 30-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7890/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1042,2025-06-13T11:05:04.225263 SINGRAULI SUPER THERMAL POWER STATIONversusASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY & ORS,05-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3856/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – s. 19(1) – Non-compliance of principles of Natural justice – Opportunity not given to file objections to the recommendations made by the Committee – NGT constituted an expert committee and sought a violations complained by the first respondent – However, opportunity to raise objections to the report not given to appellants – Held:It is apparent that the appellants were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations made by the Committee constituted Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3856/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC618,2025-06-13T11:02:40.546792 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7versusM/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,06-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6126/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, A.S. BOPANNA COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 v. M/S PAVILLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021) APRIL 06, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.263 – Exercise of jurisdiction under – Respondent filed its income tax return sale proceeds to pay off the shareholders and therefore, the said discharge of encumbrances was “cost of improvement” – Assessment accepted by AO u/s. 143(3) – However, the Commissioner invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the IT Act and held that the assessment order passed Decision Date : 06-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6126/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC325,2025-06-13T11:00:06.769482 KAMUKAYI & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,16-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3799/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Railways Act, 1989 – ss. 123(c) and 124 – Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 – r. 7 – Claim for compensation – Victim-deceased fell down from the running train between platform and track and sustained grave injuries the spot – FIR was registered – Inquest report and final report submitted clearly revealed that death was an outcome of untoward railway incident – Claim petition was filed before the Railways claims Tribunal – Claims Tribunal held that appellants had failed to prove the Decision Date : 16-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3799/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC541,2025-06-13T11:01:36.496197 M/S. SHREE VISHNU CONSTRUCTIONSversusTHE ENGINEER IN CHIEF MILITARY ENGINEERING SERVICE & ORS.,09-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3461/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – s.26 – Applicability of Amendment Act, 2015– Whether the provisions of the old Act (pre-Amendment Act, 2015) or the new Act (Amendment Act, 2015) shall be applicable when the notice prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 but application to appoint arbitrator u/s.11(6), 1996 Act is filed post Amendment Act, 2015 – Held: In a case where the notice invoking arbitration is issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 and the application u/s.11(6)is filed post Amendment Act, 2015, the Decision Date : 09-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3461/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC508,2025-06-13T11:00:39.196428 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,29-11-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1268/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Union Government has the unilateral power to appoint the Chief Secretary of NCTD and; whether the Union Government has the power to extend the service of the incumbent – Article 239AA(3)(a); VIIth Schedule, State List, Entry 41 – Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991 as amended by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2023 – Writ petition fi led by Government of NCTD stating that they have Decision Date : 29-11-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1268/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1049,2025-06-13T11:05:14.998520 K. SREEDHARversusM/S RAUS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD & ORS.,05-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7402/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 : s. 31(i) – Provisions of the Act not to apply to security interest created in agricultural land – Respondent No. 1-debtor availed credit facilities from the Bank and owing to default Bank issued possession notice of the properties and e-auction held – Challenged to – One of the property purchased by the appellant-auction purchaser – DRT confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant – In writ petition, the High Court set aside the e–auction and Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7402/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC17,2025-06-13T10:58:09.997291 VIJAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,29-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4910/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the bar of admissibility created by s.35, Stamp Act 1899 applies to the agreement(s) to sell dtd. 04.02.1988 executed by the parties; can a copy of a document be adduced as secondary evidence when the original instrument is not in possession of the party; facts of the present case, would the decision of this Court in Jupadi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subha Rao be binding as held by both the Courts below? Stamp Act, 1899 – s.35 – Applicability – Article 23 of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act – “conveyance” Decision Date : 29-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4910/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1030,2025-06-13T11:05:12.157305 BALVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,06-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 301/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The High Court affi rmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court holding appellant-husband guilty of the off ence of murder punishable u/s.302 of the IPC alongwith the off ence punishable u/s. 498A of the IPC and appellant-mother-in-law the IPC r/w. 34 of the IPC, whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Penal Code, 1860 – s.302, s.498A – Prosecution case was that victim died due to poisoning – At the time of death only her appellant-husband was present – Decision Date : 06-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 301/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC879,2025-06-13T11:04:08.440481 M/S. SHEKHAR RESORTS LIMITED (UNIT OF ORIENT TAJ)versusUNION OF INDIA,05-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8957/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 : Deposit of settlement amount under the 2019 Scheme, during moratorium – When impossible in view of the bar under the IBC – Appellant-corporate debtor, if can be made to suffer for no fault of its own and rendered rememediless – On facts, of the appellant u/s. 7 – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the appellant – Appellant subjected to moratorium – Thereafter, Resolution plan approved and the appellant applied for “Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 – Appellant could Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8957/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC15,2025-06-13T10:58:21.679434 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusGIRNAR CORRUGATORS PVT. LTD. & ORS.,05-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6662/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – ss. 13(2), 13(4), 14, 17, 26E – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) – ss. 15-23, 24 – Whether the MSMED Act would prevail recovery proceedings/recoveries under MSMED Act would prevail over the recoveries made/recovery proceedings under provisions of the SARFAESI Act – Held : Sec 15 to 23 of the MSMED Act provides a special mechanism for adjudication of dispute between buyer and seller – But does not Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6662/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC12,2025-06-13T10:58:18.369230 SMT. ROOPA SONIversusKAMALNARAYAN SONI,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5700/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the trial Court and High Court were justifi ed in adopting a hyper-technical and pedantic approach in declining the decree of divorce, when both the parties had made serious allegations against each other and were living separately for decade Act, 1955 – The appellant-wife registered a complaint u/s. 498A of IPC and ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – The respondent-Husband had questioned the character of the appellant-wife – Petition for divorce – Trial Court and the High Court declined decree of Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5700/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC814,2025-06-13T11:03:51.996530 MARKASH JAJARAversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.,03-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3405/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MARKASH JAJARA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 8342023 INSC 1015 SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant was held guilty of having committed the murder of his son-in-law. Whether the off ence attributed to the appellant falls within the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 IPC which defi nes “murder”. Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and – The occurrence took place inside the house of the appellant – The informant had gone to the house of the appellant and found his brother, who had been staying with his in-laws, lying dead – Trial Court on consideration of the evidence held the appellant guilty of committing Decision Date : 03-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3405/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1015,2025-06-13T11:04:36.377575 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusK. SURI BABU,29-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1320/2010,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-workman, could be initiated under the Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or it could be done only under the Standing Orders certifi ed Fuel Complex-Hyderabad on 27.08.1973, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Tribunal upheld the initiation of the disciplinary Decision Date : 29-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1320/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1033,2025-06-13T11:05:17.410743 PRIYANKA MISHRA & ORSversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.,08-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1545/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR – Complaint filed by Respondent no.2-wife against appellants (sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law) and her husband for offences punishable u/s.498-A s.4, Dowry Prohibition Act – Petition filed by appellants u/s.482 for quashing, dismissed – On appeal, held: FIR in question as far as appellants are concerned, is an abuse of the process of the Court – Respondent No.2 resided for less than three weeks in the matrimonial home Decision Date : 08-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC729,2025-06-13T11:01:00.006457 LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2644/2016,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court negating the plea of land owner seeking ‘lapse’ of the acquisition proceedings in terms of s. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is liable to be interfered with; whether decision of Nagpur Improvement directed by the High Court, requires interference; and what suitable relief could be granted to land owner on account of delay caused in determination of compensation despite time bound directions by the High Court. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s. 11-A – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2644/2016 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC818,2025-06-13T11:03:28.994931 MAN SINGHversusSHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS,05-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1874/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss.20, 30 – Deposit of rent in court – When – Held: Tenant can only deposit rent in the court, as long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent – Once the landlord expresses his has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord – Section 30 gives an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the admitted rent in Court, but this arrangement lasts only till the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the rent directly – On facts, rent of the premises Decision Date : 05-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1874/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC323,2025-06-13T11:00:23.064490 S. NARAHARI AND ORSversusS.R. KUMAR AND ORS.,05-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4289/2023,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII r. 7 – Constitution Of India – Art. 141 – Whether liberty granted by Supreme Court to approach the High Court in review, automatically places the said matter in the escalation matrix, and makes the remedy of Special Leave Held: It is necessary for the same to be adjudicated and deliberated upon by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. If a dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order is not considered law under Article 141 of Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4289/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matter be placed before Hon’ble CJI (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA) for constituting a larger Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC604,2025-06-13T11:02:35.796166 STATE OF KERALAversusM/S AKAY FLAVOURS AND AROMATICS LTD.,02-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7330/2009,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Circulars/Government orders/Notifications: Tax Exemption Notification SRO 1727/1993 – Exemption for period of five years from levy of sales tax on purchase of raw materials – Entitlement to exemption – Commencement of exemption, from the date of approval of the project by or from the date of commencement of production – Assessing Authority commuted the period of five years from 16.12.1993 – Held: Letter dated 16.12.1993 on a plain reading appears to be a mere permission – Letter of permission contained standard conditions which described the Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7330/2009 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC716,2025-06-13T10:59:00.875759 WAZIR KHANversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,02-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1922/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. WAZIR KHAN versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - [2023] 11 S.C.R. 392023 INSC 674 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a case hinging on circumstantial evidence, where the appellant was put to trial u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC for murdering his wife, and he did not dispute his presence at the place of incident and, further, the explanation off ered by him as regards wife was found to be false, whether the High Court was justifi ed in reversing the acquittal order passed by the trial court. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Propriety: Held : When attention of the appellant was drawn to the Decision Date : 02-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1922/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC674,2025-06-13T11:03:04.115842 KARNATAKA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.versusKUMAON ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD.,05-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8073/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the demand raised by the State Undertaking from the allottee towards the charges for conversion of nature of use from IT Sector to Hospitality Sector. Land laws – Conversion of nature of use – Payment – Allotment of plot by State undertaking to the respondent- allottee for setting up Information Technology-IT industry on lease cum sale basis, but the allottee later sought conversion of nature of use from IT Sector to Hospitality Sector – Permission of change of use granted on Decision Date : 05-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8073/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC871,2025-06-13T11:04:20.667662 NHPC LTD.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY & ORS.,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3948/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i)Whether, by enacting the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act of 1997, the Himachal Pradesh State Legislature had validly removed the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 had been held not to include within its scope the activity of the appellants of providing gratis transport facilities for their employees and their children. (ii) Whether the activity of the appellants of providing gratis transport facilities Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3948/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC810,2025-06-13T11:03:41.463687 MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.versusRAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.,01-11-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 24748/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Dispute inter alia over retention of possession and tenancy right of predecessor of the petitioners in respect of second scheduled property (measurement of which was disputed led by the predecessor of the respondents), as described in his plaint. Suit – As regards the second scheduled property, the case of the petitioners is that it was rented out to their predecessor by its owner ‘AB’ – ‘AB’ had conveyed this property to the Decision Date : 01-11-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 24748/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC969,2025-06-13T11:04:47.140164 SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANRversusPRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS,05-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8969/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA 1 S.C.R. 553 553 SIDHA NEELKANTH PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ANR v. PRUDENT ARC LTD. & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022) JANUARY 05, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGRATHNA JJ.] Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: s.18 of – Auction sale – Amount already been recovered/realised by the secured creditor by selling the mortgaged property through an auction– While calculating the amount of “debt due”, the amount deposited by the auction purchaser on purchase of the secured assets, Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8969/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC14,2025-06-13T10:58:14.374925 EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN 861 : 2023 INSC 809 861 CASE DETAILS EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No.7906 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 06, 2023 [B. V. NAGARATHNA AND UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ. ] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellate Tribunal whether justifi ed in upholding the decision of – Appellant submitted its bid dtd.16.07.21 to Respondent No.2-Liquidator in respect of the assets of the corporate debtor (in liquidation) – On 20.07.21, appellant received an E-auction certifi cate from certifying that it had won the auction of the subject property– On Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC809,2025-06-13T11:03:18.387847 "COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANJUMAN INTEZAMIA MASAJID, VARANASIversusRAKHI SINGH AND OTHERS",04-08-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31345/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue under consideration : Order of the High Court dismissing the appeal against an order of the District Judge directing an archeological survey of the area in which the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Application u/s.75(c) and Or.26, r.10A of CPC allowed by the District Judge, directing ASI to undertake a scientifi c survey of the property – High Court affi rmed the said order subject to certain observations made and affi davit fi led by the ASI Decision Date : 04-08-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31345/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC702,2025-06-13T11:02:58.573298 THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD.versusTHE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.,06-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7224/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL, ARAVIND KUMAR Contract – State, a party to the contract must abide by Article 14 – Reasonable period to consider an application – Application made by the appellant for reduction to 10000 Kilovolt-Ampere (KVA) – No steps effectuating such repeated follow ups by the appellant – Action of the respondents in taking considerable time from when the said application was made, to when the revised agreement was entered into, if arbitrary and unreasonable – Held: Yes – State action irrespective of being in the Decision Date : 06-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7224/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC607,2025-06-13T11:02:28.312505 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANRversusJAGDEEP SINGH,08-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4709/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Cost: Imposition of, for filing frivolous litigation – On facts, appellant demanding additional price for plot allotted to the respondent – Said land was transferred by the Animal Husbandry Department to the appellants and the rate at which the – Suit filed by the respondent challenging the demand of additional price – Courts below set aside the demand of the additional price of the plot allotted to the respondent in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter – On appeal, held: There Decision Date : 08-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4709/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC503,2025-06-13T11:01:02.927002 ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,03-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 891/2021,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2023] 5 S.C.R. 2432023 INSC 99 A.S. BOPANNA, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Citizenship Act, 1955 – s.7B(1) – Through notifications dtd.11.04.2005, 05.01.2009, the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) Cardholders were given the right of parity with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in respect of the facilities as notified, including in the field of education, who in – Impugned notification dtd.04.03.21 issued by Respondent No.1, in exercise of powers u/s.7B(1), took away the existing right of OCI Cardholders of appearing for the Entrance Exams to compete with Indian Citizens for the seats and restricted the admission only as against the seats reserved Decision Date : 03-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 891/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC99,2025-06-13T10:58:35.085096 "M/S. D. N. SINGHversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PATNA AND ANOTHER",16-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3738/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.69A – Scope and applicability of – s.69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles – Deeming effect of the provision – When applicable – Ambit of the word ‘owner’ in s.69A Joseph, J.) : To apply s.69A of the Act, it is indispensable that the Officer must find that the other valuable article is owned by the assessee – A bailee who is a common carrier is not the owner of the goods – A bailee who is a common carrier would necessarily be entrusted with Decision Date : 16-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3738/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC543,2025-06-13T11:01:42.464063 SARVESH MATHURversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,06-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 351/2023,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SARVESH MATHUR versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - [2023] 13 S.C.R. 11172023 INSC 891 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Denial of access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode. Directions by Supreme Court – Conduction of hearings through video conferencing/hybrid mode – Considerable variation between High Courts in of technology – Position of the tribunals under various ministries of the Union Government: Held: No High Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant desirous of availing of such a facility – All Decision Date : 06-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 351/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC891,2025-06-13T11:04:11.645690 CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.versusASHIT CHAKRABORTY & ORS.,08-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3462/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 – Respondent no.1 was appointed in the Corporation as conductor in 1981 when there was no pension scheme in force, only Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme was applicable in 1991 providing for pension scheme for the employees, effective from 01.04.1984 – Existing employees were to give an option to avail benefit under the 1990 Regulations – Respondent no.1 submitted his option within time – He sought voluntary retirement in 2017 – Apart Decision Date : 08-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3462/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC505,2025-06-13T11:01:05.526430 VARDAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.versusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CENTRAL SECTION & ORS,31-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8302/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VARDAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CENTRAL SECTION & ORS - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 11182023 INSC 1087 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Consignment was intercepted in the course of inter-state movement, as there was no valid E-way bill. High Court directed that the goods be released subject to payment of the entire amount of the Goods cash and 50% of the penalty imposed also in cash while the remaining 50% by way of bank guarantee. Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 – West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 – Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Appellant executed work contracts for GAIL in the Decision Date : 31-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8302/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1087,2025-06-13T11:04:58.913632 RAJNISH KUMAR RAIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,06-09-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20054/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whether justifi ed in dismissing the writ petition fi led by the petitioner, relying on Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay [2022] 16 SCR 259 and holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction petition which challenged the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi rejecting the petitioner’s application for transfer of the proceeding from CAT, Hyderabad Bench to the Ahmedabad Bench. Judicial Propriety – Ratio laid down by coordinate Bench in Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20054/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC862,2025-06-13T11:03:24.941626 "GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRSversusUNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.",03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4826/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Licence – A licence holder, if entitled to allotment of the auction platform adjacent to and/or in front of his shop as a matter of right – Held: To do business in the shop and to carry on business on the auction platform, are both different and distinct is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop – No such rule and/or regulation and/or guideline supporting such a claim was brought by the appellant to the Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4826/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC199,2025-06-13T10:59:31.483127 THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & ORSversusAJIT KUMAR SINGH & ANR.,17-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3663/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial review – Bid tampering matter, wherein disciplinary proceedings initiated against two employees – Order of imposition of major penalty of withholding five annual increments against the respondent no. 1 and punishment grade against the other employee – Order of punishment against the respondent no.1 upheld by the appellate authority as also the Single Judge of the High Court – However, the punishment imposed set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: During the course of inquiry, Decision Date : 17-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3663/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC546,2025-06-13T11:01:29.625188 THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusSATPAL & ORS.,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2984/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act – Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964 – r. 12 – Unauthorised possession – Respondents were alleged to be in the possession of a land, which was claimed to be belonging to Gram Panchayat and was meant thus giving rise to the dispute between the appellant and the respondents – On the application of the sarpanch, the demarcation proceedings were carried out with respect to the land in which the unauthorized possession of the respondent was shown – The eviction proceeding were Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2984/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC201,2025-06-13T10:59:43.272563 INCOME TAX OFFICERversusVIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA,06-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 911/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI Income Tax Act, 1961: s.153C – Assessment of income of any other person – Initiation of search u/s.132 prior to the amendment to s.153C – Applicability of the amended s.153C – On facts, search u/s.132 conducted on the premises on 04.09.2013 and s.153C applicable – W.e.f. 01.06.2015, s.153C amended vide Finance Act, 2015 – Books of account or documents or assets seized by the Assessing Officer of the person other than searched on 25.04.2017, subsequent to the amendment of s.153 C – Issuance of notice u/s.153C on 04.05.2018 Decision Date : 06-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 911/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC327,2025-06-13T10:59:56.991118 UNION OF INDIAversusSANJIV CHATURVEDI,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1587/2023,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Transfer of OA – Respondent no.1-original writ petitioner filed Original Application (OA) before Nainital Circuit Bench, CAT – Union of India filed application for transfer of OA from Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi transferred it to the Principal Bench, New Delhi – It was challenged before High Court of Uttarakhand and High Court had set aside the aforesaid order – On appeal, held : The matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to decide a Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1587/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC210,2025-06-13T10:59:22.369378 GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY & ANR.versusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS,08-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9021/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 : s. 126 – Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in the plan – Appellant was the owner of the plot in Mumbai, reserved for the purpose of ‘Recreation Ground’– Application by the appellant no. 1 to surrender land reserved for recreation purpose and for the grant of Development Rights Certificate-DRC – Intention to develop the land sought to be surrendered expressed Decision Date : 08-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9021/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC504,2025-06-13T11:00:55.377165 SANJAY KUMAR AGARWALversusSTATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.,31-10-2023,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1620/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: A Batch of fi ve Review Petitions was fi led by the Review Petitioners, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and of 2020. Whether the Review Petitioners were able to make out any case within the ambit of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, read with Order XLVII of CPC, for reviewing the impugned judgment. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII Decision Date : 31-10-2023 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1620/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC963,2025-06-13T11:04:56.281654 KARAN @ FATIYAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,03-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 572/2019,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – Claim of Juvenility – Appellant convicted for various offences under IPC and POCSO Act was awarded death sentence – Death sentence affirmed by High Court – During the pendency of the present appeals, appellant Trial Court was directed to submit report after due inquiry – Report submitted, appellant’s date of birth was found to be conclusively proved as 25.07.2002 – Date of incident being 15.12.2017, the appellant was aged 15 years 04 months and 20 days on the date of the incident Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 572/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC197,2025-06-13T10:59:39.675513 HARI BABU THOTAversus*,29-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the resolution applicant was disqualifi ed under the primary conditions as specifi ed u/s.29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and; whether the corporate debtor not having an MSME status at the time of commencement of CIRP proceedings would applicant u/s.29A of the Code as benefi t of s.240A would not be available. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.29A, 240A – Persons not eligible to be resolution applicant – Application of the Code to micro, small and medium enterprises – Appellant-Resolution Decision Date : 29-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1056,2025-06-13T11:05:09.334425 MOHD. NAUSHADversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI),06-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Decision Date : 06-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC605,2025-06-13T11:02:26.890483 AMANDEEP SINGH SARANversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,29-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2625/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conduct of the trial for off ence under Section 409, Penal Code, 1860; exercise of powers under Cr.PC, for committal of cases to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.26, 29, 12, 323; First Schedule to CrPC – s.409 – Courts by which off ences are triable – Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate fi nds case should be committed– Appellant charged for commission of various off ences including u/s.409, IPC punishable with imprisonment for life or Decision Date : 29-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2625/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1028,2025-06-13T11:05:10.722582 PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR,07-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1793/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Anticipatory bail – Rejection of – Appellants’ case that they had possession over the subject land and they never sold the subject land to anyone nor have they ever executed any power of attorney (GPA) in favor of any third persons had approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforesaid land – It was alleged that the application for mutation was based on a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 24.02.2022 – Appellant also learnt that the said sale deed was based on yet another, Decision Date : 07-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1793/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC612,2025-06-13T11:02:21.770753 ANIL KUMARversusTHE STATE OF KERALA,01-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2697/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ANIL KUMAR versus THE STATE OF KERALA - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1732023 INSC 965 ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in the circumstances of the instant case, the appellant had any premeditated mind to kill the deceased or was it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to murder or would at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to for a term which may extend up to 10 years or with fi ne or with both u/s. 304 Part-II of IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 304 Part-II – Prosecution case that the appellant, with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her when she had Decision Date : 01-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2697/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC965,2025-06-13T11:04:51.654824 ARUN DEV UPADHYAYAversusINTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.,05-07-2023,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1273/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII, r.1 – Review – Scope of – Civil Appeals filed by the Review Petitioner were dismissed vide judgment dtd. 10.08.2021 inter alia holding that foreign award could be enforced against agreement and that the only ground on which its enforcement could be resisted or refused are contained in s.48, Arbitration and Conciliation Act – It also held that the canvas of s.46 is wider than that of s.35 and would apply to all the persons who are not even parties to the Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1273/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC610,2025-06-13T11:02:33.113862 RAMATHAL AND ORS.versusK. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.,17-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8830/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The view of the High Court that before the Trial Court, there was neither any pleading nor any issue was framed with regard to the plea of non est factum and as such the First Appellate Court committed an error in determining the said plea in favour of the the plaintiff was dismissed. Suit – Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration as the absolute owners of the suit properties and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that there was misrepresentation in the General Power of Attorney – Dismissed by trial Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8830/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC737,2025-06-13T17:06:59.418016 CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR.versusBIKARTAN DAS & ORS.,16-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3339/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR. v. BIKARTAN DAS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023) AUGUST 16, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J.B. PARDIWALA, J.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court, if erred in setting aside the order passed by the Ministry of AYUSH. Service Law – Grant of benefi t of enhancement of retirement age – Unsustainability: Held: Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Research Assistant by the appellant-Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) and was functioning as a Researcher under Decision Date : 16-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3339/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC733,2025-06-13T17:07:06.708507 PRIYA INDORIAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.,20-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 003549/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC could be exercised with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court; and whether the transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable an applicant seeking anticipatory bail to make an application u/s 438 CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction is consistent with the administration of criminal justice. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Decision Date : 20-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 003549/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1008,2025-06-13T17:07:29.078926 Y. P. LELEversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.,16-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5155/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court committed an error in applying the explanation to Or. XVII, r.2 CPC and based upon it held that an application u/Or. IX Rule 13 CPC would not be maintainable as the presence of the defendant would at the time of disposal of the suit. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Explanation to Or. XVII, r.2 and Or. IX, r.13: Held : At the stage when plaintiff ’s evidence was being led, counsel for defendants withdrew his vakalatnama – Trial Court directed to proceed u/Or. XVII, Decision Date : 16-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5155/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC732,2025-06-13T17:07:04.519553 MALA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS,17-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3992/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the order passed by the High Court conferring the total amount of compensation payable to the land owners at Rs. 2,400/- per marla for the land Chahi, for the remaining kinds of land for the village Purhiran, and for all kinds of land along with all statutory benefi ts available under the Land Acquisition Act, by applying one third cut on the assessed market value of Rs. 3,000/- per marla, towards development charges; and by not relying upon the sale deeds executed for the shops prior to the date of acquisition, warrants any Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3992/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC735,2025-06-13T17:06:34.836136 ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANRversusM. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.,25-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 521/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Release Deed – Effect of – Spes Successionis – Estoppel – Warding off, of estoppel by heirs of the person whose conduct created the estoppel – Impropriety of – Dispute regarding self- acquired property of ‘S’ – ‘S’ had married twice were the appellants – When one child of ‘C’ was minor and other was not born, he executed a release deed for relinquishing his share in the property for valuable consideration in the year 1975 – It was also specified in the release deed that ‘C’ will not Decision Date : 25-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 521/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC83,2025-06-13T17:05:08.990102 KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYAversusRAJLAKSHMI CHAUDHURI AND OTHERS,04-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1581/2021,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, SANJIV KHANNA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 156(3) – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case – Application u/s. 156(3) by the victim-complainant alleging rape by the appellants; and sought direction to police to investigate the matter treating the complaint as an FIR filed several complaints before the police authorities, who conducted an enquiry and found that there was delay of two years in filing the complaint and refused to register the same – Dismissal of the application u/s. 156(3) by the Magistrate – Revision application thereagainst, Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1581/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC494,2025-06-13T17:05:56.240663 DINESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,04-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 530/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SANJAY KUMAR Penal Code,1860 – ss.302,364,392,394,201 and 34 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.27,101,106 and 165 – The case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence i.e. the evidence of ‘last seen’ and the ‘discoveries’ made from the information given by the co-accused convicted by Trial Court for the murder of the deceased – Two separate appeals were filed before the High Court – During the pendency of the appeal, the co-accused passed away, thus, his appeal stood abated – The appeal of the present appellant was dismissed, thus Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 530/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC493,2025-06-13T17:06:18.679662 MARIAPPANversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,24-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: On the day of incident, heated arguments took place between the two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed victim multiple times with sooriknives, while accused no.3, though armed with a spade handle, did not infl ict injuries attack. The appellant-accused was convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Whether the acts of the accused would come under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC or would be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.304 Part-I – Trial Court after examining Decision Date : 24-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1034,2025-06-13T17:07:17.275563 BAHARUL ISLAM & ORS.versusINDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ORS.,24-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 502/2023,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – Constitutionality of – Legislative Competency of the State – Assam State legislature enacted the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – Said Act provides for the establishment of a regulatory authority to and to regulate their practice – State Act in conflict with Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) – Writ Petition challenging the Constitutionality of the Act – High Court allowed the Writ petition by holding that the Act, 2004 was unconstitutional as the State Act was Decision Date : 24-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 502/2023 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC81,2025-06-13T17:05:18.184860 T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusK. KANAGARAJ & ORS.,08-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3466/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, MANOJ MISRA Electricity Department, Group B (Technical) Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1979 – Promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) – Under the Rules, 80% of the vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer were to be filled by direct recruitment – Out of this 80%, 50% were earmarked for those Junior Engineers who possessed Degree in Engineering with regular service of 3 years and the other 50% for those possessing Diploma with regular service of 7 years – Junior Engineers-private respondents, who were Decision Date : 08-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3466/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC502,2025-06-13T17:05:53.801587 HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR.versusHIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.,17-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8801/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The stand taken by the appellants- Management was that in its establishment, there were more than 100 workmen, hence, reference of a dispute to the Labour Court was without jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour Court whether the stand taken by the appellants-Management justifi ed. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Earlier, High Court had granted liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were more than 100 workmen and the appellant could place on record the documents – Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8801/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC799,2025-06-13T17:06:30.441259 "RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITEDversusRAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSION OF ACIL LIMITED & ANR.",21-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1527/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The moot question involved is the extent of the jurisdiction and powers of the the issue of revaluation in the background of the admitted and undisputed factual position that no objection was raised by any quarter with regard to any defi ciency/irregularity, either by the RP or the appellant or the CoC, in fi nally approving the Resolution Plan which was sent to the Decision Date : 21-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1527/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1013,2025-06-13T17:07:27.552253 PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,21-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3548/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA 261 : 2023 INSC 1012 261 CASE DETAILS PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 3548 of 2023) NOVEMBER 21, 2023 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA,JJ] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question which arise for determination is whether the appellant was a of age – When exact assessment of the age cannot be done: Held: Age of a juvenile has to be determined on the basis of the date of the alleged commission of the crime – In a case of juvenility where two views are possible, a liberal approach should be undertaken – Decision Date : 21-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3548/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1012,2025-06-13T17:07:25.041735 PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC AREAS AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,23-11-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 443/2017,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the scope of the Court’s power to issue directions for the grant of proportional representation for the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribes in the and in the Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal and Sikkim in terms of the mandate of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution; and directions to the Delimitation Commission as well as the Election Commission to eff ectuate the mandate of Art. 332 of the Constitution, in respect of Limboo Decision Date : 23-11-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 443/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1086,2025-06-13T17:07:23.274549 PRASAD PRADHAN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,24-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2025/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Prosecution case that appellant/accused and the victim were cousins – On the afternoon of 28.02.2012, when the victim was getting his land levelled through a JCB machine, the appellants (A-1 and A-2) reached the place and armed with an axe and he attacked the victim on the head – Against A-2, the allegation was that he was armed with an axe and had assaulted the victim on the legs – Regarding A-3, the grandson of A-1 and son of A-2, the allegation was that he went to the spot and caught hold of the Decision Date : 24-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2025/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC79,2025-06-13T17:05:31.113366 KISHAN CHAND JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,17-08-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990/2021,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Direction sought by Writ Petitioner to implement the mandate of s.4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss. 3 and 4 – Obligation of public authorities Held : Power and accountability go hand in hand – While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ u/s.3 of the Act, the co- relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in s.4 of the Act – The Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990/2021 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC741,2025-06-13T17:07:01.813522 P. KISHORE KUMARversusVITTAL K. PATKAR,20-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7210/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The plaintiff ’s vendor applied u/s. 9A of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and sought occupancy rights in respect of 15 acres of Sy. No. 3. According to the plaintiff , the claim of the plaintiff ’s vendor succeeded Commissioner of Inams. However, the appellant-defendant alleged that the Commissioner’s order granted occupancy rights u/s. 9 in favour of his predecessor-in-interest. Trial Court after examining revenue records adduced by the plaintiff and the Commissioner’s order, held that the Decision Date : 20-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7210/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1009,2025-06-13T17:07:33.492514 MUNNA LALversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,24-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 490/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 374(2) –Appeal from convictions – Murder of the complainant’s father – Previous enmity between the parties – On the fateful day, the appellants armed with weapons inflicted gun shot injuries and blows to the – FIR against the appellants – Surviving appellants convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held : PW-2 being inimical to the appellants, his testimony to be taken carefully – PW-3 was at the best, a chance Decision Date : 24-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 490/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC78,2025-06-13T17:05:15.018756 VIVEK KAISTH & ANRversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS,20-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6233/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The names of the two appellants herein were included later in the fi nal selection list vide notifi cation dated 27.12.2013 issued by the State Government. The High Court has held these two selections, and consequently the and these have been quashed. This Court has to examine the validity of the selection and appointment of these two appellants to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), and whether they should now be unseated from their judicial offi ce. Service Law – Recruitment – Advertisement Decision Date : 20-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6233/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1007,2025-06-13T17:07:40.473885 "MOTURU NALINI KANTHversusGAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)",20-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2435/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Suit fi led by the appellant (then a minor) through his guardian claiming right and title over the properties of late ‘V’, who as per his claim had adopted him, under a registered Will. Trial Court decreed the suit. High Court the appeal fi led by V’s grandson, ‘GK’. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.68, 69 – Legal requirements to prove a Will – Suit was fi led by the appellant, through his guardian, for declaration of his title to the suit properties belonging to late ‘V’ Decision Date : 20-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2435/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1004,2025-06-13T17:07:38.795332 COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY)versusUNION OF INDIA,24-01-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1699/2019,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Constitution of India – Right of the person to die with dignity – Advanced directives – Application seeking clarification of the judgment in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2018) 6 SCR 1 – In the said writ petition, the Court was concerned with the question as to whether even in the absence of Advance Directives, when a person is faced with a medical condition with no hope of recovery and is continued on life support system/medicines, support system should be Decision Date : 24-01-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1699/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC77,2025-06-13T17:05:23.060160 KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITEDversusCHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING,17-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2903/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In the instant appeal, the legality of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an appeal u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by which of the arbitral tribunal and that of the Single Judge of the High Court u/s. 34 of the Act rejecting all claims were set aside and certain claims were allowed, is challenged. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Arbitral award – Concurrent interpretations Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2903/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC742,2025-06-13T17:06:26.246480 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORversusUJJAIN NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM & ORS,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8015/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, ANIRUDDHA BOSE Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 – r.338 – Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – s.185 – Post-liquidation liability, if Official Liquidator (OL) was obliged to discharge – Whether the claims made by the respondent No.1-Nigam towards arrears of property of the company in liquidation, pertaining to the post-liquidation period (from the date of order of winding up and until the date of confirmation of sale of assets to the auction purchaser), if admissible against the appellant-OL – Held: Yes – In the present case, as per the terms Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8015/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC489,2025-06-13T17:05:59.853443 TARUN KUMARversusASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,20-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3593/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant was arrested on the fourth supplementary complaint fi led u/ss.44, 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in continuation of three complaints in the Complaint Case, for the commission of the off ence of whether justifi ed in dismissing the bail application of the appellant seeking bail in connection with the said Complaint Case bearing ECIR No. arising out of the FIR registered for off ence u/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s.120B r/w ss.420, 465, 467, 468, 471, Decision Date : 20-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3593/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1006,2025-06-13T17:07:36.052380 M/S VISTRA ITCL (INDIA) LTD & ORS.versusMR. DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR.,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3606/2020,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, SANJIV KHANNA Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss. 30, 52 and 53 – Claim of the appellant as financial creditor of the corporate debtor on basis of the pledged shares – Entitlement to – On facts, corporate debtor approached the appellants term loan facility to its group companies for the ultimate end use of the corporate debtor – It was an understanding that the corporate debtor would create first ranking exclusive security by way of pledging shares held by the corporate debtor – Execution of Security Trustee Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3606/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC500,2025-06-13T17:06:10.890447 SECUNDRABAD CLUB ETC.versusC.I.T.-V ETC.,17-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5195/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the deposit of surplus funds by the assessee Clubs by way of bank deposits in various banks is liable to be taxed in the hands of the Clubs or, whether, the principle of mutuality would apply and the interest earned from the deposits to tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961; and whether the judgment of this Court in *Bangalore Club’s case would call for reconsideration in light of the order of this Court in **Cawnpore Club’s case. Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 2(24) – Deposit of surplus Decision Date : 17-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5195/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC736,2025-06-13T17:06:38.856173 ATULBHAI VITHALBHAI BHANDERIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,04-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1390/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Bail : Grant of – Appellant involved in intimidating and threatening the victim in connivance with the main accused no.1 running an organised crime syndicate for extorting money and land- grabbing by threatening people – 59 cases registered against the accused no.1 – FIR for offence punishable under the 2015 Act and the Penal Code – Bail application by the appellant during pendency of the trial – Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Discretion must be exercised judiciously – Keeping in view the appellant’s alleged role, Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1390/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC496,2025-06-13T17:06:13.438228 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORSversusM/S. MUDIT ROADWAYS,24-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 339/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the National Commission was justifi ed in allowing the fi re insurance claim of the insured against the insurance company. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Fire insurance claim – Repudiation of – Fire broke out at a Insured having paid for coverage against fi re and safeguarding the custom bonded goods – Survey and investigations reports – Majority suggesting electric short circuit as the cause and two reports suggesting sparks from rooftop welding work – Repudiation of claim by the Decision Date : 24-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 339/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1022,2025-06-13T17:07:19.496215 KANIMOZHI KARUNANIDHIversusA. SANTHANA KUMAR & ORS,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3411/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – s.83(1)(a) – Non- compliance of – Consequences of – Held: s.83(1)(a) mandates that an Election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies – If material in an Election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, as the case would be covered by Clause (a) of r.11 of Or.7 of the CPC – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.7, r.11(a). Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 – ss.100(1)(d)(iv), 83(i)(a) Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3411/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC499,2025-06-13T17:06:07.195047 TALAT SANVIversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.,24-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 205/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA Victim compensation: Interim victim compensation in proceedings for anticipatory bail cannot be imposed as a condition for the same – Question of interim victim compensation cannot form part of the bail jurisprudence – Bail – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 357. 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for order to pay compensation when a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (includinga sentence of death) of which fine forms a part in the circumstances enumerated therein. Sub-section (2) imposes a limitation that when fine is imposed in a Decision Date : 24-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 205/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC80,2025-06-13T17:05:20.732123 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED & ORS.,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 684/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Power – Long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) – Supply of coal to power producers – Change of New Coal Distributional Policy, 2007 (NCDP, 2007) by New Coal Distributional Policy, 2013 (NCDP 2013) – Claim for ‘Change in Law’ Operating parameters – Held: In the Energy Watchdog case as well as in Adani Rajasthan case, the Supreme Court held that on account of the Change in Law, the generating companies were entitled to compensation so as to restore the party to the same economic position as if such Change in Law Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 684/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC208,2025-06-13T22:55:14.913289 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORSversusDR. HAMIR SINGH CHOUHAN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5392/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 – r.18 – Termination of lien – Respondents were initially appointed in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Rajasthan – Subsequently, all of them applied for appointment in the Corporation Ltd. and were appointed in the respective Milk Unions under the Dairy Federations – Lien of the respective respondents was terminated w.e.f. the date on which they were absorbed/made permanent in the Dairy Federations – All of them retired as employees of the Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5392/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC449,2025-06-13T22:39:54.875274 RAVASAHEB @ RAVASAHEBGOUDA ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,16-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1109/2010,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Victim was murdered – The trial court and the High Court, despite most of the prosecution witnesses turning hostile, found the prosecution case to be established beyond reasonable doubt through the unrefuted testimony of PW-1 and convicted the accused consideration on appeal was, whether eight men can be convicted based on the testimony of a solitary witness, who was the only eyewitness to the crime – Held: Presence of the accused on the spot is not disputed by anyone – Witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is Decision Date : 16-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1109/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC238,2025-06-13T22:52:43.071674 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAIversusGLOWSHINE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2565/2022,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.142, 143 – Non-disclosure of amount – Dispute related to the Assessment year (AY) 2009-10 i.e. Financial Year (FY) 2008-09 – Assessee entered into an agreement whereby development rights in a property were sold at a AO noticed that the aforesaid amount was not disclosed by assessee while filing the return of income – Explanation sought from assessee – In response, the assessee stated that the aforesaid transaction was duly offered to tax in AY 2008--09 reflecting a consideration of Rs. Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2565/2022 | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC492,2025-06-13T22:36:28.576360 SHRI NASHIK PANCHAVATI PANJARPOL TRUST AND ORS.versusTHE CHAIRMAN AND ANR.,22-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2857/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Award was passed by the Reference Court determining the amount of additional compensation to be paid to the appellant-trust. High Court whether justifi ed in setting aside the award and remanding the matter to decide as to made was within the limitation as per s.18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and decide the Reference afresh. Land Acquisition Act, 1894—s.18–Application made by the appelant-trust seeking reference, if was beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s. 18 or not in consonance with the Decision Date : 22-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2857/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC750,2025-06-13T22:35:39.661832 NUTAN KUMARIversusB.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS,12-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6232/2013,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NUTAN KUMARI versus B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 6992023 INSC 966 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justifi ed in allowing the appeals fi led by the Physical Training Instructors-PTIs in four diff erent colleges under the University and quashing the order of termination of services of by the Single Judge of the High Court. Service law – Selection process adopted by the Selection Committee – Challenged to – Invitation of applications by the University for appointment of Physical Training Instructors-PTIs in four of its constituent colleges – Applications Decision Date : 12-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6232/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC966,2025-06-13T22:41:06.848671 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSHYAM BIHARI & OTHERS,17-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 413/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, MANOJ MISRA COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R. 464 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. SHYAM BIHARI & OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2013) JULY 17, 2023 [B. V. NAGARATHNA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. ] Penal Code,1860 – ss. 302 and 34 – Murder case – Acquittal of three policeman – with weapons – Policemen fired at them, hitting the victim who succumbed to the injuries and the prosecution witnesses managed to escape – Policemen charged of murder while patrolling u/s. 302/34 – However, acquittal by the trial court – Appeal thereagainst, u/s. 378(3) Decision Date : 17-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 413/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC623,2025-06-13T22:37:58.143558 H. D. SUNDARA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,26-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 247/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question which arose for consideration was whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Matter pertaining to accused and the family of complainant – Accused assaulted the complainant and his family – Acquittal of all the accused by the trial court, however conviction for the off ences punishable u/s. 304 Part I and s. 324/149 IPC by the High Court – Correctness: Held: No fi ndings Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 247/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC858,2025-06-13T22:42:50.789190 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.versusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (SPL) & ANR.,15-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1822/2007,Reference answered,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Sales Tax – Credit Note – Warranty Agreement – Whether, a credit note issued by a manufacturer to a dealer of automobiles in consideration of the replacement of a defective part in the automobile sold pursuant to being collateral to the sale of the automobile is exigible to sales tax under the sales tax enactments of the respective States – Observations made by Supreme Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan case wherein three other judgments of the Delhi High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court and Kerala High Decision Date : 15-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1822/2007 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC533,2025-06-13T22:34:44.507306 M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANYversusKANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.,06-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7990/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in a matter pertaining to specifi c performance of the contract for allotment of plot, the refund of earnest money after a period of sixty years was reasonable. Specifi c performance – Contract for allotment Suit for specifi c performance of the contract – Decreed by the trial court directing execution of sale deed – However, set aside by the lower appellate court, directing refund of earnest money with interest – High Court set aside the said order passed by the lower appellate Decision Date : 06-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7990/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1055,2025-06-13T22:50:04.089081 BHASKER & ANR.versusAYODHYA JEWELLERS,10-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3844/2023,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XXI, rr. 92, 94, 95 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Art. 134 – What is the starting point of limitation for filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Held: On a conjoint reading of sub-rule (1) CPC, it is apparent that the order of confirmation of sale under sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of Order XXI culminates into a grant of a sale certificate under Rule 94 of Order XXI – The date of sale to be incorporated in the sale certificate is the date of passing of the order of sale Decision Date : 10-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3844/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC730,2025-06-13T22:36:13.411665 MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKFversusM/S BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD. & ORS.,20-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6933/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Objection raised by the respondents that the suit fi led by the appellant as decreed, ought not to have been entertained by the Wakf Tribunal, was dismissed by the Executing Court. High Court, whether justifi ed in of the Executing Court by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram case, the basis whereof has been removed after the amendment made by the Act 27 of 2013, as held in Rashid Wali Beg case. The Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Amendment Act 27 of 2013 ) – Eff Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6933/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC949,2025-06-13T22:38:44.965679 TEESTA ATUL SETALVADversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,19-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2022/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, A.S. BOPANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Bail– Appellant was on interim bail on account of order dtd. 02.09.2022 passed by Supreme Court – By the impugned order, High Court rejected the bail application filed by the appellant and directed the appellant to surrender immediately – Legality of – Held: There was no immediately when she was enjoying the interim protection under the orders of Supreme Court – The considerations which were available when the order dtd.02.09.2022 was passed are still available even at this stage – Most of the evidence in the present case are documentary evidence Decision Date : 19-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2022/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC637,2025-06-13T22:37:43.759823 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusBHAGRATI & ANR,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 279/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioners, seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Title with respect to the land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner was yet to be established – Original petitioner was not the recorded owner – Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 279/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC38,2025-06-13T22:31:36.037471 ROYDEN HAROLD BUTHELLO & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.,28-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 634/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Criminal Law – Investigation by CBI – When cannot be directed – Appellant no.1 accused of indulging in sale of psychotropic NDPS substance – It is the case of the appellant no.1 that while he was travelling with regard to illegally abducted, detained and a case under NDPS was foisted on him – Appellant no.1 and his father-appellant no.2 filed writ petition before High Court inter alia seeking direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI, which was declined – Revision petition filed by the Decision Date : 28-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 634/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC180,2025-06-13T22:56:32.795744 MS. XversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER,17-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 822/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiकोंकणी - Konkaniमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MS. X versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - [2023] 2 S.C.R. 11122023 INSC 252 A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 437,438 and 439 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 354,354-B, 376 and 506 – Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of – A complaint filed by the appellant- prosecutrix, against the respondent No.2-accused, who lured her under the garb of assignments, raped her in a hotel room where she was staying – Initially, the FIR was registered u/ss. 354, 354-B and 506 of the IPC, and later, on the supplementary statement of the appellant being recorded, the offence u/s.376 was added to the FIR – The High Court granted Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 822/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC252,2025-06-13T22:52:27.249548 GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED & ORS.versusRENEW WIND ENERGY (RAJKOT) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS,13-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3480/2020,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, M.M. SUNDRESH Electricity Act, 2003 – Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Recognition and issuance of Renewable Energy Certificate for Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) in terms of the REC Regulations 2010 was entered into between the parties, on 29.03.2012, within the control period stipulated in the tariff order of 2010 – On 10.07.2013, Central Commission amended the REC Regulations 2010 (‘Second Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3480/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC366,2025-06-13T22:44:48.980797 BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.,17-03-2023,TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No. 82/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Lease: Conversion of land from leasehold to freehold in view of policy formulated by the State – Entitlement to – On facts, allotment of commercial plots to the petitioner company by the State Industrial Development Corporation-UPSIDC, land allotted on 90 years Building plan for construction over allotted land sanctioned – Construction completed and issuance of partial completion certificate – Thereafter, policy formulated by the respondent no. 1 for growth of tourism by setting up theme/ amusements parks – Policy laid down conditions Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No. 82/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC260,2025-06-13T22:52:31.945994 THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusMULTIPLEX ASSN. OF GUJARAT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,02-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13977/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Tax/Taxation – Scheme to boost tourism sector, granted tax holiday for 5-10 years to entities (including multi-cinema theatre complexes or multiplexes) in respect of exemption from sales tax, turnover tax, tax, and entertainment tax upto 100% capital investment – No discerning method or mechanism of calculating exemption limits mentioned in scheme – Assessee contended that it was based on notional exercise, revenue contended that element of tax had to be added to actual amount collected Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13977/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC717,2025-06-13T22:28:33.234573 VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI)versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3177/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Constitution of India – Art. 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) – Reservation – Appellant-Institute trained teachers for B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses – Appellant challenged a “Admission Process and Guiding Principles 2022-2023”) before the High Court – Appellant’s challenge was mainly based on clause 1.5(a) of the policy, which allocates the B.Ed seats in the institute – As per which 75% of seats this Course reserved for “residents Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3177/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC457,2025-06-13T22:39:02.201758 M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. & ANRversusM/S ASHOK PAPER MILL (ASSAM) LTD. & ANR.,11-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2669/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act 1963, applies to proceedings under the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990 and; if the apply then, in the absence of Limitation being placed within the text of the Statute in question, could the Appeal fi led against the Order of the Commissioner of Payments be held as maintainable having been fi led after a period of nearly three years from the said order. Jogighopa (Assam) Unit Decision Date : 11-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2669/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1059,2025-06-13T22:49:21.695558 THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ANRversusCHANDAN DEB & ORS.,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6500/2008,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 : ss. 3A, 3AA – Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 – r. 3A(2) – Sub-rule (2) of the r. 3A, if ultra vires to the provisions of the TST Act – On facts, issuance of work order for hiring vehicles by ONGC, GAIL, FCI in favour suppliers of the vehicle – Writ petitioners challenging vires of r. 3A(2) and for refund of the amount so deducted as sales tax on transfer of the right to use goods – Single Judge held r.3A(2) as ultra vires the TST Act which was upheld by the Division Bench – Single Bench Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6500/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC284,2025-06-13T22:49:19.743043 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusADITYA TRIPATHI,12-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1401/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: s. 45 – Enlargement on bail – Sustainability of – Allegations of tempering of bids – Accused chargesheeted u/ss. 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and s. 7 rw s. 13(2) of the PC Act, the scheduled offences – Offences 2002 added later – Enforcement Directorate initiated money laundering investigation – Respondent no. 1 arrested – Thereafter, the High Court enlarged the respondent No.1 on bail – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – High Court did not consider the Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1401/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC531,2025-06-13T22:35:22.318558 NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,27-03-2023,Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 157334/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss. 9, 94 – Juvenility – Determination of – The applicant, along with two other accomplices had committed and two children – They were tried for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 342, 397, 449 r/w 120B and 34 of IPC – Trial Court sentenced the appellant to death – Both the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were confirmed by the High Court – The Supreme Court Decision Date : 27-03-2023 | Case No : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 157334/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC298,2025-06-13T22:49:13.867962 STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.versusLAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS & ORS.,12-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8072/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 : ss. 12, 15(b) – Final publication of record of rights – Revision of record of rights – Respondent claimed to have right over certain land – Record of rights finalised in the year 1962 – Appeal by the respondents before the Though appeal was not maintainable, however, the Settlement officer decided the same and directed the respondent to raise their claim before the General Administrative Department-GAD – Till then, said land already allotted to Reserve Bank of India-RBI by the GAD – Respondents alleged Decision Date : 12-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8072/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC619,2025-06-13T22:38:21.898769 BHARTIBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI THAKORversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS,27-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 24/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Service law: Resignation – Pensionary dues – Appellant, Auxiliary Nurse Midwife submitted her resignation, however, withdrew it prior to its acceptance – Subsequently, she her service but was not allowed to join – Much thereafter an order was passed accepting her resignation – High Court set aside the said order and directed that the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits – However, the Division Bench modified the order of Single Decision Date : 27-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 24/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC171,2025-06-13T22:57:00.872380 SAJEEVversusSTATE OF KERALA,09-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1134/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused-A10 and A11 u/ss. 302, 307, and 326/120B IPC and s.55(a), (h), (i) and s. 57 (A)(1)(ii) of the Abkari Act by the courts below is sustainable in law. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307 and 326/120B – – Conspiracy of alcohol poisoning – A1, kingpin of the illicit liquor business alongwith A3, A10, and A11 hatched a conspiracy to mix methyl alcohol with spirit to sell the same for an unlawful gain through the outlet operated by A1, and the consumption of the same resulted in the Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1134/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC998,2025-06-13T22:37:05.711111 CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6161/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, HIMA KOHLI Service Law: Compulsory retirement – Quashing of, when – Appellant selected and empanelled for appointment as a Member of ITAT by the Selection Committee – However, his appointment did not mature – Respondent withheld his appointment on various counts, however, tribunal courts directed the respondents forward the name of the appellant to the appropriate Authority for selection/appointment to the post of Member, ITAT – Respondents did not comply with the orders and in the meantime initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant which never reached Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6161/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC204,2025-06-13T22:55:18.833475 R. SREENIVASAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,06-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 859/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in reversing the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court qua the appellant-accused acquitting him of off ences u/ss.302 and 201, IPC by which it held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – When cannot be invoked: Held: The ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt – In the present case, there is no defi nitive evidence of last seen and Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 859/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC803,2025-06-13T22:45:27.446037 SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & ORS.versusM/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.,23-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5416/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: While driving vehicle, health of the driver deteriorated, he parked his vehicle and died. Whether such untoward mishap can reasonably be described as an accident, attributable to the nature of employment. Employee’s Appellants-claimants fi led application before the Commissioner seeking compensation under the 1923 Act – Compensation of ` 3,26,140/- was granted – However, the view of the High Court was that there is no relationship between the death and the work being done by the deceased Decision Date : 23-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5416/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC756,2025-06-13T22:35:30.165002 MAGIC EYE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.versusM/S. GREEN EDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. ETC.,12-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3634/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2015 – s.11(6) – Pre-referral jurisdiction – Before the High Court, appellant raised objection with regard to the existence of an arbitration agreement – High Court/referral court arbitrability of the dispute can be addressed by Arbitral Tribunal – Thereafter, High Court referred the disputes for arbitration and appointed a arbitrator – On appeal, held: Pre-referral jurisdiction of the court u/s. 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is very narrow and inheres two Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3634/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC528,2025-06-13T22:35:02.081520 PRADEEP MEHRAversusHARIJIVAN J. JETHWA (SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.) & ORS.,30-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6375/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the delay being caused to the execution proceedings u/ord. XXI CPC, and the process being abused in the execution proceedings, to the peril of the decree holder. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 47 by the court executing decree – Scope and ambit of: Held: All questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court – These questions are limited to the execution of the decree – Executing court can never go behind the decree – Under s. 47 the Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6375/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC958,2025-06-13T22:38:09.110422 SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA,17-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1011/2022,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: The issues were primarily two-fold: (a) the status of the right to marry for LGBTQ+ couples and (b) depending upon the answer to the fi rst, the The petitioners (members of LGBTQ community)asserted that marriage is an evolving social institution, capable of embracing the union of two willing non-heterosexual, queer or LGBTQ+ (used interchangeably) individuals and necessitating state recognition. On the other, the respondents asserted Decision Date : 17-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1011/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC920,2025-06-13T22:40:26.022282 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE AND ANR.,25-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9720/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affi rming the fi ndings of the Single Judge, to the eff ect that the Settlement Commission ought not to have exercised discretion u/s. 245H of the Income Tax Act, immunity to the assessee de hors any material to demonstrate that there was no wilful concealment on the part of the assessee to evade tax and on that ground, remanding the matter to the Commission for fresh consideration. Income Tax Act, 1961 – s. 245H – Power of Settlement Decision Date : 25-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9720/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC855,2025-06-13T22:43:17.803295 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VversusSHYAMO & ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 365/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014], allowed the writ petition filed by the original that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner– On appeal, held: While deciding the Gyanender Singh case, the High Court had relied upon the earlier decision of Supreme Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 365/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC70,2025-06-13T22:29:53.617252 SUNIL SAINI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,30-01-2023,TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 125/2019,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SUNIL SAINI & ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. - [2023] 1 S.C.R. 11052023 INSC 715 K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA 1 S.C.R. 1105 SUNIL SAINI & ORS. v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.125 of 2019) JANUARY 30, 2023 [K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA] Transfer Petition: Transfer of the case sought from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar to the Competent Court in to the petitioners by setting their houses, godowns and their every belonging on fire – Complete breakdown of the law and order resulting in gross damage – Prosecuting team not acting in a fair and fearless manner – Petitioners who are witnesses have been under threats by the Decision Date : 30-01-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 125/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC715,2025-06-13T22:29:04.335681 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusJAGAN SINGH & ORS.,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 943/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL 2 S.C.R. 411 411 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JAGAN SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.943 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 [M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR & SANJAY KAROL JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as wherein it is held that once the Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 943/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC139,2025-06-13T22:59:12.777293 BANK OF BARODA & ORSversusBALJIT SINGH,21-06-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 624/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BANK OF BARODA & ORS versus BALJIT SINGH - [2023] 10 S.C.R. 9772023 INSC 584 B.V. NAGARATHNA, MANOJ MISRA Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Criterion regarding financial status, non-fulfilment of – Held: Appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right – It is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable In the present case, the 1998 Scheme applicable to the case of the respondent disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is not less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing Decision Date : 21-06-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 624/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC584,2025-06-13T22:39:23.948563 B. S. HARI COMMANDANTversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,13-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1890/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. B. S. HARI COMMANDANT versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2023] 3 S.C.R. 4312023 INSC 369 KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Appellant-Commandant in Border Security Force was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment; imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and dismissed from service for allegedly permitting smuggling of contraband goods from India to Pakistan from his control – Held: Though in the armed forces, including the paramilitary forces, utmost discipline, unity of command are the sine qua non, the doctrine of proportionality still holds the field – In the present case, there is no direct evidence against the appellant – Except Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1890/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC369,2025-06-13T22:45:02.201011 SHATRUGHANversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,20-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Culpable homicide amounting to murder – Conviction u/s. 302 – Correctness of – FIR against the appellant by the informant-uncle of deceased – Allegation that the deceased had shouted that the appellant had assaulted him with a tabbal – place of incident and saw his nephew lying there with deep cut on the neck – Nephew later succumbed to his injuries – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the courts below – On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to establish the charge – Decision Date : 20-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC630,2025-06-13T22:37:34.079024 DIVYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,09-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 724/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: What is the eligibility criterion for a candidate to stake a valid claim under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Category as per the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 r/w OM dtd.19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019; was the UPSC justifi ed in prescribing possession and for uploading of the I&AC certifi cates in the prescribed format to stake a valid claim under the EWS category; are the CSE-Rules 2022 enforceable in law; are rr. 13, 27(3) and 28 of the CSE-Rules 2022 constitutionally valid; was the UPSC justifi ed in rejecting the claim of Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 724/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC900,2025-06-13T22:41:45.444111 BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL,13-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1692/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 3322023 INSC 1084 J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment holding the husband and in-laws guilty for the off ence punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC. Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Dowry demand – Commission of suicide by victim-wife on account of consumption of poison – However, post mortem report silent as to the exact cause of death and the viscera report silent as to traces of poison being found therein – Eff ect of, on prosecution case: Held: Considering the Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1692/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1084,2025-06-13T22:44:44.512076 DR. V. R. SANAL KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,12-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6301/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law: Department of Space Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 – r. 16(iii) – Special procedure in certain cases – Dismissal from service without holding any inquiry in the interest of the security of the State, invoking – Interference with – Appellant, high profile scientist in Indian Space Research Organisation-ISRO – Disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, alleging unauthorized absence from the country for taking post-doctoral research without permission and publication of a Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6301/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC526,2025-06-13T22:35:04.332506 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJESH DUA & ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 363/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relied upon its decision in Smt. Harbans Kaur v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., in which it had relied on the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune & Ors. – It held that depositing of the amount of compensation with the Reference Court cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the landowners and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as actual physical possession of Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 363/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC68,2025-06-13T22:29:56.006012 MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PADVIDHAR PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK VA KENDRA PRAMUKH SABHAversusPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1765/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – s.493 r/w Cl. 5 of Appendix (IV) – Services rendered by primary teachers (Respondent nos.5 to 79) while in the service of the Zilla Parishad (ZP), if to be counted towards their seniority after the services into the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) – On appeal by the primary teachers recruited directly by the PMC whose seniority is adversely affected, held: Service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC and therefore has to be Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1765/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC258,2025-06-13T22:52:19.478913 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUNIL JAIN & ORS,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 280/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2)– Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed– Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court in view of the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid and relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case allowed the writ petition– Sustainability of Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 280/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC39,2025-06-13T22:31:38.749538 MANUBHAI SENDHABHAI BHARWAD & ANR.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 472/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Constitution of India – Art. 300A – The subject land was under temporary acquisition by ONGC since 1996 – Appellant (owner) sale deed dated 15.03.2005 – Appellants were paid Rs 24/sq. metre per annum as rent – Appellants approached the High Court seeking to quash the temporary acquisition proceedings or to release the land from acquisition – The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing temporary Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 472/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC61,2025-06-13T22:29:43.216906 "COMMISSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABADversusASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY",03-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9525/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, VIKRAM NATH Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985: Chapter 30, First Schedule, Tariff Item 3003 90 14 – Product “Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil” – Classification of, as ‘medicament’ under Tariff Item 3003 90 14 in Chapter 30 or as ‘cosmetic or Item 3305 90 19 in Chapter 33 – Held: Product Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil merits classification as ‘medicament’ under Chapter 30 and not as ‘cosmetic or toilet preparations’ under Chapter 33 – On basis of the twin test-common parlance test as also the Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9525/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC483,2025-06-13T22:37:03.122951 RITU CHHABARIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,26-04-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 60/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167(2) – Right of default bail – A chargesheet, if can be filed in piecemeal without first completing the investigation and whether the filing of such chargesheet extinguishes the right of an accused for grant of default bail – Held: completing the investigation of a case, a chargesheet or prosecution complaint cannot be filed by an investigating agency only to deprive an arrested accused of his right to default bail u/s.167(2) – Such a chargesheet, if filed, would not extinguish the right to default bail u/s.167(2) Decision Date : 26-04-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 60/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC436,2025-06-13T22:40:34.608514 DHARMIN BAI KASHYAPversusBABLI SAHU & OTHERS,16-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2517/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the election petition fi led by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Offi cer seeking relief of recounting of votes alone, without seeking any relief under Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices for Membership) Rules, 1995 was maintainable. Election Laws – Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualifi cation for Membership) Rules, 1995 – r.6 – Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner –Election of Sarpanch – Election Decision Date : 16-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2517/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC712,2025-06-13T22:36:07.231722 SIVANANDAN C T AND OTHERSversusHIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS,12-07-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 229/2017,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Services Special Rules 1961 stipulates that 25% of the posts in the category shall be fi lled by Bar “on the basis of aggregate marks/grade obtained in a competitive examination and viva-voce conducted by the High Court”. The scheme of examination specifi cally stipulated that there shall be no cut off marks for the viva voce. Whether the decision of the High Court to prescribe Decision Date : 12-07-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 229/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC709,2025-06-13T22:38:16.732020 JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS.versusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,01-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1011/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA 1 1 JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR & ORS. v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2023) MAY 01, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 167(2), 173 – Default Bail – Entitlement to, passed by a competent authority – Held : It cannot be said that a chargesheet filed without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet which could be termed as not in consonance with s. 173 – According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1011/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC472,2025-06-13T22:37:59.144781 BASAVARAJversusPADMAVATHI & ANR.,05-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8962/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Specific performance – Suit for specific performance – Respondent No.1 executed agreement to sell dated 13.03.2007 in favour of appellant-buyer agreeing to sell the land in question on or before 31.07.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.12.74 lakhs - Rs. 3 lakhs were paid as earnest deed – Appellant-buyer filed suit for specific performance on 14.02.2008 – Trial court decreed the suit – High Court set aside the judgment of trial court, mainly on ground that appellant–plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8962/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC19,2025-06-13T22:32:48.251714 FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusANIL RISHIRAJ & ANR.,21-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2151/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Enforcement Offi cer appointed under FERA, 1973 continued to have the authority or competence to fi le a complaint for the off ences punishable under FERA before the expiry of the sunset period provided in sub-section FEMA, 1999. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 – On 11.02.2002, the fi rst respondent, who was an Enforcement Offi cer appointed under clause (e) of s.3 of FERA, fi led a complaint against the appellants for various off ences punishable under Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2151/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC845,2025-06-13T22:43:33.644293 MUNILAKSHMIversusNARENDRA BABU & ANR.,20-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3297/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Bail granted to Respondent No.1 accused of off ences u/ss.109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 r/w s.34, IPC, if to be cancelled, in view of events subsequent to the grant of bail. Bail – Scope of interference – Respondent No.1 was specifi cally named as the murder of his wife – However, change of stance by most vital witnesses, the family members of the deceased within 20 days of their examination-in-chief – Allegations made against Respondent No.1 in the past, of infl uencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the deceased Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3297/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC943,2025-06-13T22:38:47.520972 MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAINversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI,28-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 943/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.436A – Appellant accused of committing offences punishable under NDPS Act has been in custody since 2015, if entitled to bail – Held: Recovery of ganja was made from the behest, and on the statement of one of the co-accused – Prosecution relied on that statement, as well as the confessional statement of the appellant – In addition, it also relied on the bank statements of one of the co-accused who allegedly disclosed that money used to be transferred Decision Date : 28-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 943/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC311,2025-06-13T22:48:20.626188 MOHAMED IBRAHIMversusTHE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.,16-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6785/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed his petition, claiming arbitrariness in the declining of his candidature as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation or employer), on the ground that he was colour blind. Service Law – Disability – Colour blindness – After the medical examination, the appellant was informed that he had colour defective vision (colour blindness) – Corporation cancelled appellant’s Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6785/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC914,2025-06-13T22:40:48.130282 M/S SUNEJA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.versusANITA MERCHANT,18-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2892/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Consumer Protection Act 1986 : s. 14(1)(d) – Award of compound interest by Consumer Fora – Justification of – On facts, consumer complaints by the complainant-respondent alleging deficiency of service on the part of failed to deliver the possession of three flats booked by her, even after expiry of the agreed period and despite the fact that she had admittedly made payment of 60% of the total sale consideration – Dismissed by the District Forum – However, the State Commission awarded compound Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2892/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC391,2025-06-13T22:43:36.876529 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusARYAN SINGH ETC.,10-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1025/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Saving of inherent powers of the High Court – Accused chargesheeted, on conclusion of the investigations by the CBI – Discharge applications by the two accused – Dismissed by the trial court, and thereafter, the High Court quashed proceedings in exercise of the powers u/s. 482 – On appeal, held: High Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers u/s. 482 – At the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1025/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC338,2025-06-13T22:46:24.053058 AJAY SHANKAR SRIVASTAVAversusBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR,10-04-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 82/2023,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 – Verification of certificates of practice and educational degrees – Petitioner challenged an office order dated 01.11.2022 of the Bar Council of India to all the of which (according to the petitioner) was to interdict the process of verification of advocates who are enrolled with the State Bar Councils for scrutinizing the genuineness of their degrees and enrollments – Held: The Bar Council of India apprehends that many advocates who have not Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 82/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC346,2025-06-13T22:47:19.588305 M.A BIVIJIversusSUNITA & ORS.,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3975/2018,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The complainant alleged negligence on the part of a Hospital – The main claim of negligence that the complainant attributed was that the forced Nasotracheal Intubation (NI) procedure resulted in her developing Grade-IV Subglottic Stenosis (i.e., narrowing folds and lower border of cricoid cartilage) in the trachea – Subsequently, the same led to various severe complications. Negligence – Medical Negligence – The NCDRC concluded that the negligence charge regarding the unjustifi able ‘NI’ procedure was proved – Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3975/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC938,2025-06-13T22:39:16.279722 SUNEETHA NARREDDYversusY S AVINASH REDDY & ANR,24-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1251/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Investigation – Victim-deceased was found murdered – CBI submitted a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet naming five persons – CBI issued summons to the first respondent – First respondent appeared before the CBI on several occasions petition – On 18.04.2023, the High Court (i) granted an ad interim stay of arrest; and (ii) directed that the examination before the CBI in the course of the investigation shall be “in printed/written form” during the course of which a questionnaire may also be handed over to Decision Date : 24-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1251/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC422,2025-06-13T22:42:00.031257 PRASANTA KUMAR SAHOO & ORS.versusCHARULATA SAHU & ORS.,29-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2913/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, J.B. PARDIWALA Hindu Succession Act, 1956– Amendment in law governing the parties – Partition suit – s.6, 1956 Act was amended by 2005 Amendment, before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings – Effect of – Held: Partition suit is required to be decided in stages and regarded as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed – Thus, as the law governing the parties was amended before the conclusion of the final decree proceedings, the party benefitted by such amendment (like the two daughters in the present case) can make a request to Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2913/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC319,2025-06-13T22:47:46.846812 IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusSICGIL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS,04-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2030/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Companies Act, 2013 : s. 59 – Rectification of register of members – Scope of Rectificatory jurisdiction of National Company Law tribunal-NCLT – Violation of – On facts, respondent No.1 acquired shares of the appellant exceeding 5% of its total shares from and failed to make disclosure as per Reg.7(1) of SAST Regulations and Reg. 13 of PIT Regulations – Appellant filed petition before NCLT u/s 111A of the 1956 Act (now s. 59 of the 2013 Act) for rectification of members register by deleting the name of the respondents as the owners of shares Decision Date : 04-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2030/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC9,2025-06-13T22:33:07.932413 MANIK HIRU JHANGIANIversusSTATE OF M.P,14-12-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3864/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question arose when the penal action can be taken under both the statutes-Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which statute would prevail. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – ss. 52, 89 – this Act over all other food related laws: Held: Eff ect of s. 89 is that if there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the PFA and the FSSA, s. 89 would operate, and provisions of the FSSA would prevail over the provisions of the PFA to the extent to which the same are inconsistent Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3864/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1078,2025-06-13T22:48:45.369705 M/S UNIBROSversusALL INDIA RADIO,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6895/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Arbitral award in question if in confl ict with the public policy of India and; whether a claim on account of loss of profi t is liable to succeed merely on the ground that there has been delay in the execution of the construction contract, attributable to Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(b) – “Public policy of India” – Appellant awarded work contract by the respondent – Disputes between the parties owing to the delay in work, referred to Arbitrator – Vide First Award, appellant was awarded sum towards loss of Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6895/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC931,2025-06-13T22:39:30.683564 ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusDEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA & ORS.,30-10-2023,CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1195/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA & ORS. - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 10222023 INSC 967 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Order dtd.13.10.23 was passed by the Supreme Court directing NCLAT to pronounce judgment in the pending appeal only after the results of the of Finolex Cables Limited were declared. Despite the fact that NCLAT’s attention was drawn to the order of the Supreme Court, it went on to deliver the judgment ignoring the direction therein. Said order, if was in willful defi ance of the Supreme Court’s order. Contempt – Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1195/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC967,2025-06-13T22:38:24.666812 SANKET KUMAR AGARWAL & ANRversusAPG LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,01-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 748/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA COURT REPORTS [2023] 5 S.C.R. [2023] 5 S.C.R. 1160 1160 SANKET KUMAR AGARWAL & ANR v. APG LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED (Civil Appeal No. 748 of 2023) MAY 01, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J B PARDIWALA, J.] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 : ss. 61, 62 , 238A – National of the NCLT – On facts, dismissal of application u/s. 7 by NCLT on 26.08.2022 – Appellant then filed application for obtaining certified copy of the order of NCLT which was uploaded on website and provided to the appellant on 15.09.2022 – e-filing of appeal before NCLAT on Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 748/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC727,2025-06-13T22:38:13.424535 ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,13-01-2023,TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1249/2020,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY ETC versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2023] 3 S.C.R. 10142023 INSC 35 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1014 1014 ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos 1249-1250 Of 2020 JANUARY13, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Transfer Petition – Matters pertaining to Court. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos.1249-1250 of 2020. Transfer Petition Under Article 139A (1) of the Constitution read with Order XLI of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, Seeking Transfer of Writ Petition (Civil) No.8905 of 2019 pending in the Delhi High Court and Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1249/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC35,2025-06-13T22:31:53.666097 PULEN PHUKAN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM,28-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 326, 147, 148, 149, 447 and 34 – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Complainant-PW 1’s case that 13 persons entered her house and caused grievous injury to her brother-in-law PW 2 and three of them assaulted the weapons resulting in his death – Trial conducted against 11 of them – Courts below convicted them u/s. 147/148/ 447/323/302/149 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life u/ss. 302/149 along with other punishment for the charged offences – On appeal, held: Prosecution is not to Decision Date : 28-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC305,2025-06-13T22:48:34.343907 M/S. LISIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONSversusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6799/2017,Reference answered,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – s.3(1) – Interpretation of the provision for exemptions contained in s.3(1) – The two judge Bench in Lisie Medical Institutions v. State of Kerala has doubted the correctness contained in an earlier decision of two Judges in SH Medical Centre Hospital vs State of Kerala – While construing the provisions of s.3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975, the two Judge Bench in SH Medical Centre Hospital, has incorporated the observations which suggests that Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6799/2017 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC720,2025-06-13T23:00:12.133368 M P HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,29-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 155/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Debt Recovery Tribunals and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic filing Rules, 2020 – e-filing of pleadings – Department of Financial Services introduced e-filing Rules in 2020, where e-filing was made optional – dt. 22.07.2021, e-filing was made compulsory where the pecuniary value of the subject matter in dispute was in excess of Rs 100 crores – On 31.01.2023, e-filing was made mandatory in all cases irrespective of the value of the subject matter – Appellant filed writ petition Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 155/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC321,2025-06-13T22:48:08.672925 ABHISHEK SHARMAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI),18-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The victim-deceased gave four dying declarations. High Court confi rmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment u/s. 302 IPC as awarded by the trial Court. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Multiple Prosecution case that appellant and victim had a quarrel, as the victim had aff ection for their boss and not for appellant – Appellant took victim to an open site near a school and in the midst of an argument, set her on fi re – Victim died – Victim had given four dying Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC924,2025-06-13T22:40:11.913179 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERSversusM/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,11-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2052/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – In first category of cases, the acquisition proceedings were challenged under the to the 2013 Act came into force – Amendment applications were filed for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition u/s.24(2), 2013 Act – However, the High Court without deciding the writ petitions on merits, allowed the same – In the second category of cases, the only relief Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2052/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC353,2025-06-13T22:45:34.995930 INDIRA DEVIversusVEENA GUPTA & ORS.,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9833/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Deeds and Documents – Sale deed – Whether the vendor can assign the right contained in a sale deed to get the property registered back or the right being personal cannot be assigned – Held: No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document – deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so – Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable – The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature – Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9833/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC593,2025-06-13T22:38:46.592395 KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.versusSRI. B. G. MANAMOHANA PRIYANKA & ORS.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2702/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law – Pay revision – Entitlement to – Held: On conjoint reading of D.O./orders dated 27.09.2006 and 02.06.2008, all those employees subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in D.O./order dated 02.06.2008 shall additional 2% in addition to the existing pay, irrespective of whether as on 01.04.2003 they were in service or not – Thus, the case on behalf of the appellants that since the respondents-Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) were not appointed as on 01.04.2003 and they were appointed Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2702/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC456,2025-06-13T22:38:37.412570 YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,18-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2186/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. YASHODHAN SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - [2023] 10 S.C.R. 11962023 INSC 652 B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Principle of hearing a person who is summoned u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. – Applicability of – Respondent no.2-complainant got an FIR registered u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 307, 504 of IPC – A charge-sheet was filed persons but the names of appellants were not mentioned in it as their role was under investigation – Respondent no.2 filed application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. to summon appellants – Trial Court summoned appellants to join trial – High Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court Decision Date : 18-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2186/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC652,2025-06-13T22:37:50.876072 GMR WARORA ENERGY LIMITEDversusCENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION (CERC) & ORS.,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11095/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity – Components to be considered as “Change in Law” events – Held: The term “Law” has been defined in the Power Purchase Agreements – ‘Law’ would mean all laws including Electricity Laws in force in India and any Notification or code, rules, or any interpretation of any of them by an Indian Governmental Instrumentality and having force of law – It shall also include all rules, regulations, decisions and orders of the CERC and the MERC – Thus, all such additional charges which are payable on Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11095/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC398,2025-06-13T22:42:26.248815 S. ATHILAKSHMIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DRUGS INSPECTOR,15-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 804/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – ss.18(c), 27(b)(ii) – Prosecution of appellant u/s.18(c) punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) – Held: Prohibition u/s.18(c) is on the manufacturing, distribution, stocking or exhibition of medicines for the purposes of sale – In against the appellant was unwarranted – Appellant is a registered medical practitioner along with the fact that the quantity of medicines seized was extremely small, a quantity which can be easily found in the house or a consultation room of a doctor – Considering the small Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 804/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC237,2025-06-13T22:53:26.103767 PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.,13-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1255/1999,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 3702023 INSC 833 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the modalities to be followed by the police in conducting media briefi ngs during criminal investigation. Media – Media briefi ngs/reporting by Propriety and procedure: Held: Media reporting in criminal matters involves degree of public interest associated with the fundamental right u/Art. 19(1)(a) – Guidelines for conducting media briefi ngs were prepared by the Union Ministry of Home Aff airs over a decade ago – Since then Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1255/1999 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC833,2025-06-13T22:44:51.401744 K.L. SWAMYversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3704/2012,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961: ss. 158BC, 158BD, 158 BFA(1) – Block assessment – Undisclosed income of any other person – Levy of interest – Assessee belatedly filed return for block period in response to notice u/s. 158BD by including undisclosed income – Absence of any for period prior to 01.06.1999 – Levy of interest u/s. 158BFA(1) by the assessing officer – Sustainability of – Held: Persons other than searched persons’ liable to pay interest on late filing of the return u/s.158BC even in the absence of notice u/s. 158BC and even for Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3704/2012 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC28,2025-06-13T22:31:49.982494 M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS,08-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6106/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Cancellation of caste certifi cate issued to respondent No.15. The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Caste certifi cate issued in favour of respondent No.15, inter-related with the land – Cancellation of Caste certifi cate: Held: Sale deeds in question were executed by late father of respondent No. 15 – There is nothing produced on record to show that late father of respondent No. 15 was ever issued any certifi cate showing him belonging to Scheduled Tribe Decision Date : 08-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6106/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1057,2025-06-13T22:49:52.160012 A. SREENIVASA REDDYversusRAKESH SHARMA AND ANR.,08-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2339/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a Nationalised Bank is removable from his offi ce save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to make s.197, CrPC applicable; and if he can be proceeded against for off ences punishable the sanction u/s.19, PC Act, 1988 to prosecute him for the off ences thereunder was declined. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – When not attracted: Held: Although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of s.197 would not be Decision Date : 08-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2339/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC682,2025-06-13T22:36:42.345567 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusSUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS.,24-07-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 6283/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 – s.6(5) – Exercise of Jurisdiction u/s. 6(5) – Six FIRs were registered between 30.03.2023 to 03.04.2023 in relation to different incidents – Acting on a High Court by its order held that the allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act, and held that the entire investigation should be transferred to the National Investigation Agency with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their power u/s 6(5) Act Decision Date : 24-07-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 6283/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC647,2025-06-13T22:37:27.539676 YOGESH UPADHYAY AND ANR.versusATLANTA LIMITED,21-02-2023,TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 526/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.406 – Transfer of criminal cases – Power of Supreme Court – Held: Notwithstanding the non-obstante clause in s.142(1), the power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal remains intact in relation to offences u/s.138, if it is found expedient for the ends of justice – In the present case, as the six complaint cases filed by the respondent (four before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and two before the Courts at Nagpur, Maharashtra) pertain to the same Decision Date : 21-02-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 526/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC150,2025-06-13T22:58:03.974700 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.,10-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 352/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Lapse under – Land acquisition proceedings – Challenge to – Writ proceedings – Relying upon the decision in the case to the land in question was not paid, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – Decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation has however been overruled by Constitution Bench in Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 352/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC121,2025-06-13T22:59:41.246854 BIMLA TIWARIversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.,16-01-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 834/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BIMLA TIWARI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. - [2023] 1 S.C.R. 5012023 INSC 45 DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY Bail – Pre-arrest bail and regular bail – Grant of – Considerations – Held: The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for armtwisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail – The question as to whether pre- arrest bail, or for that or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations – In a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 834/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC45,2025-06-13T22:31:01.064329 "L.R. PATILversusGULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA",04-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3254/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the order passed by the Respondent- University pursuant to r.252(b), Karnataka Civil Service Rules, relieving the appellant to accept another appointment ought to be treated as an order accepting resignation; and further on facts, whether on the appellant’s lien on the previous post will be maintained until he is permanently absorbed in the new department in which he is subsequently appointed; and lastly is the appellant entitled to the relief prayed. Service Law – Karnataka Civil Service Rules – r.252(b), r.20, Decision Date : 04-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3254/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC796,2025-06-13T22:46:05.931640 M/S OM GURUSAI CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusM/S V.N. REDDY & ORS,23-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5375/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Under Clause 2.22.0 (ix) of tender conditions, the appellant was to furnish the additional performance security within a period of two working days and this duration of two days was not to be relaxed under any circumstances, whether to construe clause 2.22.0(ix) the justice of the cause warranted otherwise. Tender – The tendering authority had accepted the additional performance security on 17.03.2021 i.e. after a period of two working days – Propriety: Held: Under Clause 2.22.0 (ix), the appellant was to furnish the additional performance Decision Date : 23-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5375/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC760,2025-06-13T22:35:24.424695 THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusM. GOPAL REDDY & ANR,24-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 534/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Applicability of, to applications u/s.438, CrPC – Held: Once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the 2002 Act, the underlying principles and rigours of s.45 must get triggered, although CrPC – In the present case, once the enquiry/investigation against respondent No. 1 was going on for the offence under the 2002 Act, the rigour of s.45 of the 2002 Act would be attracted – Impugned order passed by the High Court holding that the provisions of s.45 shall not be Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 534/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC163,2025-06-13T22:57:03.781815 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC.versusDR. P. A. BHATT & ORS. ETC.,26-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8553/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Service Law : Equal Pay – Allopathy doctors and doctors of indigenous medicine-, if can be said to be performing “equal work” so as to be entitled to “equal pay Non-MBBS medical officers seeked extension of the benefit of higher scales of pay on parity on the basis of the recommendations of Tikku Pay Commission – – Held: Classification based upon educational qualification for the grant of higher pay scale, is a valid classification – Both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal Decision Date : 26-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8553/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC434,2025-06-13T22:40:38.577451 ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,24-03-2023,TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) No. 46/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – s.3(3) – Petitioner was released on emergency parole/ temporary parole pursuant to the decision of the High-Powered Committee constituted as per the orders issued by Supreme Court, due to the Covid-19 pandemic – Such be counted towards the total period of sentence of the petitioner – Held: No – In the State of Haryana, the temporary release on parole is governed by the statutory provisions of the 1988 Act – s.3(3) of the 1988 Act specifically provides that the period of temporary release Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) No. 46/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC296,2025-06-13T22:49:49.244550 UNION BANK OF INDIAversusRAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.,04-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1902/2020,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Applicant-Auction Purchaser sought directions against the Appellant-Bank for issuance of sale letter in its favour on the ground that it has made the payment of the auction amount with interest in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.05.2020. Whether the extension of time sought by the Applicant in the various applications was permissible and even if permissible, whether the Applicant had in fact complied with the orders passed by the Decision Date : 04-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1902/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : M.A. dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC869,2025-06-13T22:42:38.766121 ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,27-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 190/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Constitution of India – Article 32, 14 – Petition filed seeking directions – to the Home Ministry to constitute a Renaming Commission to find out original names of ancient historical cultural religious places, named after barbaric ASI to research and publish their initial names; to the Centre and State Governments to update their websites and records – Held: Secularism has been accepted as a facet of the basic structure of the Constitution – Bharat is a secular nation committed to securing fundamental rights to Decision Date : 27-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 190/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC174,2025-06-13T22:56:53.380578 SHANKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,15-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 954/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Penal Code 1860: s. 302 r/w 34 – Conviction under, on basis of circumstantial evidence – Sustainability of – Prosecution case that the victim assaulted with sharp weapons, sustained 22 ante- mortem injuries leading to instantaneous death – On the fateful day, the victim also came there and the appellant in the latter appeal hurled abuses on the victim and asked him why he along with his friend had assaulted his brother, though the victim denied the assault – Later, the accused invited the victim for drinks and all of them left the house of PW 8 on Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 954/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC234,2025-06-13T22:53:22.887344 VERNONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,28-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 639/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Chapters IV and VI- ss.16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and ss.13, 43D(5) – Denial of bail – When not justified – Bhima-Koregaon violence – FIR – Scope of the investigation was expanded – Searches were conducted – Case of the NIA is that various letters and other materials recovered from the arrested co-accused persons showed appellants’ involvement with the CPI (Maoist), an organization placed in the First Schedule to the 1967 Act as a terrorist organization – It is alleged that the Decision Date : 28-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 639/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC655,2025-06-13T22:36:57.015895 STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.versusJAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1753/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, MANOJ MISRA Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Subject land acquired in 1992 for resettlement Project – Consent order passed for payment of 90% and 10% compensation, however the land owner did not accept the same – Land owner applied for cancellation of acquisition – Thereafter, order of compensation under the award came to be cancelled – However, land owner in possession of land and Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1753/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC253,2025-06-13T22:51:42.566242 ANOOP BARANWALversusUNION OF INDIA,02-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 104/2015,Case Partly allowed,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, AJAY RASTOGI*, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Election Laws: Constitution of India – Arts. 324(2), 32 and 142 –Appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners – Method of – Independence of Election Commission – Constitutional validity of the practice of Union of the members of the Election Commission – Held: The vacuum in the case of Art.324(2) is the absence of the law which Parliament was contemplated to enact – This Court is concerned with the devastating effect of continuing to leave appointments in the sole hands of the Executive on Decision Date : 02-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 104/2015 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC190,2025-06-13T22:55:26.849472 H. J. BAKER AND BROS. INCversusTHE MINERALS AND METALS TRADE CORPORATION LTD. (MMTC),18-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2437/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In the instant appeals, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which partly interfered with an arbitration award by upholding the fi ndings of the Single Judge of the High Court to the damages for certain period, but set aside the award for the balance period, is challenged. Arbitration – Award of damages – Interference with – Award of damages for breach of contract for certain periods – Upheld by the Single Judge of the High Court, however, the Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2437/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC747,2025-06-13T22:35:53.934088 DERHAversusVISHAL & ANR.,01-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4494/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court, whether justifi ed in partly allowing the second appeal and reducing the appellant’s share holding that he would be entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – ss.6, 8 – One ‘P’ died in (appellant’s mother), a daughter born through his fi rst wife and ‘V’ and ‘KB’, a son and a daughter born through his second wife – In a suit fi led by ‘K’ (since deceased) claiming her share in the coparcenary properties, Trial Court Decision Date : 01-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4494/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC785,2025-06-13T22:46:10.641917 ASHOK GULABRAO BONDREversusVILAS MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS,12-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1931/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195 – Documents allegedly fabricated and forged prior to filing in evidence, embargo u/s.195 if applicable – On appeal, held: s.195(1)(b)(ii) would be attracted only when the offence enumerated in the said provision was of a document after it has been produced or filed in evidence during proceedings before any Court, i.e. during the time when the document is custodia legis – In such a case, the Court will be entitled to take cognizance of the offence only on the basis of the complaint made by the Decision Date : 12-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1931/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC724,2025-06-13T22:45:28.988973 SMRITI DEBBARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVEversusPRABHA RANJAN DEBBARMA AND OTHERS,04-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 878/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Suit – Suit for declaration of title – Burden of proof – Trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in the subject property and was entitled to khas possession of the property after evicting all High Court reversed the judgment of trial court holding that plaintiff on basis of evidence and documents placed on record had not been able to discharge the burden of proof to establish legal ownership and title to the subject property – Held: High Court rightly set aside the judgment and Decision Date : 04-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 878/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC8,2025-06-13T22:33:04.176825 RAJESH JAINversusAJAY SINGH,09-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3126/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ARAVIND KUMAR*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Since the execution of the cheque is, admittedly, not under dispute, the limited question to be considered, is (i) whether the accused can be said to have discharged his ‘evidential burden’, for the courts below to have concluded that the presumption Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been rebutted. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.139 – Respondent-accused tried for off ence u/s. 138 of NI Act – Trial Court acquitted respondent – Order of acquittal upheld by the High Court – Propriety: Held: There is a Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3126/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC888,2025-06-13T22:41:55.410808 BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARIversusHIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. & ORS.,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4955/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the wilful breach of an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/ advocate on behalf of his client to the court would amount to “civil contempt” as defi ned u/s. 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971; whether the said to have been given to the court; whether the contempt court has the power to declare any contemptuous transaction non est or void; whether the benefi ciaries of a contemptuous transaction have a right to be heard in the contempt proceedings on the ground that they are necessary or proper Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4955/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC805,2025-06-13T22:45:29.287894 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10versusM/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD.,15-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 836/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the dividend income earned by the assessee is taxable, although exempted under Omani Tax Laws to entitle the assessee to the benefits of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India DTAA and Omani Tax Laws – Benefit to the assessee under: Held: A clarification letter dated 11.12.2000 (interpreting the provisions contained in Article 8 and Article 8 (bis) of the Omani Tax Laws) addressed by the Secretary General for Taxation, Sultanate of Oman, Ministry of Finance Decision Date : 15-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 836/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC834,2025-06-13T22:44:24.287424 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR.versusJOSEPH AND OTHERS,09-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3142/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the impugned judgment, arising out of Second Appeal meets the established criteria for Second Appeal; and whether the respondents are entitled to the relief of adverse possession or is the claim so made, barred by the Kerala Land Conservancy : Principles of – Land being a government poramboke land – Relief of adverse possession sought by the claimants contending that they had acquired title to the land in 1940 and had been in possession and in continued enjoyment since then – Entitlement to: Held : Claimants to Decision Date : 09-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3142/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC693,2025-06-13T22:36:25.236854 SH. RAKESH RAMANversusSMT. KAVITA,26-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2012/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, J.B. PARDIWALA Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s. 13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Divorce – Grounds of cruelty and desertion – Marital discord between the parties – Petition for dissolution of marriage by the husband on the ground that the wife treated him with cruelty and deserted him,that between the parties, and that the wife had filed multiple false and frivolous criminal cases against him – Trial court passed a decree of divorce holding that the wife had deserted the husband and had meted out cruel behaviour against him – However, the High Court set aside Decision Date : 26-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2012/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC433,2025-06-13T22:40:29.152634 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusPARASHOTAM DASS,21-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 447/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Service matters relating to members of three-armed forces – Whether the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal would be amenable to challenge in the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India before any Held: The judgment in Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. case does not lay down the correct law and is in conflict with judgments of the Constitution Benches rendered prior and later to it, including in L. Chandra Kumar case, S.N. Mukherjee case, and Rojer Mathew case making it abundantly Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 447/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC265,2025-06-13T22:51:04.836522 SAYUNKTA SANGARSH SAMITI & ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,15-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1359/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: An entirely private arrangement was arrived at between the Developer on the one hand and some of the hutment dwellers on the other. Slum Rehabilitation Authority had no role to play in it. Is private agreement as such mandate of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued a Letter of Intent in favour of Developer for residential tenements – In 2007, the project was stalled by a Decision Date : 15-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1359/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1080,2025-06-13T22:48:42.146928 MOHINDER PAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF J & K,12-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1863/2010,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Ranbir Penal Code – s.300 Exception I, s.302 and Part I of s.304 – Grave and sudden provocation – Death of two persons, ‘J’ and ‘M’ – Seven accused – Allegation that accused No.1 and his sons forcibly detained ‘J’ and injuries – Sessions Judge acquitted accused nos.5 and 6 but convicted accused nos.1 to 4 and 7 u/s 302, 148 and 149 of RPC – High Court upheld the conviction – Accused no.1 died during pendency of appeal while accused no.2 went absconding – On appeal by accused nos.3, 4 and Decision Date : 12-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1863/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC26,2025-06-13T22:32:15.412043 M/S. ISNAR AQUA FARMSversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,08-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1077/2013,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Appellant, which undertook prawn cultivation, had obtained insurance coverage from respondent under a prawn insurance policy. Major outbreak of a bacterial disease called ‘White Spot Disease’ led to prawns in the appellant’s farm. The insurance claim submitted by appellant was repudiated by respondent-insurance company in its entirety, which was challenged before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC); and, in this second round of litigation before this Court, the Decision Date : 08-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1077/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC680,2025-06-13T22:36:40.396954 R. K. JIBANLATA DEVIversusHIGH COURT OF MANIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND OTHERS,24-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1209/2021,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law – High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020 – Promotion – Reliance upon uncommunicated Impermissibility of – Held: Uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion – In the present case, the case of the petitioner for Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1209/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC164,2025-06-13T22:57:30.535587 NAGARATHINAMversusSTATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,04-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1389/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Premature Release – Appellant had an affair with ‘S’, who threatened her often – Appellant took decision to commit suicide along with her children – Appellant survived – Children died – Trial Court convicted appellant u/ss. 302 High Court partly allowed appeal, acquitted appellant u/s. 309 and upheld the conviction u/s. 302 IPC – After undergoing imprisonment for 20 years, appellant applied for premature release – However, same was rejected by the State – Held: Appellant was in tremendous mental Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1389/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC495,2025-06-13T22:36:40.480465 SANTHOSH MAIZE & INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5731/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – TNGST (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act No. 24 of 1993) – TNGST (Second Amendment) Act, 1996 (Act No.37 of 1996) – Taxation Entry No.61 – TNGST (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No.32 of 1994) – Exemption Entry No.8 dealt in maize starch – The State through an Exemption Notification exempted the products of millets including maize from the tax – State Legislature imposed tax on ‘sago and starch of any kind’ (Taxation Entry No.61) – Same caused concerns among maize starch Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5731/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC590,2025-06-13T22:39:01.169800 THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusT. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GANGI REDDY,16-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 37/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 167(2) – Default bail – Cancellation of, on merits – On facts, accused-respondent arrested in connection with the murder of a former MLA, released on default bail u/s 167(2) – CBI concluded the investigation, filed chargesheet cancellation of bail of the respondent – However, the High Court rejected the said petition on the ground that default bail granted u/s. 167(2) cannot be cancelled on merits – On appeal, held: Order of release on bail under proviso to s. 167(2) cannot be called as an order on merits Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 37/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC44,2025-06-13T22:30:53.764376 HARILAL ETC.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH),05-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2216/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in upholding the order of the Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Conviction of the accused u/s. 302 and courts below – Ocular account of two prosecution witness that the assault on the deceased took place at night, however, neither of them lodged the FIR, rather, a named FIR lodged next day by the village chowkidar of neighbouring village, even though she was not an eye witness – Decision Date : 05-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2216/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC801,2025-06-13T22:45:48.747830 HARENDRA RAIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.,01-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1726/2015,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In a murder case, the acquittal of respondent no.2 recorded by Trial Court and the High Court having been reversed and respondent no.2 having being convicted u/ss.302 and 307 IPC by the Supreme Court by an earlier judgment, now the issue for consideration was the no.2. Sentence / Sentencing – Murder – Conviction vide earlier judgment ([2023] 11 S.C.R. 403) – Death sentence not appropriate on facts, and as such imprisonment for life awarded alongwith fi ne – However, fi ne awarded to be paid as damages – Also, Decision Date : 01-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1726/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC806,2025-06-13T22:46:23.874605 DIGAMBARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 221/2022,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Criminal Law – ‘Rarest of rare’ case – When not – One ‘P’ was married but had a love affair with ‘G’ – This was opposed by her brother-‘D’, who along with co-accused-‘M’ committed the murder of ‘P’ and the case to be ‘rarest of rare’, awarded death penalty and life imprisonment to ‘D’ and ‘M’, respectively – Correctness of – Held: No interference warranted with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the accused Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 221/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC445,2025-06-13T22:38:23.985180 MUNNA PANDEYversusSTATE OF BIHAR,04-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1271/2018,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court erred in confi rming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant- accused for off ences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in the entire investigation. Penal Code, of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 – s.4 – Serious lapses in investigation, confi rmation of conviction and death sentence – Propriety: Held: s.162, CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation – Being a case of rape Decision Date : 04-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1271/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC793,2025-06-13T22:45:58.208749 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusPHOOLCHAND RATHORE,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1315/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Acquittal under – Prosecution rested its case on the circumstances, inter-alia, (a) the accused bore a grudge against his wife for keeping jewellery with her sister (PW8); (b) on the fateful day, during day time, accused on with PW8 and threatened to kill the deceased and set the house on fire; (c) in the evening of that fateful day, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and took her with him on a bicycle, while extending threats that he would kill her; (d) later, that evening, the deceased was found in a Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1315/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC444,2025-06-13T22:38:21.119323 RAM KISHOR ARORAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,15-12-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3865/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the action of the respondent ED in handing over the document containing the grounds of the arrest to arrestee and taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature thereon, as a token of he having read the same, and in not furnishing a copy time of arrest would render the arrest illegal u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – High Court dismissed the petition seeking declaration that the arrest of the appellant on 27.06.2023 by the respondent Directorate of Enforcement Decision Date : 15-12-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3865/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1082,2025-06-13T22:48:39.132172 PREM SINGHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI,02-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 01/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and s.84 – Murder – Disappearance of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Plea of mental incapacity – Tenability – Allegations against appellant that, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and canal, strangulated them to death, and threw their dead bodies into the canal – Trial court held appellant guilty u/ss.302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – Held: There is no infirmity in the findings concurrently Decision Date : 02-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 01/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC3,2025-06-13T22:34:09.266011 SUPER DIAMOND TOOLS & ORS.versusK. MOHAN RAO,02-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6216/2012,Dismissed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,,2023INSC192,2025-06-13T22:55:53.930173 RAJPALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN,12-12-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 15585/2023,Dismissed as withdrawn,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAJPAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 11362023 INSC 1089 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the concern expressed by the Court on the lethargy in following its earlier orders in the matter of dealing with bail applications arising out of the same FIR. Judicial notice – Bail applications arising out of the same FIR diff erent Judges leading to anomalous situation – Some of the Judges granting bail and some other Judges refusing to grant bail, even when the role attributed to the applicants is almost similar – Earlier orders by this Court that it would be appropriate that all the matters Decision Date : 12-12-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 15585/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed as withdrawn | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1089,2025-06-13T22:49:20.509688 JABIR & ORSversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND,17-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 972/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 364, 201 – The prosecution case was that the victim ‘H’, aged about 7 years, went missing on 8.10.1999 – On 10.10.1999, his dead body was found in the sugarcane field of ‘Y’ in Village – The victim’s father (PW-1) recorded on 21.11.1999 – In the FIR, the informant alleged that he was told by PW-3 and PW-2 that they had seen A-3 taking deceased boy ‘H’ into her house on 08.10.1999 – PW-4 told him that on 09.10.1999 at about 6 AM, he had seen ‘H’ standing along with A-1 Decision Date : 17-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 972/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC48,2025-06-13T22:30:46.093088 BALWANT SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,03-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 261/2020,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Constitution of India – Arts. 32, 72, 161 – Mercy Petition – Petitioner was convicted for having committed an offence u/s. 120- B, 302, 307 of IPC and u/s. 3(b), 4(b) and 5(b) r/w s. 6 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and was awarded death sentence – Death reference of by the High Court – Petitioner neither preferred appeal against the decision of the High Court nor preferred the mercy petition – The mercy petition for the petitioner was preferred by the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee – The case of the petitioner is that the Union has not Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 261/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC482,2025-06-13T22:37:17.798002 PHULEL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARAYANA,27-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 396/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in the totality of the circumstances, it can be said that the dying declaration (Ex. P.L.) is free from doubt; whether evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfi llment of demand of dowry. Evidence Act, – Dying declartion free from doubt or not – Doubt whether the dying declaration recorded was voluntary or it was tutored – Doubt regarding fi tness of victim – Variation in statement made by victim: Held: The present case mainly rests on the dying declaration of the Decision Date : 27-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 396/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC863,2025-06-13T22:42:46.956074 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.versusDHANNU & ANR,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 942/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL 2 S.C.R. 397 397 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. v. DHANNU & ANR. (Civil Appeal No.942 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 [M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KAROL JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – the original writ petitioner-respondent no.1 herein and declared that the acquisition proceeding w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/ s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 942/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC138,2025-06-13T22:59:10.737793 RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHERversusTHE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS,10-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 274/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Urban Development – Town Planning – Committee for Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 (CMP-2031) – Issue of redensification in Phase-I sector in the city of Chandigarh – Fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization of residential units of r.14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, r.16 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 and repeal of the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001, fragmentation/ division/bifurcation/ apartmentalization of residential units in Phase-I sector of Chandigarh is prohibited – On Decision Date : 10-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 274/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeals allowed and directions issued. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC22,2025-06-13T22:32:40.531373 ABHISHEK SINGHversusHUHTAMAKI PPL LTD. & ANR.,28-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2241/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: ss.9 and 12A – Interpretation of s. 12A and Regn 30A – Withdrawal of application of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process-CIRP before the constitution of Committee of Creditors-CoC – Validity of – Held: s.12A admitted u/ss. 7, 9 and 10 – s. 12A does not debar entertaining applications for withdrawal even before constitution of CoC – Application u/s. 12A cannot be said to be kept pending for constitution of CoC, even where such application was filed before the constitution of CoC Decision Date : 28-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2241/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC308,2025-06-13T22:48:42.514774 SANJIT SAHA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL,09-10-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 46699/2018,Matter referred to larger bench,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SANJIT SAHA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 832023 INSC 1085 K.V. VISWANATHAN 83 : 2023 INSC 1085 83 CASE DETAILS SANJIT SAHA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D. No. 46699 of 2018) OCTOBER 09, 2023 [K. V. VISWANATHAN, J.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the steps/guidelines to be taken in cases where despite the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XXII r. 5 – Special Leave Petitions in Criminal Proceedings – Surrendering by the accused – Lapse in the communication – Eff ect: Held: Convict has to surrender to the sentence before fi Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 46699/2018 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Papers alongwith this order be placed before Hon’ble CJI | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1085,2025-06-13T22:41:53.306110 M/S. IFCI LIMITEDversusSUTANU SINHA & ORS.,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4929/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Compulsorily Convertible Debentures-CCDs with a “put option” and in the event of default on part of ICTL-borrower during the window period, can be said to be really a debt and not an equity. Insolvency – s. 62 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Jurisdiction u/s. 62 – Compulsorily Convertible Debentures-CCDs to be categorised as debt or an equity – On facts, project awarded in terms of Concession Agreement executed between the Authority and IVRCL-ICTL – ICTL was a Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4929/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1023,2025-06-13T22:37:23.774869 BOBYversusSTATE OF KERALA,12-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1439/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Discovery of Fact – Criminal trial – Three accused – Disclosure statement allegedly made by accused no.3-appellant – Recovery of dead body of complainant’s husband – Appreciation of evidence – Held: s.27 requires and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact – The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery – If a fact is actually discovered in consequence of Decision Date : 12-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1439/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC23,2025-06-13T22:32:36.939618 "HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. (NOW HP INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.)versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NHAVA SHEVA",17-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5373/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, VIKRAM NATH Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – ss.4A and 4 – Appellants imported certain units of the ‘All-in-one integrated Desktop computer’ and classified them under ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’ as self-assessment procedure – During subsequent examination by the Custom Authorities, the concerned goods were classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’, and this classification was confirmed by various Adjudicating Authorities – Adjudicating Authorities held that the Decision Date : 17-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5373/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC50,2025-06-13T22:30:42.553258 AURELIANO FERNANDESversusSTATE OF GOA AND OTHERS,12-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2482/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, HIMA KOHLI Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – r. 11(IX), r. 14(2) – Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – r. 3C – Allegation of sexual harassment at work place – Defying the principles of natural justice – by the respondent no.2-Goa University – Appellant was accused of sexual harassment by several girl students – Appellant was served with notice to explain charges levelled against him – Inquiry proceedings took place thereafter, in the month of May 2009, when 12 hearings, most Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2482/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC527,2025-06-13T22:35:13.293231 SHIVSHANKARA & ANRversusH.P. VEDAVYASA CHAR,29-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10215/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Abatement: Abatement of suit – Non-joinder of necessary parties – Non-impleadment of all other legal heirs of deceased defendant – Effect of – Held: In the event of death of one of the defendants, when the estate/interest was being fully and substantially represented in the and when they are also his legal representatives, by reason of non-impleadment of all other legal heirs consequential to the death of the said defendant, the suit would not abate – Such suit not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties of all his legal heirs/representatives. Amendment: Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10215/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC318,2025-06-13T22:47:53.951578 VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD.versusJITENDRA LOHIA & ANR,14-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1743/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD. versus JITENDRA LOHIA & ANR - [2023] 7 S.C.R. 10212023 INSC 230 V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.25(2)(a) – IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 30 – Corporate Debtor and one ‘EP’ (appellant in CA No.1782 of 2021) entered into an MoU – Corporate Debtor of the share capital in ‘EP’ and a Joint Development Agreement with it in respect of the property – Actual physical possession of the property was also handed over to the Corporate Debtor which factum was confirmed in two subsequent MoUs – Later, Corporate Debtor also Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1743/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC230,2025-06-13T22:53:42.681436 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSH. MANISH & ANR,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 738/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court, relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed that acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of Act, 2013 – However, the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 738/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC108,2025-06-13T23:00:19.596415 RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusSTATE OF GOA,10-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3615/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss. 34, 37 – Arbitral award – Scope of interference – Held: Arbitral award is not an ordinary adjudicatory order so as to be lightly interfered with by the Courts u/ss. 34 or 37 as if dealing with an appeal or revision against a decision of An award could be said to be suffering from “patent illegality” only if it is an illegality apparent on the face of the award and not to be searched out by way of re-appreciation of evidence – Possibility of interference would arise only if the construction of the arbitrator is Decision Date : 10-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3615/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC514,2025-06-13T22:36:07.264426 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 395/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Lapse of Acquisition proceedings – Writ petition by the respondent- original writ petitioners seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the petition solely on the ground that it is not clear as to what compensation was paid and if so, who raised the dispute – On appeal, held: For attracting the provisions of s. 24(2), twin conditions of not taking over of possession and not Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 395/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC73,2025-06-13T22:30:05.201252 RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.,12-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 432/2023,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Judiciary: Higher judiciary – District judges – Appointment – Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge – Rules 2005 prescribed 65% posts in the cadre of District Judge to be filled by promotion amongst on the basis of principle of merit cum seniority and passing of a suitability test – Issuance of select list by the High Court for promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge (65% quota) – Petitioners not recommended for promotion even though having higher marks Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 432/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC532,2025-06-13T22:34:59.055823 MODI RUBBER LIMITEDversusCONTINENTAL CARBON INDIA LTD.,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 375/2017,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 – ss.18, 19 – Approval of a scheme by the BIFR under the 1985 Act, unsecured creditor if has the option not to accept the scaled down value of its dues – Held: No – Rehabilitation scheme u/s.18 shall bind all the unsecured creditors and the unsecured creditors have to accept the scaled down value of its dues provided under the rehabilitation scheme – To make the company viable, the concerned persons including the unsecured creditors have to sacrifice to some extent otherwise the revival Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 375/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC246,2025-06-13T22:52:16.263887 THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusM/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 230/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – s.70 Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 – rr. 27 and 29 – Burden of proof u/s. 70 – Input Tax Credit – Claim of – Respondents (purchasing dealers) claimed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the purchases made from the Assessing Officer, doubted the genuineness of the transactions and the purchases made from the respective dealers and denied the ITC – Findings of Assessing Officer confirmed by the first Appellate Authority – Second Appellate Authority and the High Court have allowed the ITC, by Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 230/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC212,2025-06-13T22:54:46.217784 PANKAJ BANSALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,03-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the arrest of the appellants u/s. 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was valid; whether there was proper compliance with s.19(1) of the Act of 2002 and as to whether the Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge correctly passing the remand orders; what is the importance of informing the arrested person of the grounds for his/her arrest. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Compliance of s.19 of the Act – Proper or not: Held: The remand order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Vacation Decision Date : 03-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC866,2025-06-13T22:42:40.816903 PEETHAMBARANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.,03-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of proceedings – Non-exercise of power u/s. 482 – Justification of – Appellant charged u/s. 420 along with the other accused persons for cheating the de-facto complainant and other persons for certain sum jobs – Registration of FIR – Final report that as no proper evidence, case should be considered as a false case – Another final report filed which stated that Inspector of Police conducted further investigation as per order passed by District Police Chief – Petition Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC481,2025-06-13T22:36:59.978592 SUNILversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI,21-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 688/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether based on the evidence led, the appellants could be convicted for the off ence of murder of the two deceased with the aid of s.34 IPC or only for the off ence punishable u/s. 307 IPC r/w. s. 34 IPC; (ii) Whether, on account of not putting the to the appellants while recording their statements u/s. 313 Cr.PC, appellants’ conviction with the aid of s.34 of the IPC stood vitiated. Penal Code, 1860 – Prosecution case that there was an altercation between two families – The main accused went to his house on Street Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 688/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC840,2025-06-13T22:44:05.912779 CHANDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P,09-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1209/2011,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in altering the charge u/s. 302 read with ss. 148 and/or 149 to a charge u/s. 302/34 IPC, and convicting and sentencing the appellant for the off ence punishable u/s 302/34 and u/s. 201 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 Murder – Common intention – Causing disappearance of evidence of off ence, or giving false information to screen off ender – Conviction of accused persons for the off ence punishable u/s. 302 rw ss. 148 and 149 and s. 201 and sentenced accordingly, for committing triple Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1209/2011 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC887,2025-06-13T22:42:07.721826 M/S SRI MAHAVIR AGENCY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.,17-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 982/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : ss.7, 14, 16(1)(a)(i), 19(2) – Food Adulteration – Protection u/s. 19(2), to the vendor – Availability of – Appellant purchased ‘Pan Parag’ from the manufacturer through invoices and Sample of ‘Pan masala’ collected from the business premises of the buyer of pan masala, from the appellant – Samples seized tested and found to be below standard – Appellant’s case that he is merely a vendor who purchased pan masala from the manufacturer in Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 982/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC375,2025-06-13T22:44:26.247952 SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJANversusSTATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,21-03-2023,REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 159/2013,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Constitution of India : Arts. 137 – Review jurisdiction in matters pertaining to capital punishment – Scope of – Petitioner accused a 7-year old child – Conviction u/ss. 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and imposition of death sentence by the courts below – Upheld by this Court – Review thereagainst – Dismissed through circulation – However, in view of the judgment in Mohd. Arif’s case, order Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 159/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC264,2025-06-13T22:51:00.810692 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANRversusM/S. BEADS PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1522/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, a subsequent purchaser declared that the acquisition w.r.t the to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Whether the subsequent purchaser has locus to challenge the acquisition/ lapsing of the acquisition – Held: No – Thus, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 being a subsequent purchaser and Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1522/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC213,2025-06-13T22:54:39.649220 DR. JAYA THAKURversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,11-07-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 456/2022,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Service Law – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – s.25(d) – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – s.4B(1) – Fundamental Rules, 1922 – Incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI /Director of Enforcement – Extension of tenure – Commission (Amendment) Act, 2021 (whereby two new provisos were inserted to s.25(d) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act), the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 (whereby two new provisos were inserted to s.4B(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946) and Decision Date : 11-07-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 456/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC616,2025-06-13T22:38:31.550802 CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGversusM/S TRANSTONNELSTROY AFCONS (JV) & ANR.,19-10-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 184/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether revision of fee by an arbitral tribunal would terminate the mandate of the tribunal on as per s. 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 12, 13 and 14 – Grounds and procedure of challenge – Failure or impossibility of the arbitrator or tribunal to act – Arbitration proceedings between the Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 184/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Appeal disposed of and application dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC932,2025-06-13T22:39:23.195341 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.versusASHOK KUMAR & ORS.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 482/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014] and the decision of Supreme Court in case, allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation was tendered/paid – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 482/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC220,2025-06-13T22:54:13.693160 RAVINDER SINGHversusTHE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI,25-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 432 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 45, 53 – Power to impose a modified punishment – Special category sentencing to life imprisonment in excess of 14 years – Appellant was convicted for having committed offence u/s. 376, 377, 506 imprisonment – Trial Court directed that the appellant should not be given any clemency by the State before he spent at least 20 years in jail – Same was confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: It is settled that the power to impose a modified punishment within the Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC426,2025-06-13T22:41:48.342212 HIND OFFSHORE PVT. LTD.versusIFFCO – TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,09-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7228/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: NCDRC whether justifi ed in passing the impugned order holding that the respondent-insurance company was under no contractual or legal obligation to reimburse the appellant for the loss suff ered by it on account of sinking of the Certifi cate was obtained by the appellant by concealing vital information, with respect to the damage to the vessel, from the Classifi cation Society. Consumer Protection – Marine Hull Insurance Policy – Non- reporting of the damage/defects to the Classifi cation Society before Decision Date : 09-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7228/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC697,2025-06-13T22:36:28.436050 SAUMYA CHAURASIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,14-12-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3840/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the bail application fi led u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. has preferred this appeal. (i) Whether the appellant was prima facie found involved in the commission of the off ence of money laundering s.3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the appellant being a woman should be granted the benefi t of the fi rst proviso to s.45 of the PMLA; (iii) Whether an impudent attempt was sought to be made by alleging all the throughout in the synopsis, list of dates, questions Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3840/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1073,2025-06-13T22:48:46.572011 KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,08-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1076/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conviction of the appellants-accused u/ ss.201, 300, 302, IPC r/w s.34 based on circumstantial evidence, consisting of evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession, recovery of weapon of off ence and motive, if justifi ed. Evidence – Conviction based upon – When not justifi ed: Held: Categoric fi nding of the courts below on appreciation of the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses is that none of the witnesses had spoken of having lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused alive and Decision Date : 08-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1076/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC679,2025-06-13T22:36:30.958565 M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,03-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10201/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH Interest Tax Act,1974 – s.2(5-A) and s.2(5-B) – Hire-purchase agreements – Appellants-assessees are credit institutions within meaning of s.2(5-A) – Whether appellants-assessees liable to pay tax on interest component included in hire-purchase instalments paid – ITAT referred to CBDT Circular No. 760 dated 13th January 1998 and observed that hire-purchase agreement is a composite transaction, and has elements of bailment and sale and appellants-assessees are not liable to pay interest tax as hire instalments are not interest on loans and Decision Date : 03-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10201/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC5,2025-06-13T22:34:00.815023 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRversusDAYANAND & ANR.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 481/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – As per Land Acquisition Collector the possession of the major portion of the land acquired was taken and notice u/s. 12 (2) LA Act was issued to the but he did not come to collect the compensation, then the same was sent to Revenue Deposit – High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. declared that the acquisition with respect to the land Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 481/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC219,2025-06-13T22:54:36.116665 CHARAN SINGH @ CHARANJIT SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND,20-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 447/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 304 B, 498 A and 201 – Dowry Death – Presumption as to dowry death – Prosecution case that woman married two years ago, killed by her husband-appellant and in- laws for dowry – Death was unnatural and the victim was cremated without even informing her the appellant, brother-in-law and mother-in-law u/ss. 304 B, 498 A and 201 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 304B, rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively u/ ss. 498A and 201 – In appeal, the conviction and sentence of the brother-in-law Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 447/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC404,2025-06-13T22:43:05.022107 THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRSversusDR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE & ORS.,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 831/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, method of recruitment, procedure of appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of President and Members of State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020 – rr.3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9) – Validity 4(2)(c), 6(9) which are contrary to the decisions of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. All Uttar Pradesh Consumer Protection Bar Association [2016] 8 SCR 851 and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Another [2020] 2 SCR 246 are unconstitutional, arbitrary and Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 831/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC209,2025-06-13T22:54:57.123428 RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1514/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law – Judicial service – Challenge to the appointments in excess of the quota under limited departmental examination – In All India Judges Association & ors. vs Union of India it was specifically directed that there shall be 25% seats reserved for direct recruitment up by regular promotion of Civil Judges (Senior division) and 10% for limited departmental competitive exam – All the High Courts were directed to amend rules with effect from 01.01.2011 – In the writ petition filed before the High Court, it was, inter-alia, prayed to cancel the Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1514/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC211,2025-06-13T22:54:27.719293 BALWINDER SINGH (BINDA)versusTHE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,22-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1136/2014,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, HIMA KOHLI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to admissibility in evidence of the confessional statement recorded by the Narcotics Control Bureau officers u/s. 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and proving of possession prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 67 – Confession statement made by an accused u/s. 67 before an offi cer of Narcotics Control Bureau – Admissibility in evidence: Held: Statement made by an accused and recorded u/s. 67 Decision Date : 22-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1136/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC852,2025-06-13T22:43:28.573515 C. ANIL CHANDRANversusM.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS,30-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8915/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2005, passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Administration vide which the private respondents No. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 were given seniority from back date. Service Law – In the writ petition fi led by in the year 2004, the High Court directed for consideration of their cases of promotion in the quota reserved for their category – The matter was considered by the Chief Engineer and disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2005 and after condsidering the representations, promotion as Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8915/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC962,2025-06-13T22:38:23.055724 UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusDELOITTE HASKINS AND SELLS LLP & ANR,03-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2305/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Companies Act, 2013 – s.140(5) – Analysis and Interpretation of – Maintainability of proceedings u/s.140(5) after resignation of the auditors – s.140(5) empowers the Tribunal (NCLT), either suo motu or on an application made to it by the Central Government or by to take action against the auditor who has acted in a fraudulent manner or is abetting or colluding in fraud with the management of a company – If on completion of an enquiry it is found by the Tribunal that an auditor of a company has, whether directly or indirectly, acted in a Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2305/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC484,2025-06-13T22:37:08.017844 AISH MOHAMMADversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS,14-06-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4044/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Service Law: Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – rr.8.18 and 16.28 – Power to review proceedings – Compulsorily retirement –Adverse remarks entered into appellant’s Annual Credential Report-ACR, due to which Departmental Enquiry held and the appellant reverted from the post to stoppage of one increment – Adverse remarks entered into ACR, expunged by the Inspector General of Police for a partial period – In a suit, the civil judge interfered with the stoppage of one increment, but not with the ACR – Appellant again filed a representation before the Decision Date : 14-06-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4044/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC578,2025-06-13T22:40:00.466490 MOHAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH COLLECTOR & ORS.,07-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7504/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MOHAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH COLLECTOR & ORS. - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 8422023 INSC 1019 SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellants if entitled to seek parity with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for their acquired land despite the inordinate delay in fi ling fi rst appeals. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation with co-villagers – Delay of 13 years in fi ling of the fi rst appeals – Condonation: Held: Appellants are entitled to seek parity with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for their acquired land – The inordinate delay in fi ling appeal in compensatory matters, per Decision Date : 07-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7504/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeals partly allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1019,2025-06-13T22:37:31.661205 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusGEETA DEVI AND OTHERS,30-10-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19992/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: After motor vehicle accident, it came to light that the driver of the vehicle had fake driving licence. The High Court opined that the petitioner-insurance company had neither pleaded nor proved that the deceased vehicle adequate steps to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and in the absence of such a plea on its part, the Tribunal could not have concluded that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Whether order of the High Court justifi ed. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19992/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC954,2025-06-13T22:38:18.459475 THE STATE OF GOAversusSUMMIT ONLINE TRADE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD & ORS.,14-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1700/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court – Cause of Action/Part of cause of action – Concept of, u/Art. 226(2) – Notification issued by the State of Goa levying 14% tax on Lottery authorised by State Government – Challenged to, by the being run by the State of Sikkim, in various States including Goa, in a writ petition before the High Court of Sikkim – Applications by the State of Goa before the High Court for deletion of its name from the array of respondent on the ground that notification under a statute enacted by Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1700/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC229,2025-06-13T22:53:54.047066 NO.15138812Y L/NK GURSEWAK SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,27-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 Part I, s 300 exception 4 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Appellant and the victim, both Lance Naik in the Indian Army – Altercation between them on the issue of seniority, after consuming liquor – Appellant snatched the bullet at him, resulting in the death of the victim – Appellant convicted by the court martial for the offence punishable u/s. 302 rw s. 69 of the Army Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held: Decision Date : 27-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC648,2025-06-13T22:37:06.531527 "THE SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORSversusOM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.",20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 424/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, HIMA KOHLI LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. v. OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.424 of 2023) 20th JANUARY 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that compensation with respect to the land was not tendered – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession of the land was Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 424/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC71,2025-06-13T22:29:36.180312 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 342/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : s. 24(2) – Land acquisition when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that compensation has not been paid or tendered – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the beneficiary by Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 342/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC62,2025-06-13T22:30:01.702514 M/S INDIAN MEDICINES PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION LTDversusKERALA AYURVEDIC CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.,03-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6693/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI Constitution of India: Art.14 – Government Contracts – Transparent and non-arbitrary method to be adopted by the Government – Decision of the government regarding purchase of the Ayurvedic Drugs only from the – Challenged on the ground that selection of IMPCL by the government is arbitrary and illegal by virtue of Art. 14 – High Court held that by virtue of Para 4(vi)(b) of the Operational Guidelines, the government was to invite supply of the drugs from various pharmacies and PSU Decision Date : 03-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6693/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC7,2025-06-13T22:34:06.244192 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERSversusDINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER,14-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8142/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS versus DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 10462023 INSC 1070 M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: On a reading of r.9, Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 2008, letters dated 30.05.2019 and 09.07.2019, whether 01.11.2018 can be said to be the cut-off period uniformly applicable qua all the eligibility conditions provided or is such date to be considered as the cut-off date only for the purpose of determining age-related eligibility and; if 01.11.2018 is to be held as the cut off only for the limited purpose, whether the respondent satisfi ed the other eligibility conditions and whether it can be said that there Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8142/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1070,2025-06-13T22:48:51.684800 STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.versusORISSA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD KARAMCHARI SANGH & ANR,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6944/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Act,1955 – s.36 – Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulations, 1960 – Regulation 40 and 52 – State Government decided not to introduce pension scheme for the employees of Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board hardship – Respondents challenged it before the High Court – The Single Judge issued directions to the State Government to amend the Regulations of 1960 and to take appropriate steps to incorporate the pension scheme for the Board’s employees at par with the State Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6944/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC247,2025-06-13T22:52:05.797251 SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS,30-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7069/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Claims of the appellants for recruitment on the posts of Village Development Offi cers if rightly rejected by High Court in view of lack of eligibility of being Ex-Servicemen at the time of the advertisement in question. Service Law – – To be adjudged as on the last date of submission of application forms, subject to any extension of such date: Held: Basic question on eligibility has to be determined on the basis of the cut-off date/point of time which stands crystalized by the date of the advertisement itself, being the Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7069/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC960,2025-06-13T22:38:20.860242 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANRversusDINESH KUMAR & ANR,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3151/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the writ petitioner seeking declaration that land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that no compensation was paid for the suit land – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession of the disputed lands was taken on Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3151/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC467,2025-06-13T22:39:46.791032 GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-07-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 678/2023,Matter referred to larger bench,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2023] 10 S.C.R. 4932023 INSC 635 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023: Constitutional validity of – Preamble to the NCT Ordinance 2023 states that Parliament has exclusive and plenary to the national capital in view of Arts 239-AA(3)(b) and 239-AA(7) – NCT Ordinance inserting s. 3A in the GNCTD Act, which amends Article 239-AA, stipulating that the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to enact laws as prescribed in Art 239-AA, except with respect to Entry 41 of List Decision Date : 20-07-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 678/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC635,2025-06-13T22:37:38.075020 STATE BANK OF INDIAversusP. ZADENGA,03-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2518/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) dated 10th April 2002 create a bar on departmental proceedings continuing when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for off ences of the same origin; and whether acquittal in proceedings entail a benefi t in the surviving proceedings, inuring a right upon the delinquent employee of automatic discharge in disciplinary proceedings. Service Law – Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial arising from the same transactions, if to be stayed – Acquittal Decision Date : 03-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2518/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC868,2025-06-13T22:42:43.581951 M/S PAUL RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusAMIT CHAND MITRA & ANR.,25-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6149/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, VIKRAM NATH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: To what extent the Court can take cognizance of a clause, relating to purpose for which a lease is granted, contained in an unregistered deed of lease for immovable property stipulating its duration for a period of fi ve years. Transfer – ss.106, 107 – Unregistered lease deed for a period of fi ve years – Inadmissibility – Purpose of lease – If for ‘manufacturing purpose’ – Burden to prove – Tenancy of “month to month” character: Held: The subject agreement had Decision Date : 25-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6149/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC854,2025-06-13T22:43:14.202913 AVTAR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB,23-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1711/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,,2023INSC280,2025-06-13T22:50:26.708188 UDAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU,16-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1741/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 120B – Murder – Due to rivalry A-1 alongwith A-3 hatched a conspiracy to murder the victim and engaged services of A-2 for the same – A-2 killed the victim with a sickle thereafter, fled with A-1 and A-2 – Incident witnessed by PW-1 – life imprisonment – High Court acquitted A-1 and A3 for both the offences and A-2 for the offence u/s 120B, however, conviction of A-2 for the offence punishable u/s 302 upheld on the basis of identification by PW1 – On appeal, held: Other than the identification of A-2 being the Decision Date : 16-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1741/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC239,2025-06-13T22:53:06.370325 "M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERSversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 AND ANOTHER",22-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4369/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – ss. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 – Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) – Appellant no.1-registered partnership firm comprising of appellant nos. 2 to 5 were holding the subject theatre – According to the finding recorded by the competent authority, more than 50% of the value assessed (i.e. Rs.13.12 lakhs) of the theatre has Decision Date : 22-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4369/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC273,2025-06-13T22:50:47.202960 ADIVASIS FOR SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,10-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2202/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Constitution of India, 1950 : 5th Schedule – Power of Governor under – Application of Central and the State Acts to a Scheduled Area-District of Sundargarh in the State of Orissa without a specific notification making the said Acts Area issued by the Governor – Held: All the Central and the State laws which are applicable to the entire State of Orissa would continue to apply to the Scheduled Area unless, in exercise of powers under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, there is a specific Decision Date : 10-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2202/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC512,2025-06-13T22:36:03.687451 RAJESH & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,21-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 793/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the Evidence Act, whether their conviction on diff erent counts and death sentence imposed on two out of the three appellants was justifi ed, when the confessions were made before their arrest and prior to being ‘accused of any off ence’. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.26, 27 – Being Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 793/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC839,2025-06-13T22:43:58.077427 ARUP BHUYANversusSTATE OF ASSAM & ANR.,24-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 889/2007,Reference answered,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.10(a)(i), 3 and 4 – s.10(a)(i) provides that where an association is declared unlawful by a notification issued u/s.3 which has become effective under sub-section 3 of that Section, a person who is and continues to be a member shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years and shall also be liable to fine – Whether “active membership” is required to be proven over and above the membership of a banned organization under the UAPA, 1967 – Held: The object and Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 889/2007 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC292,2025-06-13T22:49:23.598757 RAVI KHANDELWALversusM/S. TALUKA STORES,11-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4364/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 – s.14(3) – Interpretation of – Held: s.14(3) is for the protection of a tenant – The objective is that from the date a tenant acquires a right, he must have a right to continue in the premises for a period of to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the lease – In the present case, while the suit may have been defectively instituted within five years of the tenancy, more than 38 years have now elapsed since the suit was filed – This passage of time beyond the period of five years Decision Date : 11-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4364/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC615,2025-06-13T22:38:29.382896 MADANversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,09-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381/2017,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Six deaths were caused on account of brutal fi ring by the appellants and other accused persons. The trial court imposed sentence of capital punishment to the appellants (‘M’ and ‘S’) herein for the off ence punishable u/s. IPC, while it sentenced accused ‘I’ to imprisonment for life for the same. (i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the case for conviction u/s. 302 of IPC; (ii) Whether the present case falls in the category of rarest of rare cases; (ii) Whether on the facts of Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1381/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC990,2025-06-13T22:37:13.282967 SURESHKUMAR LALITKUMAR PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.,20-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1355/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH Service Law – Modification of selection process – Cut-off marks reduced after results were published to facilitate the inclusion of candidates constituting horizontal reservation – Impermissibility of – Held: An advertisement made pursuant to a – It has got all the trappings of a statutory prescription, unless contrary to either a rule or an Act – A change, if any, can only be brought by an amendment and nothing else – Such amendment even if permissible, can be tested on the touchstone of Art.14 – It cannot be Decision Date : 20-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1355/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC145,2025-06-13T22:58:27.502323 PRAKASH (DEAD) BY LR.versusG. ARADHYA AND ORS.,18-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 706/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Transaction between the parties whether an absolute sale of the property or a mortgage. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58(c) – Two documents executed on same day, Sale Deed and Reconveyance Deed/agreement of buy back deed, transaction if mortgage the property: Held: Proviso to sub-section (c) of s.58 provides that no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which eff ects or purports to eff ect the sale – In the present case, admittedly, there are two separate documents – Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 706/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC743,2025-06-13T22:35:48.329076 M/S HARSH AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,09-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5362/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the display boards or sign boards or name boards as displayed by the appellants would partake the character of “advertisement” so as to attract s.132 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and thereby the demand (for payment of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – s.132 – Appellants displayed their name board of respective business establishment which also depicted the nature of the respective vehicles which were sold and it would be inseparable part of the appellants’ business Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5362/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC893,2025-06-13T22:41:51.494475 THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.versusKAMLESH RANI BHATLA,23-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1927/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, KRISHNA MURARI Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972: r. 26(4) – Forfeiture of service on resignation – Withdrawal of resignation – On facts, the respondent tendered her resignation to contest election, and the resignation was accepted – She lost the election and of resignation – Application was kept pending – She then filed writ petition wherein the High Court directed the authorities to deliberate upon and thereafter dispose of her request qua withdrawal of her resignation taking note of the judgment of the High Court in Nirmal Decision Date : 23-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1927/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC282,2025-06-13T22:50:16.887656 SABARMATI GAS LIMITEDversusSHAH ALLOYS LIMITED,04-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1669/2020,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss. 6, 8, 9, 62, 238A, 252 – Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 – ss. 16, 17, 22, 25 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5,14 and Art. 137 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to r. 5, Form no. 3 – Appellant and respondent entered into a Gas Sales Agreement (GSA) whereunder the appellant was having the obligation to supply natural gas – Thereafter, the respondent made default in the payment of the invoices – Respondent approached BIFR and it was Decision Date : 04-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1669/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC10,2025-06-13T22:32:54.011661 AFJAL ANSARIversusSTATE OF UP,14-12-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3838/2023,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: What are the parameters to be considered for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; and whether conviction of an off ence involving a valid ground to deny suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 (1) – Suspension of conviction –Appellant-member of Parliament, convicted u/s. 3(1) of the Gangsters Act and sentenced to four years imprisonment with a fi ne of Rupees One Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3838/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1071,2025-06-13T22:49:03.347507 STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHERversusM/S. CHIRANJILAL (MINERAL) INDUSTRIES OF BAGANDIH AND ANOTHER,12-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8238/2022,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Intra-court appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal before the High Court was dismissed with the direction to the Appellant No. 2 – Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Commerce or any authorised offi cer to execute a mining lease in favour of the Respondent No. 2, sole proprietor of Respondent No. 1 - M/s. Chiranjilal (Mineral) Industries of Bagandih. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – s. 10-A – Mines and Minerals (Development Decision Date : 12-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8238/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC824,2025-06-13T22:44:55.465996 A. VALLIAMMAIversusK.P. MURALI AND OTHERS,12-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5342/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the suit for specifi c performance was barred by limitation and if the High Court erred in affi rming the judgment and decree of specifi c performance passed by the trial court. Specifi c Performance – No time fi xed for performance of contract Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 – Applicability: Held: Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act stipulates the limitation period for fi ling a suit for specifi c performance as three years from the date fi xed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fi Decision Date : 12-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5342/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC823,2025-06-13T22:45:02.656323 "M/S OSWAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIESversusMANAGER, LEGAL DEPTT. N.A.I.C.O. LTD",13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 83/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Insurance – In case of damage of the plant and machinery due to fire, whether the complainant entitled to reinstatement value or depreciated value under insurance policy – Appellant subscribed to a Fire & Perils policy – A fire broke out and the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.12,60,000/ - on depreciated value – Insurance company despite the reports of the surveyor, repudiated the claim – State Commission relying on the surveyor report, awarded Rs.29,17,500/- with 9% interest from the date of repudiation observing entitlement on reinstatement value Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 83/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC30,2025-06-13T22:32:11.245143 M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1335/2010,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Kerala VAT Act, 2003 – s. 6(1)(d), Entry No.44(5)of the III Schedule – Entry 27(4) and 66 of notification SRO 82/06 – Appellant’s case that the products (i) Mosquito Mats, Coils and Vaporizers; and (ii) Mortein Insect Killers; (iii) Harpic Toilet Cleaner and Lizol under Entry No. 44(5) of the III Schedule to the Kerala VAT Act as being ‘pesticides, insecticides’ corresponding to HSN Code 3808 and therefore subject to VAT at the rate of 4% – With respect to the product at (iv) Dettol Antiseptic Liquid, it was the case on behalf Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1335/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC328,2025-06-13T22:46:19.827905 K. L. SUNEJA & ANRversusDR. (MRS.) MANJEET KAUR MONGA (D) THROUGH HER LR & ANR,31-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1401/2019,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Competition Act, 2002 – Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Payment of interest on instalments towards allotment of a flat under construction which was ultimately cancelled – Competition Appellate Tribunal eligible for interest of 15% p.a. from 1st May 2005 (when allotment was cancelled) to 7th May 2016 (when pay order was revalidated and cumulative instalment amount was credited to the account of the complainant) – Builder argued that complainant had filed ‘original’ pay Decision Date : 31-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1401/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC89,2025-06-13T22:28:56.522271 M/S N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD. & ORS.,25-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3802/2020,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, AJAY RASTOGI*, ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR* Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 11(6A), 7, 8, 9, 11 and 16 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – ss. 3, 33 & 35 – Contract Act, 1872 – ss. 2(h), 10 – Appointment of Arbitrators by of India Scheme, 1996 – Arbitration Agreement in an unregistered instrument, which is not duly stamped, if valid and enforceable – Whether the statutory bar contained in s.35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to stamp duty under s.3 read with the Schedule to Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3802/2020 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC423,2025-06-13T22:40:57.292904 THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusBABULAL LADE & ORS.,24-03-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1308/2020,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Service Law: Salary/wages – Payment of – Payment of dues of the employees of the sugar factory in liquidation by the appellant- Bank, out of the sale proceeds from the auctioned property – Appellant Bank deposited 25% of the total amount due, in certain sum with the Industrial Court – Appellant Bank then sought transfer of that amount along with interest to the account of the Collector with the direction to distribute the amount as per the entitlement of each and every employee of the sugar factory after proper Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1308/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC295,2025-06-13T22:49:51.561999 P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THR. LR PAKA SAROJAversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,21-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2173/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in confi rming the conviction of appellant-accused no.1 u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Allegation demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as gratification other then legal remuneration from the defacto- complainant – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused no.1 for the off ences u/s. 7 and s.13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the 1988 Act – High Court confi rmed the conviction – Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2173/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC844,2025-06-13T22:44:08.867796 M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR.versusCOMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR.,22-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9195/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. versus COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR. - [2023] 3 S.C.R. 6182023 INSC 274 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA Central Tariff Act, 1985 – s. 4(4)(c) – In BIL, AgrEvo SA held 51% of the share capital initially (which was increased to 74% subsequently) and it continued to hold more than 51% – BIL thus became a subsidiary of AgrEvo SA – AgrEvo SA in Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd – Therefore, both BIL and Aventis CropScience (India) Ltd. became subsidiaries of AgrEvo SA (the name of which was changed to Aventis Crop Science SA around March 2000) during the relevant period – The dispute in this case arose as regards value of Decision Date : 22-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9195/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC274,2025-06-13T22:50:49.629846 JOLLY GEORGE AND ANR.versusGEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND ORS.,12-04-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 1333/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act,2019 – ss.2,5,6 and 10 – Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 – Rule 68 – ‘GEA’ purchased Hot Mix Plants for undertaking road works – They certificate u/s. 5 of the Act of 2019 and submitted an application to the Panchayat for the grant of a license for installation of the Plant – They obtained “Consent to Establish” from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board – Their application before the Decision Date : 12-04-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 1333/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC365,2025-06-13T22:45:26.533034 NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDALversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL,03-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2269/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Evidence – Extra-judicial Confession – Evidentiary value – Lady found murdered by a sharp cutting weapon – During investigation, revealed that the appellant-husband of the deceased had confessed before the prosecution witness that he had murdered the deceased with the spot where the body of the deceased was found – However, the trial court found the evidence of the witnesses contradictory to each other and not trustworthy, and acquitted the appellant – In appeal, the High Court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s. 302 – Interference Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2269/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC198,2025-06-13T22:54:53.893495 APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIAversusAJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA,20-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1308/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, B.V. NAGARATHNA* Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy – DNA test of minor child – Circumstances under which may be directed – Principles enumerated. Constitution of India – Right to privacy – DNA Held: Children have the right not to have their legitimacy questioned frivolously before a Court of Law – This is an essential attribute of the right to privacy. Evidence Act, 1872 – s.112 – Presumption u/s.112 – Absence of plea of “non-access” to dislodge such Decision Date : 20-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1308/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC146,2025-06-13T22:58:23.405891 IMTIYAZ AHMAD MALLAversusTHE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS,28-02-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 678/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law: Reinstatement – Petitioner issued appointment letter for the post of constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Executive Police – He suppressed the information with regard to his involvement in the criminal case – In view thereof, his Later, the petitioner acquitted in the criminal case pending against him – High Court set aside the cancellation order – Respondent directed to take further action – On reconsideration, the Director General of Police in view of the criminal background of the petitioner, found Decision Date : 28-02-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 678/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC179,2025-06-13T22:56:24.900491 BOHATIE DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1294/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.158, 173(3) – Reinvestigation by another agency – Order passed by Secretary (Home), State of U.P., Lucknow for reinvestigation by CBCID – Legality of – Held: s.173(3) r/w s.158 does not permit the Secretary further investigation/reinvestigation by another agency, other than the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station and/or his superior officer – For reinvestigation, the prior permission/approval of the Magistrate is required – In the present case, the Secretary (Home) passed Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1294/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC465,2025-06-13T22:38:39.705882 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS,13-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5352/2007,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus HARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS - [2023] 3 S.C.R. 4482023 INSC 367 AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d) – Respondent (commercial enterprise) had taken fire insurance policy from the appellant insurance company – Respondent sufferred damage due to fire – Appellant denied the claim of respondent before the State Commission for compensation – State Commission held that respondent was not a “consumer” as defined u/s. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the complaint was not maintainable – However, National Commission held that the respondent was a Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5352/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC367,2025-06-13T22:44:53.044182 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusRATIRAM & ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 379/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to of s.24(2) – High Court relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that compensation with respect to the land was not tendered – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession of the land Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 379/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC72,2025-06-13T22:29:24.012607 THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusSHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC,01-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1162/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue pertains to constitutionality of rr. 4(10) and 7(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 as regards restriction on grant and renewal of mining leases, and the procedure for grant of lease; whether the High ignoring the power of the State Government to make Rules in respect of minor minerals u/s. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; and whether there is a right vested over an application made which is pending seeking lease of a Government land or over the minerals Decision Date : 01-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1162/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC661,2025-06-13T22:36:45.288612 DHEERAJ SINGHversusGREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4172/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.41, r.22 – Cross objections filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation, not considered by High Court – Held: Cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are existing appeal – However, as per O.41, r.22, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same – Court of appeal has a duty to apply its mind to all the issues raised before it and in cases Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4172/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC594,2025-06-13T22:38:57.031837 RAVINDER KUMAR GOELversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,15-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1173/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, HIMA KOHLI Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : ss. 4, 6, 17(2) – Land Acquisition – Enhancement of compensation – On facts, land of the appellants acquired for the construction of Express Highway – Though land acquired on large scale, however, the appellants of small extent of lands – Award passed and the market value fixed at Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 43,17,841 and then by the High Court to Rs. 62,11,700/ - per acre – Thereafter, on remand of the matter to the Reference Court, on Decision Date : 15-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1173/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC129,2025-06-13T22:59:25.299607 AMBALAL PARIHARversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.,16-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3233/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Impugned order passed in Civil Writ Petition, fi led by the second to fourth respondents for clubbing of eight FIRs fi led against them, directing that no coercive action be taken against the aforesaid respondents in connection with the said FIRs, if – Abuse of process of law – Forum hunting – Six FIRs were registered against the second to fourth respondents, at the instance of the appellant – Two other FIRs were also registered against them by some other fi rst informants, respondents sought quashing thereof, Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3233/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC946,2025-06-13T22:40:51.029021 "DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.versusSMT. MAGI H DESAI",24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1787/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – rr. 13, 14 – High Court directed that the services of the respondent rendered as contractual/casual shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for calculating the qualifying benefits – Held: High Court materially erred in observing that the contractual service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity – Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment – Neither the rule Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1787/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC290,2025-06-13T22:49:44.247732 "DR. B R AMEDKAR UNIVERSITY, AGRAversusDEVARSH NATH GUPTA & ORS.",14-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1141/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Constitution of India :Art. 226 – Exercise of power under – Order as regards re-evaluation of the answer sheets/answer scripts – Justification of – Writ of Mandamus by respondent No. 1 seeking re-checking of answer sheet of the paper of the physiology subject and to accept the amended result if marks were increased in re-checking – High Court allowed the writ petition by awarding the respondent no. 1, the average of the marks awarded by the three examiners – High Court further awarded Rs. 1 lakh cost to respondent no. 1, gave liberty to Decision Date : 14-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1141/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC721,2025-06-13T22:59:27.575821 TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS,20-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8536/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the writ petitions fi led by the appellants-association representing manufacturing units of ‘reinforced’ paper cups, bags, challenging the government order banning manufacture, storage, supply, transport, sale, distribution, and use of plastic coated teacups and non-woven bags. Environment Protection Act, 1986 – ss. 5, 23 – Plastic coated teacups and non-woven bags – Government Order banning Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8536/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : C.A. No. 8536/2022 disposed of and C.A. Nos.8537-38/2022 partly allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC952,2025-06-13T22:39:07.457019 AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SHETH & ANR.,12-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2085/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: NCLAT dismissed the appeal fi led by the appellant upholding the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority whereby it admitted the application u/s.7, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 fi led by Respondent No.2-Secured Creditor against the the delay. Respondent No.2 whether entitled to the benefi t of s.18, Limitation Act and whether s.5 thereof would also be applicable. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.7 – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.18, 5 – Respondent No.2 fi led application u/s.7 against the Decision Date : 12-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2085/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC820,2025-06-13T22:45:00.336221 MANAK CHAND @ MANIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,30-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the appellant for off ence of rape u/s. 376 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 376 – Rape - Allegation of the prosecutrix aged less than 16 years, against her was raped two three times when she had gone to her sister’s matrimonial home – Considering the family relations, initially the matter was sought to be settled by the marriage of the two – However, the off er was turned down, and the prosecutrix’s father lodged an FIR Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC959,2025-06-13T22:38:11.914554 FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.,04-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4713/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The order of the High Court setting aside the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation in favour of legal representatives of the deceased employee. Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Victim died as he was tying up logs The Commissioner directed insurer to pay compensation of ₹3,94,120/- and the employer was directed to pay ₹1,97,060/-, i.e., 50% of the compensation amount as penalty – High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner – Propriety: Held: A bare perusal of the impugned judgment Decision Date : 04-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4713/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC790,2025-06-13T22:46:03.158911 MATHEW ALEXANDERversusMOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR.,13-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1931/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 482 – Quashing of final report – Motor accident matter – Rash and negligent driving – Appellant’s son was driving a car which collided with the gas tanker lorry – Death of appellant’s son and five others travelling in legal representative of the deceased passengers – Claim petition also filed by the appellant against the driver and the insurer of the tanker lorry, and against the owner – FIR against the appellant’s son u/s. 279 and 304 A, however, abatement of charges against him on his Decision Date : 13-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1931/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC621,2025-06-13T22:38:10.293484 DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION DEHRADUNversusISHWAR SHANDILYA & ORS,20-04-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 859/2020,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Advocates/Bar Associations – Grievance Redressal Committees (GRC) – Constitution of – Held: No member of the Bar can go on strike and/or abstain himself from court working – If the member of the Bar has any difficulty being faced because of the procedural changes in filing/listing of the matters and/or any genuine grievance pertaining to misbehave of any member of the lower judiciary they can very well make a representation and it is appropriate that their genuine grievances are considered by some Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 859/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC405,2025-06-13T22:42:43.287847 MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHERversusRAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5645/2015,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ss. 15(2- A), 41 – Constitution of India – Art. 265 – The dispute before the High Court by way of various writ petitions was with respect to challenge to the various demand notices by way of external/internal fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, development charges, sub-division charges, stacking charges and impact fee etc – Except in one case, namely, Rekha Rani, in all other cases, the Allahabad High Court as such has upheld the levy of development charges/fees Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5645/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC448,2025-06-13T22:40:01.243413 UNION OF INDIAversusINDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.,22-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8329/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law : Pay scale – Grant of – Respondent association seeking pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the Junior Design Officers as allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers (Design), consequent to the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and the High Court, by equating the posts of JDOs with CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs – Justification of – Held: Equation and classification of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Decision Date : 22-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8329/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC152,2025-06-13T22:58:00.519177 PRAKASH KUMAR JENA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8836/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Service Law – Home Guards – Disbursal of salary – Writ petition was filed by original writ petitioners, who were working as Home Guards for more than 10 to 15 years, seeking disbursal of their salary as per direction of the Supreme Court in Grah Rakshak, Home Guards of Himachal Pradesh and others – Division Bench of the High Court restricted the payment at the rate of Rs.533/- per day to the Home Guards from January, 2020, instead of 10.11.2016, as directed by the Single Judge of the High Court – On appeal, held: The State cannot be permitted Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8836/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC254,2025-06-13T22:52:39.235007 RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAMversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,17-02-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 9221/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Conviction under – Evidence Act 1872 – s. 106 – Prosecution case is that petitioner-accused had taken victim-deceased – Thereafter the very next day, victim was found lying dead on road u/s. 302 IPC – High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held: The time gap between the period when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the petitioner with regard to the Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 9221/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC133,2025-06-13T22:59:07.263129 INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTDversusHDFC BANK LTD. & ANR.,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4708/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the documents executed by the borrower-appellant by which rents were made over to the lender-respondent constituted an assignment and thus fell outside the scope of an asset and security freeze order made by the NCLAT. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sanction of fi nancial facility of ₹400 crores to the borrower by the lender – Parties entered into Master Facility Agreement-MFA and Assignment Agreement-AA – As per MFA receivables or rents which borrower is entitled to, form the security for the advance extended to Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4708/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC929,2025-06-13T22:39:54.489570 MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,24-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 915/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 , 201, 120-B – Circumstantial Evidence – Criminal Conspiracy – Businessman-victim threatened for money and shot dead by two motorcyclists – Appellant and several others chargesheeted – Trial court convicted and sentenced all the accused However, the High Court acquitted all the accused except the appellant – On appeal, held: Prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, as none was found present at the scene of the incident – Neither of the independent witness supported the prosecution case – Decision Date : 24-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 915/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC415,2025-06-13T22:42:10.140346 ISOLATORS AND ISOLATORS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MRS. SANDHYA MISHRAversusMADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND ANR,18-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2890/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Contract – Imposition of penalty, debarment/blacklisting of the appellant-firm – Requirement of specific show-cause notice – Held: Cancellation orders dtd. 19.11.19 and 21.11.19 cannot be read as show-cause purpose of imposition of penalty – Finality attaching to the action of cancellation cannot be read as a due notice for imposition of penalty even if the respondents chose to employ the expression ‘cancelled with imposition of penalty’ in those orders – Thus, the action of Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2890/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC390,2025-06-13T22:44:01.311176 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSH. NARENDER & ANR.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 740/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation, the High Court declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 740/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC108,2025-06-13T23:00:36.404181 HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,13-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 237/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA Constitution of India – Arts.170 and 239A – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.13 – Art. 170 forming part of Chapter III of Part VI of the Constitution under the title “The State Legislature” – Issue of applicability of Art.170 to the Union Held: As far as the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory of J&K is concerned, Art.170 will have no application as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals with only the State Legislature – It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories – The Decision Date : 13-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 237/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC124,2025-06-13T22:59:33.595382 IRFAN @ NAKAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,23-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 825/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution could be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant who was convicted for off ence punishable u/ss.302, 436 and 326-A, IPC and sentenced to death, for allegedly setting his son and his real brothers on fi dying declarations. Evidence – Dying declarations – Sole basis of conviction – When not justifi ed – Appellant had strained relationship with his son (victim- deceased) from his first marriage and his two brothers (victims- deceased), all of whom, as per the prosecution, Decision Date : 23-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 825/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC758,2025-06-13T22:35:31.808140 SURESH LATARUJI RAMTEKEversusSAU. SUMANBAI PANDURANG PETKAR & ORS.,21-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6070/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in the absence of aff ording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties on addressing the framed substantial questions of law, the High Court could have proceeded to decide the same in an appeal u/s.100, CPC particularly, of fact rendered by two Courts, were sought to be reversed; and further, whether without summoning and perusing the trial record, fi ndings of fact could have been reversed by High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s.100, CPC. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6070/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC846,2025-06-13T22:43:32.024299 MANIK MAJUMDER AND OTHERSversusDIPAK KUMAR SAHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2965/2022,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA* Registration Act, 1908 – ss. 32, 33 and 60 – Execution of sale deed on the strength of a deed of Power of Attorney – Non- production of the deed of power of attorney – Effect of, to the case of plaintiff in the suit – (PoA) executed outside India – Presumption as to correctness of the PoA – On facts, PoA allegedly executed in East Pakistan by the original owner in favour of respondent No. 2 – Respondent No. 2 thereafter executed two sale deeds transferring the suit property firstly in his Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2965/2022 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC34,2025-06-13T22:31:55.262197 PREM KISHORE & ORS.versusBRAHM PRAKASH & ORS,29-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1948/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, J.B. PARDIWALA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 11, Or. 7 R. 11, Or, 9 R. 8, Or. 17 R. 3 – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – s. 14(1)(a) – The landlord (original plaintiff) filed an eviction petition against the respondent (tenant) – The respondent filed the written statement and and tenant – Thereafter, the landlord failed to appear before the Rent Controller for the purpose of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties – Rent controller proceeded to dismiss the eviction petition and the same was not challenged by way of Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1948/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC317,2025-06-13T22:47:38.936927 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusAMIT JAIN & ORS,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1360/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the entire acquisition with respect to the suit land is deemed to have lapsed u/ s.24(2) – It was the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the physical possession of the lands in question was duly taken over by the Government except the 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 which was not taken due to built- up – Held: – Original writ petitioners disputed the actual taking over Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1360/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC169,2025-06-13T22:57:25.829124 KAUSHAL KISHORversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,03-01-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 113/2016,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. ABDUL NAZEER*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, B.V. NAGARATHNA Constitution of India – Arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(2) – Are the grounds specified in Article 19(2) in relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech can be imposed by law, exhaustive, or can restrictions on the right to free speech not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights – Held: The grounds lined up in Art.19(2) for restricting the right to free speech are exhaustive – Under the guise of invoking other fundamental rights or under the guise of two fundamental rights staking a competing Decision Date : 03-01-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 113/2016 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC4,2025-06-13T22:33:20.074642 SURESH THIPMPPA SHETTYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,26-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1541/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellants-accused (A4 and A2) were convicted u/s.302, s.120B, IPC and sentenced accordingly. Whether High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the appeals fi led by them and upholding their conviction. Administration of Criminal Justice to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Conviction unsustainable: Held: There is suffi cient material on record giving rise to reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the appellants in the crime – Appellants were able to poke holes in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW7 Decision Date : 26-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1541/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC749,2025-06-13T22:37:08.127978 IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTIONversus.,11-12-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1033/2019,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Article 370 of the Constitution of India incorporated special arrangements for the governance of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The President issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273 during under Article 356(1)(b) which orders had the eff ect of applying the entire Constitution of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogating Article 370. Contemporaneously, the Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 which bifurcated the State into two Decision Date : 11-12-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1033/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1058,2025-06-13T22:49:26.801519 THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.versusM/S TIRUMALA CONSTRUCTIONS,20-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The Constitution (101st Amendment) Act, 2016, introduces a fundamental re-ordering of the constitutional premise of taxation by the Union and State Governments in India. It is the framework to enable the introduction of the Goods These batch of appeals arise from judgments delivered by the Telangana, Gujarat and Bombay High Court. The concerned States (Telangana and Gujarat) have appealed aggrieved by the judgments. The assessee petitioners are appellants, and are aggrieved by the judgments of Bombay High Court. Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC942,2025-06-13T22:38:38.923717 G. VIKRAM KUMARversusSTATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.,02-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3152/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR COURT REPORTS [2023] 5 S.C.R. [2023] 5 S.C.R. 624 624 G. VIKRAM KUMAR v. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.3152–3153 of 2023) MAY 02, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ] Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Bank against the borrower and attachement of the properties of the borrower – Tribunal allowed the Bank to go ahead with the sale excluding seven flats identified by the borrower – However, Flat No.6401 was not amongst the said seven flats – Borrower entered into an agreement Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC475,2025-06-13T22:37:37.297457 M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusV. B. R. MENON & OTHERS,14-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 421/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, J.B. PARDIWALA National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30(1)(b), 36 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – s. 2(a), 3(3), 5, 5A – National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2011 – Rule 24 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) of Pollution) Act, 1981 – s. 21 – The Principle Bench of the NGT in the O.A.No.147 of 2016 issued directions to install Stage-I and Stage-II vapour recovery devices (VRD) at all fuel stations, distribution centers, terminals, railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 421/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC231,2025-06-13T22:53:57.438496 NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1353/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated w.r.t the subject land are deemed to have lapsed – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1353/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC170,2025-06-13T22:57:06.454928 HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR.versusAMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.,15-06-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8194/2018,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Companies Act, 1956 – s. 2(32), 81, 81(1A), 81(3), 397, 398 – Companies Act, 1913 – s. 105-C – First respondent is a private limited company having authorised capital of Rs.1 crore – There are three groups i.e. HMP, S and VPP – Appellant nos. 1 and 2 described of the paid up share capital – ‘S’ Group represented by respondent nos. 4 & 5 had 45 per cent share and ‘VPP’ Group represented by respondent nos. 2 & 3 had 24.20 percentage in the paid-up capital – In response to the proposal for a term-loan made by Decision Date : 15-06-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8194/2018 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC582,2025-06-13T22:39:57.154519 PALLAVIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,01-09-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 642/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The petitioner-foreign national, challenges the rejection of candidature to a Post graduate medical seat when she was allowed to appear in the NEET mains as Overseas Citizen of India Card cardholder, wherein she participated in the mock rounds and was allotted in AIIMS, however, just before the fi rst round of counselling she was informed that she would be treated as an Indian national and not as a foreign national. Education/Educational institutions – Medical education – Admission to post graduate courses – Foreign national Decision Date : 01-09-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 642/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC782,2025-06-13T22:46:17.578248 NTPC LTD.versusM/S SPML INFRA LTD,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4778/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R.[2023] 2 S.C.R. 846 846 NTPC LTD. v. M/S SPML INFRA LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4778 of 2022) APRIL 10, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 : s. 11(6) – Constitution of arbitral tribunal the final payment – However, NTPC withheld SPML’s Bank Guarantees with respect to other projects – In turn, SPML raised a claim against NTPC, and thereafter, filed writ petition seeking release the Bank Guarantees – During pendency, the parties arrived at a Settlement Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4778/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC334,2025-06-13T22:46:49.543739 "COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABADversusM/S J.R. ORGANICS LTD.",01-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8502/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Central Excise Rules, 1994 – r. 6(p)(ii) – Determining the value of the spirit –Respondent was engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals and for which purpose it was necessary to procure specially denatured spirits from its unit at Kaptanganj – The dispute arose had, for the purpose of determining the value of the spirit, determined the highest rate of the denatured spirit prevalent at another unit on the specific date – Aggrieved by it, the respondent approached Customs Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the plea of Decision Date : 01-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8502/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC183,2025-06-13T22:56:07.431977 OFFICE OF THE ODISHA LOKAYUKTAversusDR. PRADEEP KUMAR PANIGRAHI AND OTHERS,23-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1384/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 – s.20(1), 25, 28 – Order passed by the appellant, in exercise of power conferred u/s.20(1), directing to conduct preliminary inquiry against respondent no.1 – Set aside by High Court the impugned order setting aside the order of the appellantwithout affording it an opportunity of hearing and thus, is in violation of the principles of natural justice – Even on merits, High Court completely overlooked s.20(1) that empowers the Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, in Decision Date : 23-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1384/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC154,2025-06-13T22:57:51.712661 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.,16-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9287/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition – On facts, the subject land was acquired in the year 2007 by drawing panchnama – Same land was sold to the respondent no. 1 in 2010 by the respondent-original writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was not paid – High Court allowed the petition – On appeal, held: Subsequent purchaser had no Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9287/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC47,2025-06-13T22:31:12.421867 BHUPINDER SINGHversusUNITECH LIMITED,23-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10856/2016,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, M.R. SHAH COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R.[2023] 4 S.C.R. 950 950 BHUPINDER SINGH v. UNITECH LIMITED (I.A. Nos. 88960 of 2020 & 47525 of 2021) In (Civil Appeal No. 10856 of 2016) MARCH 23, 2023 [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND M. R. SHAH, J.] Doctrines/Principles – Principle of Restitution – came to be confirmed in favour of ‘DGS’ – As per ‘UL’, since it was the absolute owner of the land in question therefore entitled to the entire sale consideration however, it received only a part of it and the balance amount was ordered to be paid to the respondents Decision Date : 23-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10856/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC283,2025-06-13T22:50:35.895969 "URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BIKANERversusGORDHAN DASS (D) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS",19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8411/2014,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, MANOJ MISRA* HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether land acquisition proceedings can be declared null and void for failure to give notice u/s.52(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 to the owners who had purchased the land two years earlier through registered the initiation of the land acquisition proceedings, even though the name of original khatedaar was refl ected in the Revenue records; whether the civil court has jurisdiction to grant injunction as s. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 bars jurisdiction of civil court in respect of Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8411/2014 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC935,2025-06-13T22:39:34.187058 SHAH NEWAZ KHAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF NAGALAND & ORS,28-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1497/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, DIPANKAR DATTA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss.24, 25 – Constitution of India – Arts. 214, 231 – Suit – Transfer of – Appellant-plaintiff moved an application u/s. 24 of CPC before the Gauhati High Court (Common High Court for the states of Assam, Nagaland and two other of a suit filed by appellant in the court of the District Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland to the court of the District Judge at Gauhati, Assam – High Court rejected the transfer application – In appeal before the Supreme Court, issue was: Is the Supreme Court the sole repository of power Decision Date : 28-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1497/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC176,2025-06-13T22:56:42.516447 THE ESI CORPORATIONversusM/S. RADHIKA THEATRE,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 312/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.1(6) (inserted w.e.f. 20.10.89) – Whether w.r.t the demand notices post 20.10.89, a factory or an establishment established prior to 20.10.89 shall be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding the number of persons employed therein – Held: establishments/factories engaging more than 20 employees were governed by the ESI Act – However, after sub-section (6) of s.1 was inserted on 20.10.89, under the amended provision a factory or establishment to which ESI Act applies would be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 312/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC60,2025-06-13T22:29:12.693174 MANOJ KUMAR SONIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,11-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1030/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Conviction of both the appellants-accused respectively u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC was based largely upon disclosure statements made by them and the co-accused, unaccompanied by supporting evidence, if justifi ed Evidence – Disclosure any supporting evidence, to convict u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC – If adequate: Held : No – Although disclosure statements hold signifi cance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence suffi cient on its own and without anything more to Decision Date : 11-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1030/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC705,2025-06-13T22:36:17.205751 RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITEDversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.,11-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2242/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a transferee entity-a successor bank (DBS Bank) can be fastened with corporate criminal liability for the off ences which the amalgamating entity-the erstwhile Laxmi Vilas Bank (LVB) is accused of. Criminal Law – Corporate criminal liability – entity: Held: Criminal liability of a company cannot be transferred ipso facto, except when it is in the nature of penalty proceeding – Only defi ned legal proceedings are succeeded to by the transferee company, which is the DBS Bank in the instant case – Further, every scheme Decision Date : 11-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2242/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC819,2025-06-13T22:45:14.751828 "MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.versusR. M. DOSHI",02-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6069/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, J.B. PARDIWALA Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971 – Rule 6 – Respondent was discharging his duty as city engineer of the appellant-Municipal corporation – Respondent was charged with irregularities in the execution of work and construction of roads Municipal Corporation passed a dismissal order against the respondent – Respondent challenged the dismissal order before the High Court, arguing that the Commissioner lacked the authority and jurisdiction – Appellant corporation submitted that under Resolution No.51, the commissioner Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6069/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC474,2025-06-13T22:37:57.299359 THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.versusCHANDERVIR SINGH NEGI,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1276/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Limitation Act, 1973 – Arts. 58, 72 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Bar by limitation – Suit by the respondent for declaration, mandatory injunction and appellants to complete the acquisition proceedings – Respondent’s case that road was constructed on respondent’s land, no compensation was paid and non-compliance of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act – Trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation – Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1276/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC158,2025-06-13T22:57:11.733873 ASSESSING OFFICER CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(2) NEW DELHIversusM/S NESTLE SA,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1420/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether there is any right to invoke the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause when the third country with which India has entered into a Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) was not an Organisation for (OECD) member yet (at the time of entering into such DTAA); and whether the MFN clause is to be given eff ect to automatically or if it is to only come into eff ect after a notifi cation is issued. Income Tax Act, 1961– s.90– Agreement with foreign countries or specifi ed Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1420/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC928,2025-06-13T22:39:19.378683 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.,02-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3320/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. [2023] 6 S.C.R. 590 590 BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MADHUMITA DAS AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3320 of 2023) MAY 02, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J B PARDIWALA, J.] Service Law – Dismissal from service – Cancellation of caste that she did not belong to a Scheduled Caste by birth and her marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste would not entitle her to benefit of the reservation for persons belonging to the caste of her spouse – Appellant passed an order dismissing the first respondent from the service Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3320/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC728,2025-06-13T22:37:53.799133 M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.,26-07-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 5263/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Special Leave to appeal – Order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-NCDRC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s.58(1)(a)(iii) – Petition seeking special leave to appeal u/Art. 136 – available by way of writ petition u/Arts. 226 and 227 before the High Court – Held: Remedy of appeal to this Court is available only with respect to the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by s. 21(a)(i) of the 1986 Act and s. 58(1)(a)(i) or s. 58(1)(a)(ii) of Decision Date : 26-07-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 5263/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC649,2025-06-13T22:37:11.556336 JAIVEER SINGH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS,28-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7871/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in holding that 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education-D.El.Ed conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling-NIOS through Open and Distance Learning-ODL mode is equivalent to the Diploma in elementary education as required under the Notifi cations of National Council for Teacher Education-NCTE. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – s. 23 – Qualifi cations for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers – Minimum Decision Date : 28-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7871/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1024,2025-06-13T22:37:00.574562 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusA.K. NAIR & ORS.,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 529/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA* Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – s. 33 – Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s. 34 – Reservation in promotion for person with disabilities – Bank employee having post polio paralysis of Test, to secure promotion to Class I post, however, fell short of qualifying marks by three marks – Representation for condonation of short fall of marks, on par with SC/ST category but not considered – Writ petition by the employee – High Court directed the bank to apply Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 529/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC613,2025-06-13T22:38:51.109093 ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERSversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS,10-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 148/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ANNA MATHEWS AND OTHERS versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2023] 1 S.C.R. 4632023 INSC 122 SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI Constitution of India: Art.217 – Collegium recommendation – Scope and ambit of judicial review in the matter of appointment of judges – Held: The Collegium of the Supreme Court takes the final call after considering recommendation of High Court, inputs of intelligence agencies, and comments of the judges of this Court and a number of letters and communications from all quarters – Supreme Court while exercising power of judicial review cannot issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation, or mandamus calling upon the Collegium of the Supreme Court to Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 148/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC122,2025-06-13T22:59:51.449619 SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,09-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5867/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal; and whether the department had shown suffi cient cause for which the appeal could not be presented within the prescribed period Condonation of – Exercise of discretionary power – High Court condoned the delay of around 479 days in presentation of the appeal by the Department from the decision of the Reference Court whereby it had enhanced compensation payable to the landowners – Correctness of: Held: Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5867/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC885,2025-06-13T22:42:20.951005 DILIP B JIWRAJKAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,09-11-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1281/2021,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Constitutional validity of ss.95 to 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.95 to 100 – Constitutional validity – Challenge to: Held: Provisions of ss.95 to as they do not violate Articles 14 and 21– No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in ss.95 to 99 – The resolution professional appointed u/s.97 serves a facilitative role of collating all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1281/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1018,2025-06-13T22:37:18.506248 M. SURESH KUMAR REDDYversusCANARA BANK & ORS.,11-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7121/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.3(12), 7, 14 – Scope of s.7 – ‘Default’ u/s.3(12) – Application filed by the respondent-Bank u/s.7 against corporate debtor, admitted by NCLT – Moratorium was declared for the purposes referred in s.14 – Debtor – Appeal dismissed by NCLAT – Held: Once NCLT is satisfied that the default has occurred, there is hardly a discretion left with it to refuse admission of the application u/s.7 – Even the non--payment of a part of debt when it becomes due and payable will amount to Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7121/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC521,2025-06-13T22:35:56.176827 "COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAXversusM/S SUZLON ENERGY LTD.",10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11400/2018,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Finance Act, 1994 – ss.65(35b), 65(105)(zzzzd) – “design services” – Respondent engaged in manufacture of Wind Turbine Generator (WTG), entered into a product development and purchase agreement with its sister concern in Germany – Various models of “Engineering Design & Drawings” were imported by the respondent for manufacturing of WTG – If leviable to service tax under the category of “design services” as defined u/s.65(35b) r/w s.65(105)(zzzzd) – Held: Yes – Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11400/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC332,2025-06-13T22:46:47.188377 VAHITHAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU,22-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 762/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Conviction under – Strangulation of child – Prosecution case that appellant strangulated her five year old child to death while PW-1 (mother-in-law of appellant) had gone out of the house – As per the FIR, when PW-1 came back she saw the appellant tie the outer end of her saree tightly around the neck of the child – During her testimony PW-1 stated that she found the appellant sitting silently next to the deceased child when she came back to the house – Upon hearing PW-1 shout; daughters of PW-1 i.e. PW-2 Decision Date : 22-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 762/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC151,2025-06-13T22:57:54.971194 KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS.versusMURALIDHAR (D) & ORS.,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11104/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in ordering remand of the matter for examination of afresh bonafi de requirement of the heirs of the landlord for personal cultivation, in light of the changed circumstances-death of landlord; of the landlord exceeds one economic holding and whether the landlord earns his livelihood principally by agriculture or by agricultural labour. Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – s. 43A – Application under – Dispute between the legal heirs of the original Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11104/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC939,2025-06-13T22:39:27.297382 PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P.,04-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2710/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Appellant convicted u/s. 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment, whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and as upheld by the High Court is just and proper. Sentence/sentencing – Trial Court convicted A-2 (appellant) u/s. him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment – Conviction and order of sentence of appellant confi rmed by the High Court – Limited question before the Supreme Court regarding the quantum of sentence: Held: It is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence, Decision Date : 04-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2710/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC791,2025-06-13T22:46:08.415268 SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA,20-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019,Unknown,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SITA SOREN versus UNION OF INDIA - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 7532023 INSC 856 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue pertains to whether an MP or MLA can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for taking bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular manner in the House; and as to correctness of case. Constitution of India – Art. 194(2) – Powers, privileges, etc, of the House of Legislatures and of the members and committees thereof – Issue as regards immunity to an MP or MLA from criminal prosecution for taking bribery for making a speech or voting in a particular Decision Date : 20-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019 | Direction Issue : Papers to be placed before Hon’ble CJI for constituting larger Bench of seven judges | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC856,2025-06-13T22:44:12.343433 SIBY THOMASversusM/S. SOMANY CERAMICS LTD,10-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3139/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In the impugned order, the High Court declined to quash the complaint u/s.138 r/w. s.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua the appellant-accused no.4 in exercise of the power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138 Respondent fi led complaint u/s. 138 r/w. s.141 of the NI Act – Appellant set up twin grounds to seek quashment of the complaint against him; fi rstly, that he had resigned from the partnership fi rm on 28.05.2013 whereas the cheque in question was issued on 21.08.2015 and secondly, that Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3139/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC890,2025-06-13T22:41:32.842232 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusRATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1922/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission-CERC and Appellate Tribunal for Electricity-APTEL were justifi ed in affi xing liability to pay fi appellant. Electricity Act, 2003 – s. 79 – Payment of fi xed capacity charges – Fixation of liability – Power Purchase Agreement between the appellant and fi rst respondent whereby the appellant would purchase power from the fi rst respondent – First respondent was Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1922/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC993,2025-06-13T22:37:11.674258 MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.versusSTATE OF ODISHA & ORS,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 220/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957– ss.11(2),2(d)– ‘Person interested’ –Lands in question owned by respondent-State was acquired by the Central Govt. –In exercise of powers u/s.11(1), the Central Govt. directed that the lands and rights Govt., vest in the appellant-Govt. Company subject to the terms and conditions as mentioned– Demand notice issued by State for premium and compensation – Challenged by appellant– Demand confirmed by High Court– On appeal, held: As per s.11(2), where the rights under Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 220/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC63,2025-06-13T22:29:47.382941 MOHINDER SINGH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHERversusNARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS,14-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3828/2017,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, BELA M. TRIVEDI Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 : ss. 2(52), 2(61), 502, 507(a) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – ss. 3(5), 150 – Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Special provisions as to rural areas – Recorded in a village in Delhi to one vide registered sale deed – He again sold some portion of his land to respondents vide sale deed in 1989 and their names were mutated subsequently – Appellants case that before the said sale deed could be executed in favour of the respondents, the Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3828/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC223,2025-06-13T22:53:32.205217 SACHIDHANANDAM SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS.versusE. VANAJA AND ORS.,06-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3667/2018,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, HIMA KOHLI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow of the pre-deceased son has the fi rst right or entitlement to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and 16 – Rules of succession in the case of female Hindus – Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu – First right of widow of the pre-deceased son to receive any share in the share of her mother-in-law: Held: A combined reading of s. Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3667/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC984,2025-06-13T22:37:53.763271 MRS. KALYANI RAJANversusINDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL & ORS.,17-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10347/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the respondents have committed negligence in not providing proper post-operative medical care to the patient and, accordingly, whether the NCDRC has committed any illegality while dismissing the complaint fi led by the Act, 1986 – Complainant-appellant, husband (patient) was suff ering from Chiari Malformations (Type II) with Hydrocephalous – Patient underwent neurosurgery after which he was shifted to a private room – However, same day around 11:00 p.m., patient suff ered a heart attack Decision Date : 17-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10347/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC921,2025-06-13T22:40:15.799137 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ANRversusADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED & ORS.,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4143/2020,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity Act, 2013 : s. 63 – Determination of tariff by bidding process – Change in law – Haryana Utilities-appellants entered into Power Purchase Agreements-PPAs with the APML – PPAs entered pursuant to tariff Process – Petition by APML before CERC seeking relief of increase in tariff on account of change in law, increase in coal price due to change in Indonesian Regulations – CERC allowed the petition granting change in law relief for the shortfall in the availability of 100% coal which Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4143/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC401,2025-06-13T22:42:47.237090 BHARATIYA KAMGAR KARMACHARI MAHASANGHversusM/S. JET AIRWAYS LTD,25-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4404/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 – Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Appellant- Union represents workmen temporarily engaged on a fixed-term contract by the respondent-company – Appellant contended that the workmen were despite completing 240 days in service in terms of the Model Standing Order provided under the Rules of 1959 and despite the nature of the work being permanent and regular – Respondent claimed that the workers are not entitled to permanency as per the settlement dated 02.05.2002 – Decision Date : 25-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4404/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC646,2025-06-13T22:37:16.007039 CELIR LLPversusBAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. & ORS.,21-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5542/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA 53 : 2023 INSC 838 53 CASE DETAILS CELIR LLP v. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5542 - 5543 of 2023) SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, J.] HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: The present appeals by the appellant-auction the borrowers to redeem the mortgage of the secured asset after the auction proceedings had attained finality. The questions for consideration were:- 1. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when the Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5542/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC838,2025-06-13T22:43:50.069157 MOSER BAER KARAMCHARI UNION THR. PRESIDENT MAHESH CHAND SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,02-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 421/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.B. SHAH*, SANJIV KHANNA Companies Act, 2013: s. 327(7) – Constitutional validity – Held: s. 327(7) provides that ss. 326 and 327 shall not be applicable in the event of liquidation under the IBC, in view of the enactment of IBC and it applies with respect to the liquidation of a company under the cannot be said to be arbitrary and/or violative of Art. 21 – In case of liquidation of a company under IBC, the provisions of s. 53 IBC and other provisions of the IBC shall be applicable as the company is ordered to be liquidated or wound up under the provisions of IBC – Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 421/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC479,2025-06-13T22:37:44.918495 COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. AHMEDABADversusM/S URMIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND OTHERS,20-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10159/2010,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: The primary dispute in the present seven groups of appeals revolved around classifi cation of the product in question keeping in view two competing Central Excise Tariff Sub-Headings / entries i.e. under CET SH tobacco’ or under CET SH 2403 9930 as ‘zarda/ jarda scented tobacco’. Ancillary issues related to invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and declaration made r.6 of the ‘Chewing Tobacco’ and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10159/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC951,2025-06-13T22:38:56.482868 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSHAKEEL AHMED & ORS.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 739/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – There was ownership dispute with regard to the land in question – High Court without going into that in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 and declared that the acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: The High Court ought to have first decided the ownership dispute and thereafter ought to Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 739/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC108,2025-06-13T23:00:13.769213 CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &ANR.,10-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 740/1986,Directions issued,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI Bombay Protection of Ex-communication Act, 1949 – The Act, 1949 provided that ex-communication of a member of any community shall be invalid and shall be of no effect – Head of the Dawoodi Bohra community challenged the that it infringed on fundamental rights guaranteed u/Arts.25 and 26 of the Constitution – A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court (of five Judges) in the case of Sardar Syedna, by majority, held that ex- communication amongst the Dawoodi Bohras forms an integral part of the management of the Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 740/1986 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC115,2025-06-13T22:59:54.014079 NAND LAL AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,14-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1421/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant – Accused no. 11 assaulted the complainant and thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR – Said accused then alongwith the other accused weapons formed an unlawful assembly, and assualted the victim-complainant’s father along with the prosecution witnesses, resulting in the death of the victim – Conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s. 302 along with the other offences and sentenced to life Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1421/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC224,2025-06-13T22:53:50.698748 SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. ETCversusVIJAY D. KASBE AND ORS. ETC,18-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2911/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Service Law – Government servants – Claim of Over Time Allowance u/s.59(1), Factories Act – Denial of – Held: Appointment either to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union or employment governed strictly by a contract of service or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by statute or statutory rules issued u/Article 309 or its proviso – Unlike those employed in factories and industrial establishments, persons in public service who are holders of civil posts Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2911/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC388,2025-06-13T22:43:41.773754 THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusSUSHILA & ORS.,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9205/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the respondent no.1-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) since neither physical possession of the land was taken nor they were paid compensation – Allowed by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken over by the acquiring body and handed Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9205/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC36,2025-06-13T22:32:07.057353 PRAKASH AGGARWALversusGANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1308/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Held: Respondent No.1-complainant has attempted to turn a purely contractual dispute between the parties into a criminal case – Not only that, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint – Further, at its face value, does not disclose that any of the ingredients of the offence complained of have been made out – Thus, the present complaint is nothing else but an abuse of process of law – Complaint filed before the trial court u/ss.403, 406, 420, 120B, IPC is dismissed – Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1308/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC464,2025-06-13T22:39:39.331197 LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITEDversusUTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED,06-11-2023,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 43/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the dictum as laid down in ICOMM Tele Limited’s case can be made applicable to the instant case, when Clause 55 of the General Conditions of Contract provides for a pre-deposit of claim for the purpose of invoking the arbitration clause; whether there is any direct confl ict between the decisions of this Court in S.K. Jain’s case and ICOMM Tele Limited ’s case; whether this Court while deciding a petition fi led u/s. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 43/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Application allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC976,2025-06-13T22:37:35.144765 VIKAS CHAUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF DELHI,21-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2022,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Sentence/Sentencing: Imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission – Correctness of – Victim aged 18 years, kidnapped for ransom and on the same day was killed by strangulation, and the body was burnt, to eliminate evidence – of murder, the accused regularly made ransom calls to the family – Trial court convicted all the accused persons u/ss. 302, 364A, 201, r/w s. 120B – Appellants-A-1 and A-2 also convicted u/s. 411 with A-1 additionally u/ss. 420, 468 and 471 and sentenced to life imprisonment Decision Date : 21-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2276/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC412,2025-06-13T22:42:20.201238 DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 930/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 : Applicability of the Act – On facts, suit field comprising 3 acres and 20 guntas – Vide registered sale deed, 2 acres 20 guntas of the suit field purchased by first defendant from second defendant – second defendant – Later on, the co-defendant sold the said suit field to the appellant vide registered sale deed in the year 1979 – Possession disturbed by second defendant-first respondent – Suit for possession by the appellant-plaintiff – Trial court held that Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 930/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC491,2025-06-13T22:36:37.752324 UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusD.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1663/2016,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in holding that the respondents would be entitled to the benefi t in terms of para 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission and in that regard whether the contention of the appellant that it ought to have been guided by para 3.1.14. Service Law – Parity in pay scales – Historical similarity – Respondent-Association of Employees in the Head Quarters of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) sought upgradation of the pay scales of Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1663/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC995,2025-06-13T22:37:20.093753 "M/S. K.B. TEA PRODUCT PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SILIGURI & ORS.",12-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2297/2011,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of legitimate expectation – West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 – ss.2(17), 17(3)(a)(xi), 39 – West Bengal Finance Act, 2001 – West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 – r.52 – Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 Whether despite s.2(17) of the 1994 Act which was amended w.e.f. 01.08.2001, omitting “tea blending” from the definition of “manufacture”, the appellants shall still be entitled to the exemption from payment of sales tax – Held: Per M.R. Shah, J. Nobody can claim the Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2297/2011 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matters to be placed before Hon’ble CJI. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC530,2025-06-13T22:34:53.968533 PRAKASH BANGversusGLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & ANR.,05-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6791/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether there is suffi cient evidence to establish that the complainant suff ered ‘myositis’ on administration of the vaccine Engerix-B; and whether even if ‘myositis’ being a minimal cause is accepted, the non-mentioning an ‘adverse reaction’ in the literature or ‘vial’, could be considered as ‘defi ciency of service’. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Negligence – Defi ciency in service – Complainant alleging that on account of adverse reaction of the Hepatitis Decision Date : 05-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6791/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC794,2025-06-13T22:45:51.564920 DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.versusAIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY & ORS.,14-12-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1721/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Effect of letter dtd.24.05.2011 produced by the applicants herein in computing Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB). As prayed, judgment in Delhi International Airport Limited Regulatory Authority of India whether to be modified or the matter to be remitted to TDSAT to examine the effect of the aforesaid letter for the limited issue qua computation of HRAB. Computation of Hypothetical Regulatory Asset Base (HRAB) – Effect of letter dtd.24.05.2011 – Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 1721/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1046,2025-06-13T22:48:43.618770 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5684/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity – Change in Law – A new regime for allocation of coal under SHAKTI Policy was brought into effect in 2017 whereunder, the projects approved under the old regime were entitled to continue to get supply of 75% of the Assured Coal 31st March 2017 – Contending that there was a shortfall from 75% ACQ, first respondent filed petition claiming relief for shortfall on account of Change in Law – Claim allowed by CERC – Appeal filed by appellants before APTEL, dismissed – Held: All the grounds raised before Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5684/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC402,2025-06-13T22:42:37.268883 THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.versusCHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC.,17-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1963/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 GUJARAT ETC. versus CHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC. - [2023] 8 S.C.R. 11392023 INSC 972 J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s.69 – Summons issued under – Invocation of s.438, CrPC by the person summoned – Impermissibility of – Held: If any person is summoned u/s.69, 2017 Act for the purpose of recording of his statement, the provision of s.438, – The only way a person summoned can seek protection against the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.226 – This is exactly what the respondents did in the present case – By filing criminal applications u/Art. 226 before the High Court, the Decision Date : 17-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1963/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC972,2025-06-13T22:38:06.876782 THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusGOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU ETC. ETC.,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5534/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH Motor Vehicles – Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1972 – s.3A(3) [introduced vide Amending Act of 1999] – Validity of – Special road tax provided under sub-section (3) of s.3A – If manifestly unjust / Regulatory or compensatory in nature – Repugnancy, if any, with Central enactment – Levy of lumpsum tax – Validity – Whether imposition of additional special road tax levied on transport vehicle used without a valid permit is not a tax but a penalty and is ultra vires the Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5534/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC27,2025-06-13T22:31:18.662398 THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusRADHESHYAM AGRAWAL,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4934/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Contract – Levy of Penalty – When not justified – Penalty imposed on respondents-Contractors while granting extension of time to complete the work awarded – Held: Penalty was levied by the State Government invoking Clause 3.5.5(v) of the Odisha Public Work Department Code where the contract is terminated – Here, it is not a case of termination of the contract – Therefore, Clause 3.5.5(v) shall not be applicable at all – Neither the contract nor the OPWD code provides for imposition of penalty while extending the contract – However, in a Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4934/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC289,2025-06-13T22:50:10.835368 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORSversusRAJESH AGARWAL & ORS,27-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7300/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI COURT REPORTS [2023] 7 S.C.R.[2023] 7 S.C.R. 476 476 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS v. RAJESH AGARWAL & ORS (Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2022) MARCH 27, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND HIMA KOHLI, J.] Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Reserve Audi Alteram Partem – The civil appeals arise out of a challenge to the Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification and Reporting by Commercial Banks and Select FIs) Directions 2016 – These directions were challenged before different High Courts primarily on the ground that no Decision Date : 27-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7300/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC303,2025-06-13T22:49:08.535766 "ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC",27-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020,Reference answered,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 167(2) proviso (a) (ii) – Default Bail – Claim for – 60/90 day period of remand under proviso (a) to s. 167(2) – Computation of – Day on which the Magistrate orders remand to be – Held: s. 167(2) pertains to the power of the Magistrate to remand an accused and there is no reason why the date of the Magesterial Court’s gaze on the accused, should be excluded – Ignoring the date of remand u/s. 167 in the 60/90 day period would militate against the Decision Date : 27-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC723,2025-06-13T22:48:53.604634 T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANRversusRANBIR CHAUDHARY,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2514/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Specific Relief – Denial of – Appellants (original defendants), entered into a “sale agreement” with the respondent (original plaintiff) for the sale of a plot of land – A total amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid as earnest money by the respondent – Respondent filed specific performance of the sale agreement and consequential relief of injunction – The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that as per the agreement to sell and on failure of the appellants to execute the sale deed, the respondent shall be entitled to double the amount given Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2514/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC462,2025-06-13T22:39:36.257277 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusSANTOSH KARNANI & ANR,17-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1148/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7, 13(1), 13(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 41A, 438 – Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Tax Department initiated search and seizure action against the complainant’s company Commissioner of Income Tax was handling the case of the complainant – Allegation against the respondent that he made a demand of illegal gratification to help the complainant with his case – The said conversation of demand between the complainant and the respondent was recorded in Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1148/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC380,2025-06-13T22:44:35.254424 ANKITA THAKUR & ORS.versusTHE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7602/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether relaxation in the essential eligibility qualifi cations could be made post the last date fi xed for receipt of applications; (ii) Essential eligibility qualifi cations specifi ed in the Himachal Pradesh, Department Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, if ambiguous to warrant clarifi cation/relaxation; (iii) If there was a statutory regime in place to accord recognition to an Institution, if yes, whether the Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7602/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC992,2025-06-13T22:37:07.341201 "M/S. SARAF EXPORTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-III",10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4822/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.80-IB and 28 – Deduction u/s 80- IB – Denial of – For AY 2008-09 the respondent-assessee (partnership firm) filed its return declaring its income as nil, claiming deduction of Rs. 70,197/- on account of Duty Entitlement Pass Book Rs. 76,27,636/- on account of receipts under the Duty Drawback – Respondent claimed the same as “Profit/ gains of business/ profession” under ss. 28(iiic) and (iiib) of the Act of 1961– Deputy commissioner disallowed the deductions – The said order was upheld by Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4822/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC331,2025-06-13T22:47:29.088815 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVARLA RAMAIAH ETC.,03-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Government orders: Misinterpretation of – High Court stayed all the further proceedings pursuant to the GO’s – Correctness of – On facts, by virtue of G.O., the State Government appointed a Cabinet Sub-Committee to examine the allegations of the erstwhile Government – Resolution to hand over investigation to CBI/CID/Lokayukta – By virtue of the second G.O., the State set up the SIT to undertake an investigation of these allegations – Subsequently based upon the letter of SIT, the State Government requested the Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC485,2025-06-13T22:37:35.472521 KUSUM LATA SHARMAversusARVIND SINGH,25-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3111/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – ss.14(1)(e) and 25-B – Eviction – Grant of – Appellant-landlord had filed eviction petitions seeking to evict her tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement – Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenants – On that appellant had not been forthright in the description of the property and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner and the availability of other property had not been clearly disclosed – On appeal, held: A comprehensive look at the pleadings along with the site plan attached, Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3111/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC429,2025-06-13T22:40:46.027610 OMPRAKASH SAHNIversusJAI SHANKAR CHAUDHARY & ANR. ETC.,02-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1331/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, J.B. PARDIWALA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – The three respondents were convicted for the murder of the appellant’s brother by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment – The order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was challenged in appeal by the prayed before the High Court that they be released on bail pending the final disposal of their appeals by suspending the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment – High Court suspended sentence and ordered their release on bail – On appeal, held: The endeavour on the Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1331/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC478,2025-06-13T22:37:42.630958 JOSEPHversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.,21-09-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 520/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the writ petition fi led by the petitioner seeking appropriate direction to the State Government, to prematurely release him, having been in custody-actual imprisonment for over 26 years, and served a sentence of over 35 years of remission earned, for off ence punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 IPC, should be allowed. Premature release – Convict served over 26 years in actual imprisonment and served 35 years of sentence including 8 years of remission earned for off ences punishable u/ss. 302 and 392 – Case Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 520/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC843,2025-06-13T22:43:44.822455 M/S TRINITY INFRAVENTURES LTD. & ORS. ETC.versusM. S. MURTHY & ORS. ETC.,15-06-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4049/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Suit – Partition suit – Decree – Preliminary decree – Mathruka property – Whether on facts, the Division Bench of the High Court was right in declaring that the preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 was vitiated by fraud and consequently null and void, especially when evidence let in – Held: The preliminary decree dated 28.06.1963 could not have determined the claim to title made by the legal heirs seeking partition, as against third parties – Any finding rendered in the preliminary decree, that the properties were Mathruka properties liable to be Decision Date : 15-06-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4049/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC581,2025-06-13T22:39:48.242751 K. CHINNAMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusL. R. EKNATH & ANR.,11-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3626/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 – ss.3 and 4 – Eviction under – The respondent No.1 filed T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court against the appellants seeking their eviction on account of not having paid the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424 2014) – On 04.02.2019 Revenue Court, ordered the appellants to pay lease rent of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it, to the respondents, within two months from the receipt of the Order, failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated against the appellants – Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3626/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC518,2025-06-13T22:35:59.874832 ROHIT BISHNOIversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR,24-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2078/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s 439 – Special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail – On facts, an honour killing matter, wherein victim in extra-marital-live in relationship with the sister-in-law Allegation that the respondents conspired to kill the victim and later shot him dead – FIR lodged by the brother of the victim against the respondents – Respondents charged u/s. 302 and 120B IPC and ss. 3 r/w ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Bail application – Grant of bail Decision Date : 24-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2078/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC642,2025-06-13T22:37:25.541089 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI – IversusM/S MORARJEE GOKULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD.,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3039/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Central Excise Act, 1944 – S. 11A and S. 35E – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rules 9 & 49 – Whether the separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of the amount, when an erroneous refund is granted reviewed under Section 35E of the Act – Held: In the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd., Supreme Court has specifically observed and held that Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes – Different time-limits are, Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3039/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC285,2025-06-13T22:49:40.633192 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCONST SUNIL KUMAR,19-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 219/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service law – Dismissal from service – Allegation that respondent consumed liquor while on duty and threatened senior officers – CRPF dismissed the respondent from service – Order confirmed by the Appellate Authority – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ the High Court reinstated the respondent – It held that dismissal was disproportionate as when the misconduct was committed the respondent was not on active duty – On appeal, held: The charges and misconduct proved against the respondent was of misbehaving with superior and giving Decision Date : 19-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 219/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC55,2025-06-13T22:30:22.065319 SRI GULAM MUSTAFAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.,10-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1452/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Administration of Justice –Abuse of Process of Law – Civil dispute relating to land given the colour of criminality – Held: There is a huge unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land Criminal case was lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits coupled with denial of interim relief to the respondent no.2/her family members – Thus, criminal proceedings were resorted to with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and vengeance – Further, even if the Decision Date : 10-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1452/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC511,2025-06-13T22:36:16.015080 "THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION BANK LTD. & ANR.versusR. CHANDRAMOHAN",27-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7289/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(g) – Respondent- complainant filed a complaint against the appellants-bank alleging that two demand drafts of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs, totalling Rs.8 lakhs, were not credited to his company’s account in Construction (P) Ltd.” with the bank – The complainant alleged that he had requested the bank to credit the drafts to the said account, but the bank failed to do so – The complainant sought direction from the State Commission to re-credit the drafts to his account – Decision Date : 27-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7289/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC300,2025-06-13T22:48:56.579245 P. YUVAPRAKASHversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,18-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1898/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.3,4,5,6,7, 34 – Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.10 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.366 – Acquittal under – appellant-accused and others kidnapped the victim ‘M’ (allegedly 17-year-old girl) – Complaint lodged u/s. 366A of IPC – Appellant solemnized marriage with her and engaged in sexual intercourse – M was traced by police – In her statement recorded, Decision Date : 18-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1898/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC676,2025-06-13T22:37:45.773911 STATE OF RAJASTHANversusASHARAM @ ASHUMAL,17-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1156/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.391 – High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent u/s.391 of Cr.P.C., directing summoning and recording of evidence of one DCP, who wrote a book “Gunning for the Godman:The True story behind Asaram Bapu’s conviction” had recorded a video of the scene of the crime (i.e. Kutiya) on his mobile phone on 21.08.2013, which is the day prior to the drawing of the site maps on 22.08.2013 – It was alleged that the victim was tutored based on the videography of the scene of the crime a day prior to the preparation Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1156/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC383,2025-06-13T22:44:16.311660 PESALA NOOKARAJUversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS,16-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2304/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order of preventive detention passed against the appellant detenu by the District Collector in exercise of his powers u/s. Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off enders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot- leggers, Dacoits, Drug Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi c Off enders and Land Decision Date : 16-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2304/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC734,2025-06-13T22:35:59.421363 S. MURALI SUNDARAMversusJOTHIBAI KANNAN & ORS,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1167/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII r 1, s.114 – Review of judgment under –Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court against the order of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation in respect of the pathway – High Court allowed the writ petition of the a survey report – High Court discarded the survey report – Thereafter, the respondent filed the review petition before the High Court – High Court allowed the review petition after considering the same survey report and set aside its judgment holding the same to be Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1167/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC161,2025-06-13T22:57:36.667351 NABHA POWER LIMITEDversusPUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,09-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2425/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The dispute, pertaining to recovery of deductions of monthly tariff by the respondent was dealt by the Supreme Court in Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 508 dated 05.10.2017, whether same issue has been raised again. Cost – Imposition of – After Nabha Power Limited (NPL) v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and Anr. judgment, the respondent fi led various applications before the Supreme Court – Two Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2425/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC883,2025-06-13T22:42:19.140213 INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8460/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 34, 37 – Appellant- IRCON and the respondent-NBCC entered into an agreement under which NBCC was awarded the work of construction of railway station cum commercial complex – NBCC failed to carry the time stipulated and the work was practically abandoned – IRCON served notice upon the NBCC for termination of the contract relying upon clause 60.1 of the agreement – NBCC invoked the arbitration clause – Arbitral Tribunal rejected the NBCC’s claim for refund of two Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8460/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC248,2025-06-13T22:51:34.157694 INITIATIVES FOR INCLUSION FOUNDATION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,19-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1224/2017,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Writ petitioner sought directions for implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition 2013. Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 – Directions issued (under the relevant heads) to ensure the eff ective implementation of the POSH Act, Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1224/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC927,2025-06-13T22:40:01.416322 ANANT THANUR KARMUSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS,24-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(8) –Further Investigation – Transfer of Investigation to CBI –Appellant shared a viral picture of then Cabinet Minister on facebook–As per him, appellant was forcibly took from his residence by up and threatened by the police – FIR lodged by appellant, however, name of the Cabinet Minister not named in FIR – Writ Petition was filed in the High Court seeking transfer of investigation to CBI or to any other agency–During the pendency of the writ petition, the trial Court Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 13/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC168,2025-06-13T22:57:22.111146 RAMISETTY VENKATANNA & ANR.versusNASYAM JAMAL SAHEB & ORS.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2717/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. VII r. XI (a) and (d) – Rejection of plaint – The respondents-plaintiffs had filed a suit in the year 2014 before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of various documents – on premise that there was an error in partition deed dated 11.03.1953 and subsequent transactions – The appellant- defendants, filed an application under O. VII r. XI to reject the plaint – Trial Court dismissed the said application – Appellant filed revision application Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2717/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC458,2025-06-13T22:38:31.642750 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusA. B. P. PVT. LTD. & ANR.,12-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 986/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Customs Act, 1962– s.25(1)– Exercise of power under – Grant/ withdrawal/amendment of exemption– Judicial review of – Respondent-assessee imported one set of High Speed Cold-Set Web Offset Rotary Printing Machine with minimum speed of 70,000 copies per hour – First Notification which provided for levy of custom duty on the said imported machinery at a concessional rate of 5% – However, the said notification was amended through a fresh notification which shifted the benefit of the concessional rate from the aforesaid imported machinery to High Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 986/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC525,2025-06-13T22:34:50.133454 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusUNION OF INDIA,11-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2357/2017,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Constitution of India: Seventh Schedule – List II, Entry 41 – Art.239AA(3(a)) – NCT Delhi – Control Over Services – Distribution of Power Between Union and State – IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 – The Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of r.2(c) – All India Services (Joint Cadre) Rules 1972 – Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification dated 21 May 2015 which provided that the Lieutenant Governor of NCT Delhi shall exercise control over “services”, in addition to “public order”, Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2357/2017 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC517,2025-06-13T22:35:24.754085 BALU SUDAM KHALDE & ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,29-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1910/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, J.B. PARDIWALA Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 r/w 34 – Prosecution case that verbal altercation between the parties resulting in a fight wherein first informant assaulted on the head and the deceased suffered severe assault and succumbed to his injuries – Appellants convicted u/s 302 r/w 34, imprisonment, however, acquittal of A-2 and A-4 – High Court upheld the order – Interference with – Held: Not called for – Oral evidence of all the three eyewitnesses is consistent and no good reason for the court to disbelieve the ocular version as narrated by the three Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1910/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC314,2025-06-13T22:47:59.763470 ABHISHEKversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,31-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1457/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question pertains to quashing of the FIR and the Criminal Case pending before the magistrate against the appellants, mother-in-law and two brother-in-laws u/s. 498A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Penal Code 1860 – s. 498A – Harassment for dowry – In the midst of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, complaint by wife-daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and brother-in-laws alleging that they subjected her to mental and physical harassment for dowry – Quashing of criminal proceedings: Decision Date : 31-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1457/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC779,2025-06-13T22:46:25.165419 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRversusMANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 360/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition – Subject land acquired in the year 1964, and in the year 1967 the physical possession of the land was taken by drawing panchnama as also compensation by the respondent no. 1 claiming that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the subject land deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) – Allowed by the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Respondent no. 1-original writ Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 360/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC64,2025-06-13T22:30:08.436567 SOLARIS CHEM TECH INDUSTRIES LTDversusASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD & ANR.,10-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6609/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SOLARIS CHEM TECH INDUSTRIES LTD versus ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD & ANR. - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 4632023 INSC 916 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in dismissing the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal on the strength of Clause 11 of the agreements between there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, justifying the referral to the Chief Engineer under Clause 11. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 7(1), 2(b) – Valid arbitration agreement – On facts, in terms of Clause 11 of the agreements, any dispute Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6609/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC916,2025-06-13T22:41:26.452986 GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORSversusJAI PAL,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1616/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, MANOJ MISRA Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – It was specific case on behalf of the appellants-Government of NCT Delhi that possession of the land was taken – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Misrimal Solanki & ors allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent/original writ petitioner – High Court held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act on the ground that the compensation has not been paid Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1616/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC218,2025-06-13T22:54:16.057140 STATE OF GUJARATversusDILIPSINH KISHORSINH RAO,09-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2504/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in allowing the application for discharge fi led by the accused; and as such whether the order of the sanctioning authority is liable to be set aside and consequently, the charge-sheet fi led by to be quashed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 397, 227, 401 – Application for discharge – Principles to be considered: Held: The court must proceed on an assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the said material to Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2504/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC894,2025-06-13T22:41:43.396996 ANIL AGARWAL FOUNDATION ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.,12-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1144/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4(1), 6, 44B – Land Acquisition Rules, 1963 – rr. 3 & 4 – Acquisition Proceedings – Allotment of land – To Private Company – For setting up of University – Undue Favour to Company – Non-compliance of Trust – Violation of – Appellant, a private company at that time, made a representation to the Govt to grant land to set up a University – Necessary steps were taken by the Govt for allotment of land – However, the Law Department opined that the land can be acquired only Decision Date : 12-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1144/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC361,2025-06-13T22:45:18.720602 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusNIRANJAN SINGH & ORS. ETC,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1347/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition: Land acquisition proceedings – Releasing of acquired land – Large chunk of area acquired for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area – Major portion of the land released between the stage award and after the award – Only small plots of land acquired – Writ petition by the land owners challenging the same – Landowners granted liberty to file a representation before the authorities – Representation seeking release of their acquired land on parity with the Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1347/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC167,2025-06-13T22:57:14.422103 NAGARAJ REDDYversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU,21-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Concurrent conviction of the appellant- accused No.1 for off ences punishable u/ss.302, 341 IPC primarily on the basis of evidence of PW-1, an interested witness, if justifi ed. Evidence – Interested witness – Previous enmity – Conviction based witness, without corroboration of such testimony – Legality: Held: PW-1 is an interested witness, being the brother of the deceased – He admitted that there existed previous enmity between the parties wherein the deceased and his wife-PW-3 were injured after a scuffl e between Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC269,2025-06-13T22:51:08.930637 MAH. ADIWASI THAKUR JAMAT SWARAKSHAN SAMITIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2502/2022,Reference answered,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, MANOJ MISRA Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) – ss. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 – Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 – rr. 10, 12 – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2502/2022 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC286,2025-06-13T22:49:56.854288 MANGILALversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,12-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1651/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – s.52A – Non-compliance of – Held: – In the present case, search warrant under Exhibit P-4 acknowledged the fact that procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act was not followed – Also, one of the witnesses to the while the other turned hostile – Both the witnesses to the arrest memo were not examined – The record also indicates that an order was passed by the trial Judge permitting the prosecution to keep the seized materials within the police station, to be produced at a later point of Decision Date : 12-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1651/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC634,2025-06-13T22:38:12.261386 "JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHNversusSTATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE",19-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 466/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Purported extra-judicial confession – Effect – Five accused including appellant (A-1) – Prosecution case that in pursuance of a conspiracy, the accused persons killed the deceased car – PW11 (Sub inspector) closed the case as undetected – However, case was subsequently re-opened and investigation initiated by police witness (PW30) on basis of confessional statement made in letter allegedly written by appellant to PW22 – Trial Court convicted appellant Decision Date : 19-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 466/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC54,2025-06-13T22:30:18.681191 PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIAversusSTATE OF BIHAR,14-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2230/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Criminal Law – Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Conviction based on, when not justified – Appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 and s.201, IPC based on extra-judicial confession – Held: Case of the prosecution was that the appellant had PW6 including the complainant himself whose son was killed did not support prosecution – PW7 to PW9, the only material prosecution witnesses were not consistent about the place at which the alleged confession was made – Even after the alleged extra-judicial confession of committing Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2230/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC227,2025-06-13T22:54:10.405217 PURUSHOTHAMANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU,30-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3341/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: When the sentence of accused is suspended on appeal and he is released on bail, whether the High Court can cancel the bail without giving a reasonable opportunity, to the accused of being heard. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension the appeal; release of appellant on bail - Appeal against conviction by the accused admitted by the High Court – Substantive sentence of the accused suspended and he was enlarged on bail – When appeal called for hearing, the High Court cancelled the bail of the accused, without giving Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3341/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC970,2025-06-13T22:38:16.436511 GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR.versusPATHURI SAMRAJYAM & ORS.,18-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4206/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 16 – 2018 amendment – Specific Performance – Father of appellants executed an agreement of sale with respondent no. 1-plaintiff, whereby he agreed to sell the suit schedule property measuring Ac. 0.90 cents to respondent no. 1 for a 11,88,000/- out of which respondent no. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as advance – Under the said agreement, father of appellants agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent no. 1 after demarcating the land and receiving the balance sale consideration within three months Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4206/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC385,2025-06-13T22:43:54.494176 SHANTABAI ANANDA JAGTAP & ANR.versusJAYRAM GANPATI JAGTAP & ANR.,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5786/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Employees Compensation Act, 1923: Compensation – Claim for – Death of victim during the course of employment in a road accident while driving jeep owned by the respondent no.1 – Claim for compensation by the legal heirs – Award of compensation by the tribunal, of the vehicle, however, the order not executed – Appellants then filed claim petition before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits – High Court upheld the findings on the delay in filing the claim petition, however, no order passed as Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5786/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC592,2025-06-13T22:39:05.374606 THANGJAM ARUNKUMARversusYUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH & ORS.,23-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4179/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR v. YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4179-4180 of 2023) AUGUST 23, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Election petition if liable to be dismissed by allowing the Or.7, r.11 application affi davit under the proviso to s.83(1) (c) is not mandatory – It is suffi cient if there is substantial compliance – As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to fi le the necessary affi davit – In the instant case, the election petition contained an affi davit Decision Date : 23-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4179/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC762,2025-06-13T22:35:26.650030 SYNDICATE BANKversusN. R. BHAT,10-10-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 7277/2020,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SYNDICATE BANK versus N. R. BHAT - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 4752023 INSC 1064 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter was settled between the parties (respondent-employee and petitioner-bank) by virtue of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 17.06.2019, however, the High Court permitted the respondent-employee to exercise the option of availing directed the petitioner-bank to pass appropriate orders. Service Law – Respondent-employee was dismissed by petitioner- bank – Before the High Court, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement in terms of a Joint Memo dated 17.06.2019 where under the petitioner-Bank agreed to Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 7277/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1064,2025-06-13T22:41:23.765880 GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHERversusBHANU PRATAP SINGH,19-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8549/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Constitution of India – Article 226 – Registered lease deed – Alteration/amendment u/Article 226 – Impermissibility of – Appellants invited bids in 1997 for grant of leases of different plots under the transport city scheme 27887.50 sq. meters @ Rs.725/- per sq. meter was accepted and the aforesaid plot area was leased out in his favour for Rs.2,06,67,966/- to be paid in four instalments after making the advance payment of Rs.15 lakhs as earnest money – Instalments were to be deposited by October 1999 Decision Date : 19-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8549/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC393,2025-06-13T22:43:26.383132 RAMESH KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI,04-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1741/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAMESH KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - [2023] 9 S.C.R. 11652023 INSC 596 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Anticipatory Bail – Payment of amount as a condition precedent for grant of bail – Legality of – An FIR was registered u/ss. 420, 406 r/w s. 34 – As per the FIR, an agreement to sell was executed by and between the of Rs. 17,00,000/- by issuing cheques favouring the appellant-owner allegedly on the instructions of the builder – Complainants were not handed over the floor which they intended to purchase – Apprehending arrest, the appellant moved an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1741/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC596,2025-06-13T22:38:54.873561 "CCE, AURANGABADversusM/S VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR",29-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5622/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – First Schedule – Chapter 90 – LCD panels – Classification of – CESTAT held that the LCD panels imported by assesses were classifiable in Chapter Heading 9013.8010 of the First Schedule to the 1975 Act – Held: Reasoning and conclusion under Chapter 90, Entry 9013.8010, is sound and unexceptionable. Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – First Schedule – Section XVI, XVII – Chapters 85 and 90 – General Interpretive Rules and Notes – Plea of revenue that by virtue of Note 2 (b) to Chapter 85, the goods are Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5622/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC313,2025-06-13T22:47:43.777584 "COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNAversusM/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS.",13-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3991/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the educational institutions-Indian Institute of Technology, Patna and the National Institute of Technology, Rourkela are covered by the defi nition of Service Tax Exemption Notifi cation inter alia exempting various services from the tax network rendered to government, governmental, or local authorities. Tax/Taxation – Service tax – Exemption from – Eligibility – Educational institutions-IIT Patna and NIT Rourkela if Decision Date : 13-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3991/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC910,2025-06-13T22:40:57.956714 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusBHUPENDRA YADAV,20-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5984/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellants have erred in rejecting the candidature of the respondent to the post of Constable, despite the latter having truthfully disclosed in his affi davit the fact that he had faced trial in a criminal case which had resulted Service Law – Rejection of candidature by the departmental authorities on basis of moral turpitude – Propriety: Held: An employer has the discretion to terminate or condone an omission in the disclosure made by a candidate – While doing so, the employer must act with Decision Date : 20-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5984/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC837,2025-06-13T22:44:16.000274 RAJALAKSHMIversusTHE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KOYILANDY & ANOTHER,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2363/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Just and fair compensation – Lands in question were acquired for setting up of an IT Park – Many landowners accepted the compensation at negotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent – Present – Reference Court enhanced the compensation – High Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent by giving 35% rise to the negotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent – Correctness of – Held: High Court rightly took into consideration the Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2363/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC333,2025-06-13T22:47:00.751548 DR. BALRAM SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 324/2020,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Implementation of the provisions of Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. Prohibition of Employment and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 – Directions by Supreme Court – Eradication of manual scavenging in a phased manner – Rehabilitation measures – Compensation for sewer Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 324/2020 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC950,2025-06-13T22:38:49.511820 RUPESH MANGER (THAPA)versusSTATE OF SIKKIM,13-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2069/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the trial Court and convicted appellant-accused u/s.302 IPC, whether the case of the appellant-accused falls within the exception u/s. 84 of IPC or not. Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant-accused deceased with sharp-edged weapon causing his death – Appellant pleaded insanity: Held: During preliminary examination, CW-1-doctor categorically deposed that going by the case history of the accused prepared by the Hospital, appellant had earlier been treated for acute and transient Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2069/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC826,2025-06-13T22:44:40.929264 STATE OF PUNJABversusKEWAL KRISHAN,21-06-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE OF PUNJAB versus KEWAL KRISHAN - [2023] 10 S.C.R. 12023 INSC 583 B.V. NAGARATHNA, MANOJ MISRA Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Acquittal confirmed – Prosecution case that the deceased was last seen alive in his own house in the company of the accused at about 7.00 p.m. on 10.12.1998 – PW-6, nephew of the deceased discovered body of deceased on 12.12.1998 – FIR was – PW-2, the sole witness of the last seen circumstance, in his deposition in court, stated that he had expressed his suspicion in respect of accused’s involvement to the police on 13.12.1998 – It was also alleged that accused made an extra-judicial confession before PW-3 Decision Date : 21-06-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC583,2025-06-13T22:39:26.483972 IN RE: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS UNDER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 AND THE INDIAN STAMP ACT 1899versus.,13-12-2023,CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 44/2023,Directions issued,7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue at hand arose in the context of three statutes; the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Stamp Act imposes duty on “instruments”. Arbitration agreements are often embedded in underlying instruments or substantive Decision Date : 13-12-2023 | Case No : CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 44/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Matters to be placed before appropriate Bench | Bench : 7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1066,2025-06-13T22:49:05.962433 DELMA LUBNA COELHOversusEDMOND CLINT FERNANDES,18-04-2023,TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1475/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"RAJESH BINDAL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Transfer Petition – Divorce petition was filed by husband before Family Judge, Mangaluru, Karnataka – Present petition filed by wife, a permanent resident of Canada, presently based at Mumbai, Maharashtra seeking transfer of divorce petition from Mangaluru, Karnataka to Family Court at is a permanent resident of Canada – She had shifted there in the year 2014 and was working there on a well-paid job, however, came to India for the matrimonial alliance – As the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada, she must be travelling abroad regularly – She Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1475/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC389,2025-06-13T22:43:33.214408 SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYATversusKISHOR SHARAD BORAWAKE AND OTHERS,22-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6087/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The High Court by order dated 04.07.2019 partly allowed the petition fi led by the respondents/landowners challenging the notifi cation dated 18.08.2004, whereby respondents’/landowners’ land was converted to development/green zone’, subject to appellant’s receiving 10% as ‘amenity space’ and 10% as ‘open space’ of the total land area. Land Use Conversion – Land owners and plot holders contended that the ownership of the ‘open space’ and the Decision Date : 22-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6087/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC851,2025-06-13T22:43:23.183074 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSUBHASH GUPTA & ORS.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 737/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Possession of the land in question could not be taken because of the operation of the stay order in a writ Court till 11.02.2015 – Therefore, there was a stay operating against the taking over of the possession even on the day on which the Act, 2013 came into force – High Court however, relying upon its’ earlier decision in the case of Jagjit Singh and the decision of Supreme Court Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 737/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC108,2025-06-13T23:00:17.235222 VINOD KUMAR SACHDEVA (DEAD) THR LRSversusASHOK KUMAR SACHDEVA & ORS,25-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4656/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – s.8 – Reference to arbitration – When erred – MoU was arrived at between brothers- the appellant and the first respondent wherein were to be liquidated to repay the liabilities of the business – MoU contained an arbitration agreement – Suits instituted by the appellant, first respondent filed applications u/s.8 seeking reference to arbitration – Applications dismissed by Trial Court – Order set Decision Date : 25-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4656/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC650,2025-06-13T22:37:18.915877 BATLIBOI ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS LIMITEDversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER,21-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1968/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justifi ed in allowing the appeal fi led by the respondents u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and thereby setting aside the and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 37 – Arbitral award – Interference with – Award of turnkey contract to the appellant by the respondents for a contract value to be completed within stipulated period – Delay in project completion which was extended, and thereafter Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1968/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC850,2025-06-13T22:43:38.740684 HARBHAJAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA,25-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1480/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss. 25, 35 – Applicability of s. 25 – When – Presumption of culpable mental state u/s. 35 – When, available –On facts, truck found lying turtle and bags of powder scattered which on investigation found to be and the cleaner coming out of the truck and disclosed the name of the owner- appellant, and fled away – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 25 and imposition of imprisonment for 10 years by the courts below – On appeal, held: s. 25 provides that if an owner of a vehicle knowingly Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1480/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC424,2025-06-13T22:41:50.902982 R. HEMALATHAversusKASHTHURI,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2535/2023,Dismissed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,,2023INSC336,2025-06-13T22:46:27.225876 M/S. SANVIRA INDUSTRIESversusRAIN CII CARBON (VIZAG) LTD. & ORS.,03-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3834/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Environment – Issue as to allocation of quantities of raw pet- coke (RPC) – Increased allocation to the appellant – Challenged by respondent, writ petition dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Division Bench set aside the minutes of the meeting as well as the decision pet-coke – Appellant inter alia contended that there was a change of criteria adopted in the Public Notice dtd.17.04.2020 issued by the GOI and contrary to the earlier requirement of certification of production capacity by the Unit, the said Public Notice required certification by the Decision Date : 03-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3834/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC586,2025-06-13T22:39:19.522753 SARNAM SINGHversusSHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3900/2023,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Motor Accident – Permanent disability of an injured affecting his functional disability – Compensation – Assessment of – Held:Any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of the work person who suffered disability – On facts, the gunman employed with the company met with an accident resulting in 85% disability on account of amputation of his right lower limb, and pursuant thereto, his services were terminated on account of his inability to discharge his duties – Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3900/2023 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC597,2025-06-13T22:38:50.331203 PRAMOD SINGLAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,10-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1051/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. PRAMOD SINGLA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS - [2023] 2 S.C.R. 7932023 INSC 344 KRISHNA MURARI, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – Preventive Detention – Representation by detenue to the Central Government, the detaining authority and the Advisory Board – Central Govt. if bound to wait for the decision of the Advisory Board Whether there exists an incongruity between the Pankaj Kumar case and the Abdullah Kunhi case – Held: No – Since these two judgments exist symbiotically and apply to two separate authorities within the COFEPOSA Act, there exists no friction between the judgments – The mandate to Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1051/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC344,2025-06-13T22:47:31.472405 "THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ANRversusSRI M. NARASIMHA PRASAD",10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2519/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Service Law – Respondent was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Respondent was suspended from service on allegations of gross misconduct, followed by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings – As per the enquiry reports, some charges stood proved and were not proved – Full Court of the High Court resolved to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the respondent – Based on the resolution, respondent was dismissed from service – Respondent challenged the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of dismissal Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2519/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC342,2025-06-13T22:46:17.169167 SHELLY OBEROI & ANR.versusOFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.,17-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 152/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA COURT REPORTS [2023] 5 S.C.R.[2023] 5 S.C.R. 582 582 SHELLY OBEROI & ANR. v. OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No 152 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND J. B. PARDIWALA] Delhi Municipal of the municipal corporation to vote – Held: At the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the election shall be held first for the post of Mayor and upon the election of the Mayor, the Mayor shall act as the presiding authority for conducting the election of the Deputy Mayor Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC132,2025-06-13T22:59:04.926568 UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusADANI POWER (MUNDRA) LIMITED AND ANOTHER,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2908/2022,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity Laws : Change in Law –Inter Plant Transfer-IPT of coal, if qualifies as a Change in Law event – Respondent No.1- company entered into Power Project Agreements with the appellants- Haryana Utilities for supply of power – Respondent compensation on account of change in New Coal Distribution Policy, 2007 – Electricity Regulatory Commission- CERC allowed compensation towards certain ‘Change in Law’ events – However, the appellate tribunal held that the communication dated 19th June 2013 issued by Coal Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2908/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC403,2025-06-13T22:42:40.666500 "C.I.T., DELHIversusBHARTI HEXACOM LTD.",16-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11128/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the variable annual licence fee paid by the respondents- assessees to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) under the New Telecom Policy of 1999 is revenue expenditure in nature and is to be allowed deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax same is capital in nature and is accordingly required to be amortised under Section 35ABB of the Act; and Whether the High Court of Delhi was right in apportioning the licence fee as partly revenue and partly capital by dividing the licence fee into two periods, that is, before and after 31st Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11128/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC917,2025-06-13T22:40:31.473148 RAVI DHINGRAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,01-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 987/2009,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364A, 363 and 364 – Modification of conviction u/s.364A to s.363 – Appellants convicted u/ss.148, 364A r/w s.149, IPC – Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years u/s.148, rigorous imprisonment for life and fine u/s.364A r/w s.149 – has three components- kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and when the demand is not met, then causing death – In the present case, there are two Decision Date : 01-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 987/2009 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC182,2025-06-13T22:56:01.992296 AMOD KUMAR KANTHversusASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ANR.,20-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1359/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AMOD KUMAR KANTH versus ASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ANR. - [2023] 6 S.C.R. 6692023 INSC 397 K.M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, ARAVIND KUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 –Ambit of – Uphaar Tragedy case – Closure report filed by the CBI against the appellant was rejected by the Magistrate,who instead took cognizance on the protest petition filed by the first against the appellant – Cognizance was taken for offences u/ss.304A, 337, 338, IPC and u/s.14, Cinematograph Act r/w the Rules – Appellant filed petition u/s.482, CrPC challenging the order issuing summons – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When considering the question of Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1359/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC397,2025-06-13T22:42:59.901855 STATE OF PUNJABversusDIL BAHADUR,28-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 844/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Sentence/Sentencing – Principle of – High Court though confirmed the conviction of the respondent-accused for offences u/ ss.279 and 304A, IPC, however, reduced the sentence from two years to eight months – Justification of – Held: While reducing the sentence, the High of the offence and the manner in which the accused committed the offence – Because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused one innocent person died and two persons sustained injuries – High Court did not consider the fact that IPC is punitive and deterrent in Decision Date : 28-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 844/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC307,2025-06-13T22:48:46.447531 RUCHIR RASTOGIversusPANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC.,19-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3283/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in quashing the FIR lodged by the appellant against respondents u/ss.457, 380 and 506, IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.457, 380, 506 – FIR fi led stating that the appellant and respondent No.1 as Kartas of in equal share and there was an interim order of preserving the assets and belongings of the shop in question – However, Respondent No.1, along with other co-accused, removed the assets and belongings of the shop in violation thereof – When the appellant inquired from respondent Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3283/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC941,2025-06-13T22:39:43.604073 DR. NIRMAL SINGH PANESARversusMRS. PARAMJIT KAUR PANESAR @ AJINDER KAUR PANESAR,10-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2045/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Should the irretrievable breakdown of marriage necessarily result in the dissolution of marriage in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, when such is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and s.13(1)(ib) – District Court granted the decree of divorce, as prayed for by the appellant- husband, however, the Single Bench of the High Court reversed the same and the Division Bench of the High Court confi rmed the judgment – Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2045/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC896,2025-06-13T22:41:35.808389 SUDESH KUMAR GOYALversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,21-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10861/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PANKAJ MITHAL 414 : 2023 INSC 842 414 CASE DETAILS SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 [HRISHIKESH ROY AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellant who qualifi ed in the selection process for appointment to Appointment to the higher judicial service of the State under the direct recruitment quota - Appellant qualifi ed the selection process but was not appointed – Appointment sought against the vacancy which arose on resignation of one of the selected candidate – Appellant could not Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10861/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC842,2025-06-13T22:44:03.880573 JASWANT SINGH & ORSversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.,13-01-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 323/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: s. 432(2) – Grant of Remission – Requirement of s. 432(2) – Held: Presiding Judge must give adequate reasons while giving an opinion u/s. 432(2) – On facts, three convicts, out of a total of eight, submitted their respective applications for same was refused– Held:The said orders should have contained adequate reasons after taking into consideration the relevant factors that govern the grant of remission as laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case applications for remission – Issuance of direction to the Special Judge to Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 323/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC31,2025-06-13T22:32:04.854604 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,17-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 386/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – r. 54(14)(b) – Pension Rules – Adoption after the death of Government servant – Right of adopted son to claim pension – The ‘S’, a retired Superintendent, died issueless in 1994 – His wife adopted the to the family of the deceased government employee – The claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that children adopted by widow of a government servant, after the death of the government servant, would not be entitled to receive family pension – CAT directed the respondents Decision Date : 17-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 386/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC49,2025-06-13T22:30:32.853788 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHIversusSERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY,31-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 614/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Income Tax Act, 1961: ss. 2(15) and 11(1) – Charitable trust – Benefit of exemption – Entitlement to – On facts, assessee-registered society founded in 1921 for nation building, general awareness and welfare of the people – Assessee society also managing and a newspaper – Claim of benefit of exemption – Denial by the assessing officer invoking the proviso to s. 2(15) on the ground that the assessee is involved in trade, commerce or business – However, the Appellate Commissioner allowed the plea of the assessee – Said order Decision Date : 31-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 614/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC88,2025-06-13T22:28:58.626476 KISHAN CHAND JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,09-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 360/2021,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KISHAN CHAND JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 4772023 INSC 915 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The petitioner urges that the State Information Commissions should allow the option of virtual hearings along with physical hearings. Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Access to justice: Held: Access to justice is a right of constitutional purport have effective means to approach legal institutions to seek appropriate legal remedies – The ability to access legal institutions empowers individuals to understand and exercise their legal and constitutional rights – Access to justice enhances the quality of human life and, Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 360/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC915,2025-06-13T22:42:23.591057 NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION & ORSversusDIPTI DEODHARE,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 413/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, HIMA KOHLI Service Law – Respondent who was serving as Scientist ‘G’ in Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) was selected and appointed as Scientist ‘H’ in National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) on probation of one year – She was however, to her parent cadre-DRDO vide order dtd.12.02.19 – Respondent requested NTRO to reinstate her and to treat her application as three months’ notice for VRS – She filed OA before the CAT challenging inter alia NTRO’s order dtd.12.02.19, dismissed – Writ petition Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 413/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC134,2025-06-13T22:58:49.000174 UGGARSAINversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,03-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1378/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Sentence/Sentencing – Appropriateness of sentences – Eight accused persons were charged with and tried for offences punishable u/ss. 148, 149, 302, 304 Part-II and 323 of IPC for having causing death of deceased and causing injury Trial Court convicted all the accused persons and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life u/s. 302 r/w s.149 and one year rigorous imprisonment u/s. 148 and six months rigorous imprisonment u/s.323 r/w. s.149 – The High Court partially allowing the appeal by the accused persons Decision Date : 03-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1378/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC587,2025-06-13T22:39:18.153261 NATIONAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITEDversusROYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD.,10-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1991/2019,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, VIKRAM NATH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the arbitration agreement, arbitral award or the judgment of Supreme Court dated 24.02.2015 passed in earlier round of litigation between the parties, provided for payment of the awarded amount Arbitration – Amount awarded in Iraqi Dinars if was to be converted in Indian currency: Held: Neither the arbitration agreement, arbitral award or the judgment of Supreme Court dated 24.02.2015 permit payment of the awarded amount in Indian currency except the amount of Rs. 20 lacs with Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1991/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC899,2025-06-13T22:41:40.522894 RAJ KUMAR @ SUMANversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI),11-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1471/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Power to examine the accused – Law summarized. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313 – Non-compliance of – Omission made while questioning the accused u/s.313, effect of – Appellant was convicted IPC and sentenced accordingly –Held: The only alleged incriminating circumstance against the appellant is in the evidence of PW5, who stated that the appellant was standing with a katta in his hand outside the premises where the offence took place–However, this was not put to him Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1471/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC520,2025-06-13T22:35:43.732987 "THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR.versusM/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS.",26-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3134/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Stamp Act, 1899 – s.27– Andhra Pradesh Act (8 of 1988) – Proviso to s.27 added – Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1971 – s.47A – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.8 – ‘immovable property’– and machinery to stamp duty under the Act – Second respondent auction purchased the property, at a bid of Rs.8.35 crores, consisting of land, building, civil works, plant & machinery and other assets – On the basis of direction given in C.A. No. 1203 of 2004 at the instance of Decision Date : 26-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3134/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC431,2025-06-13T22:40:19.397249 BHISHAM LAL VERMAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER,30-10-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 7976/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Is a second petition maintainable u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds that were available for challenge even at the time of fi ling of the fi rst petition thereunder. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – A complaint case 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC r/w. ss. 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Petitioner was amongst the accused named therein – The State Government accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner – Upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 7976/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC955,2025-06-13T22:38:33.822926 EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusHIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS,18-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1434/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, BELA M. TRIVEDI, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Impugned order passed by NCDRC directing the appellant-builder/developer to refund to the respondents-allottees/ subsequent buyers, the amount collected towards excess sale area, overruling the on the grounds of the principle of res judicata and on the rule of binding precedent by applying its decision in Pawan Gupta case (a case related to the same housing project as the present matter) wherein the claim made by the appellant for the increase of the sale area was rejected and Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1434/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Appeal disposed of with direction of remand | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC748,2025-06-13T22:35:46.900754 M/S LARSEN AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGRATION COMPANYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,11-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3798/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the High Court erred in modifying the arbitral award to the extent of reducing the interest, from compound interest of 18% to 9% simple interest per annum. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 of interest by the High Court – Propriety of: Held : In the instant case, given that the arbitration commenced in 1997, i.e., after the Act of 1996 came into force on 22.08.1996, the arbitrator, and the award passed by them, would be subject to this statute – Under the enactment, i.e. Decision Date : 11-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3798/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC708,2025-06-13T22:36:20.220148 UCO BANK AND OTHERSversusM.B. MOTWANI (DEAD) THR. LRS. & OTHERS,12-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8516/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the order passed by the appellant-Bank imposing punishment of dismissal upon the respondent no.1-Bank manager. Service Law – United Commercial Bank Offi cer’s Service Regulations, 20(3)(iii) – Termination of service – Disciplinary proceedings, not pending against delinquent employee, on the date of his superannuation – Eff ect – On facts, the Bank manager-employee attained the age of superannuation on 02.07.1991 and was due to retire on Decision Date : 12-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8516/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC908,2025-06-13T22:41:13.270355 M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS.versusNAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC.,17-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2861/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Writ Jurisdiction of High Court under – Matter pertaining to default in payment of outstanding dues by the borrowers u/s. 13(4) – Writ petitions by the borrowers challenging the notices before the High Court – Debt Recovery tribunal was not functional at the time when said writ petitions were filed– However, became so from the month of March 2022 – Meanwhile, in an SLP, order passed by Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC379,2025-06-13T22:44:29.468092 HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,07-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1182/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the delay of about more than one year in registering the FIR could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution; whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had died due to administration of poison and the poison in the liquor and made the deceased to drink it on the previous date of his death. Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Allegation of murder by poisoning – Delay in registering FIR – When not fatal: Held: FIR being only a corroborative piece of evidence and not a Decision Date : 07-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1182/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC986,2025-06-13T22:37:33.475102 EX SEPOY MADAN PRASADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,28-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 246/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL Army Act, 1950 – s.39 (b) – Dismissal from service – Overstaying the leave – Appellant was enrolled in the Army service Corps as a Mechanical Transport Driver – Initially leave for 39 days granted to appellant – Further extension of leave was also granted on However, further request for extension of leave was rejected – Appellant failed to join – Court of Inquiry conducted – Appellant was declared deserter – Appellant finally surrendered after 108 days – Charges were framed – Appellant was held guilty and awarded Decision Date : 28-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 246/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC656,2025-06-13T22:37:05.396755 "M/S. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITEDversusM/S. GAYATRI SHAKTI PAPER AND BOARD LIMITED AND ANOTHER, ETC.",09-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8527/2009,Reference answered,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Eligibility criteria for a Captive Generating Plant (CGP)/captive user u/r.3(1)(a) of the Electricity Rules, 2005; Interpretation of the second proviso u/r.3(1)(a) of the Rules and the Whether a company set up as a Special Purpose Vehicle for generating electricity is an, “association of persons”, in terms of the second proviso to r.3(1)(a) of the Rules. Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.2(8), 9 – Electricity Rules, 2005 – r.3 – Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8527/2009 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Direction Issue : Issues answered | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC886,2025-06-13T22:42:25.649207 ILAVARASANversusTHE SUPERITENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.,28-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 002752/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue arose as regards the conduct of advocates as to whether they are capable of certifying self respect marriages u/s. 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and whether the Suyammariyathai marriage-self-respect marriage can Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 7A (as amended and applicable in Tamil Nadu) – Special provision regarding suyamariyathai and seerthiruththa marriages-self respect marriages – Advocates, if cabable of certifying marriages u/s. 7A – Appellant married a girl in accordance Decision Date : 28-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 002752/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC813,2025-06-13T22:46:33.359037 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14versusJASJIT SINGH,26-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6566/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 INCOME TAX 14 versus JASJIT SINGH - [2023] 13 S.C.R. 7062023 INSC 882 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In search and seizure, the Assessing Offi cer was of the opinion that some documents and material “belonging to” the respondents(s) assessee, were involved – Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional A.Os. to the said assessees period for which they were required to fi le returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their A.Os. Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.153C – The Revenue urged that the date (relatable to the period for which six years returns were to be fi led by the assessee) was Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6566/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC882,2025-06-13T22:42:52.793739 SURENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.,11-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1059/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Penal Code, 1860 – s.149 – Applicability of – High Court set aside the respondent-accused’s conviction for the offence punishable u/s.302/149, IPC on the ground that the initial charge- sheet was filed only against two accused persons (one of and the remaining three persons were subsequently arrayed as the accused and are being tried separately thus, s.149, IPC shall not be attracted – Held: When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and are facing the trial though separately, s.149 IPC would be attracted – Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1059/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC354,2025-06-13T22:45:54.497927 MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S ATKINS SPECIAL RISKS LTD. & ORS.,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4678/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Insurance Act, 1938: s.41(1) – Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2013 – Clause 37(1) – Complaint by the first respondent-insurance broker alleging adoption of il legal means business of international reinsurance cover of J firm, it paid bribe to Chairman of the J firm to obtain brokerage contract, thus the appellant violated s.41(1) of the Act of 1938 and Clause 37(1) of the 2013 Regulations – Basis of the complaint was certain emails by which the Chirman Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4678/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC293,2025-06-13T22:49:29.649095 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusASHA PRAKASH,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 364/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –Writ petition was preferred by original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs Harakchand writ petitioners and held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of 2013 Act as compensation was not paid to the original landowners – On appeal, held : The subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 364/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC69,2025-06-13T22:29:33.763164 SABIR ALI KHANversusSYED MOHD. AHMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS,13-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7086/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Waqf Act, 1995: Wakf properties, of parties who are Shia Muslims – Beneficiaries and their rights – Beneficiaries perfecting title by adverse possession – Permissibility of – Held: A beneficiary of a waqf, being neither a trustee nor a co-owner of waqf adverse possession even if it is the property of the waqf – There cannot be any embargo against a beneficiary of a waqf claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession – Beneficiary of a waqf cannot be described as a stranger to the waqf – No doubt, a beneficiary is Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7086/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC368,2025-06-13T22:45:06.617180 RAHIMAL BATHU & OTHERSversusASHIYAL BEEVI,26-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6232/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a revision u/s.115, CPC is maintainable against an order of the subordinate Court rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree passed in a civil suit. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.115 – Exercise of of revisional powers cannot be claimed as of right – It is a discretionary power – Revisional Court is not bound to interfere merely because any of the three conditions, as laid down in s.115 for exercise of such power, is satisfi ed – The Court, exercising revisional powers, Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6232/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC861,2025-06-13T22:43:02.788106 SUSHIL PANDEY & ANRversusSTATE OF U.P.THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) & ORS,16-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1838/2018,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, ANIRUDDHA BOSE Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Service Rules, 1979 – rr. 17, 22 – 50% vacancies for the post of Assistant Radio Officers to be filled through direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the feeder cadre (Radio Inspectors)– Appointments from both the dates– Combined selection list, quashed by High Court for being in violation of r.17 and r.22 – Fresh selection list was prepared, challenged by appellants-candidates from the feeder cadre – List sustained by High Court – Held: Manner in which appointment orders were Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1838/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC40,2025-06-13T22:31:15.449057 VIKAS RATHIversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.,01-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 644/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Murder of a person working in the appellant’s firm – Complaint by the brother of the deceased – FIR registered against unknown persons – However, after two months, complaint by the – Appellant listed as a prosecution witness – Application u/s. 319 by the complainant to summon the appellant as accused – Dismissed by the trial court – High Court quashed the order passed by trial court and remanded the matter – On appeal, held: On Decision Date : 01-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 644/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC186,2025-06-13T22:56:17.247475 AMAN SEMI-CONDUCTORS (PVT.) LTDversusHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR.,27-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 572/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Consumer Protection – Industrial plot was alloted in favour of the appellant by respondent-Corporation – However, the allotment was cancelled and the respondent resumed the plot stating that serious in implementing the proposed project and that the plot was lying vacant – Justification of – Held: The idea behind development of industrial plots and allotting them to deserving applicants is to act as a catalyst to promote economic growth – In the present case, the Decision Date : 27-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 572/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC172,2025-06-13T22:56:47.661303 C. HARIDASANversusANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS,13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4072/2022,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Specific Relief Act, 1963 : ss. 10, 16(c), 20 – Discretion as to decreeing specific performance – On facts execution of the agreement to sell land between the parties and receipt of consideration by the appellant-buyer – Balance amount to be paid within six made available the document of title and purchase certificate after measuring the property – Thereafter notice served by the appellant to the respondent to execute the sale deed – Refusal of the respondent to execute the sale deed and cancelled the agreement – Suit Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4072/2022 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC37,2025-06-13T22:31:23.193916 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSversusJASWANT SINGH,05-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11871/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issue arose as regards the justifi cation of the discharge order of the probationer constable by the Superitendent of Police due to prolonged absence from training without any intimation. Service Law – Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – r. 12.21 – Superitendent of Police owing to his prolonged absence from duty without any intimation – Legality of: Held: It is clear from r. 12.21 that in case a probationary constable is found unlikely to prove an effi cient police offi cer, he may be discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Decision Date : 05-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11871/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC798,2025-06-13T22:45:37.038059 UDAY PRATAP THAKUR AND ANR.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3155/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law : Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 : r. 5(v) – Pensionary benefits – Computation of, of work charged employees, whose services were subsequently regularized – Counting of the period of work charged services rendered as work charged under the work charged establishment, if to be counted and/or considered for the determination of the amount of pension – Held: Work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post – They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3155/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC461,2025-06-13T22:38:50.296175 HEM RAJversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,25-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4642/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Consumer Protection – Appellant-insured is the owner of the vehicle covered by an insurance policy issued by respondent-insurer – Vehicle met with an accident – Medical expenses were borne by the appellant in the treatment of the injuries sustained by the injured Held: Evidence in the form of Exhibits C-19 to C-28 issued by the Hospital were on record, as per which the appellant had incurred expenditure in the medical treatment of the injured – The insurance company did not dispute these documents, instead, the contention of the insurer before Decision Date : 25-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4642/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC644,2025-06-13T22:37:17.803272 AJAY DABRAversusPYARE RAM & ORS.,31-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 716/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 – Delay in filing appeal – Condonation of – Held: An appeal has to be filed within the stipulated period, prescribed under the law – Belated appeals can only be condoned when sufficient reason is shown before the court for delay – In the of the court – The only reason assigned by the appellant for the delay of 254 days in filing the first appeal was that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee – This was not found to be a sufficient reason for the condonation of delay as the appellant was an Decision Date : 31-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 716/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC90,2025-06-13T22:28:47.441461 STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusMITUL KUMAR JANA,22-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8510/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition fi led by the respondent, setting aside the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal and directing the appointment of the respondent as constable in the West Bengal police force. Suppression of material information – When not: Held: Information sought in the verifi cation roll was regarding arrest, detention and conviction by a Court in any off ence – In reply to the information asked the respondent gave the answer as “no” – As per the Decision Date : 22-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8510/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC754,2025-06-13T22:35:35.629762 LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY & ANRversusATTRO DEVI & ORS.,11-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2749/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Notification u/s 4 was issued on 23.06.1989 – Another notification u/s 6 was issued on 20.06.1990 – – Respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that neither possession was taken over nor compensation was paid thus the acquisition had lapsed u/s 24(2) – The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2749/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC357,2025-06-13T22:46:02.002567 STATE OF HARYANAversusDHARAMRAJ,29-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2635/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre arrest bail – FIR u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, charges u/ss. 186, 353 and 364 against the respondent – Grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent by the High Court – Cancellation of: Held: Much like bail, grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion – Each case turns on its own facts and Decision Date : 29-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2635/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC784,2025-06-13T22:46:30.958650 COAL INDIA LIMITED AND ANRversusCOMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR,15-06-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2845/2017,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Competition Law: Competition Act, 2002 – ss. 2(h), 19(4)(g) and 28 – “Enterprise” – Applicability of the Act – Competition Appellate Tribunal affirmed the findings recorded by the Competition Commission of India on various facets of position against the Coal India Limited and its subsidiary company – Whether the Competition Act, 2002 applies to the appellants or not – Held: The appellants are Government Companies – They were created to take the place of the Central Government in the matter of supervising Decision Date : 15-06-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2845/2017 | Direction Issue : Appeal posted for being dealt on merits. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC580,2025-06-13T22:39:35.130752 ASHOK RAM PARHAD & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,15-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 822/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA Divisional Forest Officer (in Maharashtra Forest Service, Class I) (Recruitment) Rules, 1984 – Proviso to r.2 – Maharashtra Forest Service, Group A (Junior Scale) (Recruitment) Rules, 1998 – rr.3(b), 6 – Appellants who were recruited in 2014 and to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) through nomination (direct appointment) in 2016 whereas respondent nos.4 to 9 were directly promoted to the post of ACF in 2014 and were not required to undergo the aforesaid training – Appellants filed application before Tribunal Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 822/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC233,2025-06-13T22:53:19.643333 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNARVADA DEVI & ORS.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 735/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Respondent no.1 filed writ petition, claiming relief for declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject lands were deemed to 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject lands had been taken nor compensation had been tendered to respondent no.1– High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed – Held: The view taken by Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 735/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC110,2025-06-13T23:00:24.144116 YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS.versusJANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE,21-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2855/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SANJAY KUMAR Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 – ss.13(1)(e) and 15 – Eviction under – Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2, the predecessors-in-title of the appellants filed suit for recovery of possession of the leased premises from the tenant – It was their case that of the hotel/premises and possession of the same was given to a third person – Lease deed recorded that business of hotel was the independent business of the tenant and he would not assign the business or transfer the same to any third person – Trial Court decreed suit on the Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2855/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC266,2025-06-13T22:51:10.264747 NEERAJ DUTTAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI),17-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1669/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Proof of demand of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that a trap was laid and the appellant-Electricity Inspector came with the co-accused and demanded the documents and bribe of which was paid by the complainant circumstantial evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant, convicted her for the offence punishable u/ ss. 7 and 13(i)(d)(i) and (ii) rw 13(2) – High Court upheld the same – On appeal, held : Apart from the evidence of PW-5-shadow witness, there is no other evidence Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1669/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC245,2025-06-13T22:52:36.362277 MUKESHBHAI VALLABHBHAI ABHANGIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,04-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1391/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Bail : Grant of – Appellant, along with accused no.1 who was operating an organised crime syndicate involving, inter alia, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, money-laundering, pressurized Secret Witness 11 to enter into a deal – SW11 was threatened to execute around with either creditors of the leader of the organized crime syndicate-accused no. 1 or creditors of the appellant – Allegedly the appellant had extorted 50,000 square feet of land from the said persons – FIR against the appellant for offences punishable under the 2015 Act and Penal Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1391/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC496,2025-06-13T22:36:56.892660 PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.versusRAMAN ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.,17-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7976/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.238, 53 – Overriding effect of s.238 – Distribution of assets u/s.53 – Dues payable to secured creditors vis-à-vis Central or State Government– Held: s.238, IBC overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 provisions which open with non-obstante clauses (ss.173 and 174) – Provisions of the IBC treat the dues payable to secured creditors at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government– Electricity Act, 2003 – ss.173, 174. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Decision Date : 17-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7976/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC625,2025-06-13T22:37:53.431233 DHANRAJ N ASAWANIversusAMARJEET SINGH MOHINDER SINGH BASI AND OTHERS,25-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2093/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the provisions of s.81(5B) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 can be construed as preventing a share holder of the society such as the appellant, who was also an erstwhile director, from independently setting the criminal Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.81(5B) – The High Court was of the view that since the provisions of the 1960 Act are special, the provisions of s.81(5B) would preclude the registration of an FIR at the behest of a person, such as the appellant, who is a shareholder Decision Date : 25-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2093/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal allowed and SLP disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC710,2025-06-13T22:37:13.362161 STATE OF KARNATAKAversusT. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI & ORS.,06-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3456/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The High Court rejected the applications fi led by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certifi cate u/s. 65B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 311 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65B – A serial bomb blasts took place – Certain electronic devices were seized – Trial Court held electronic devices inadmissible in evidence – Thereafter, an application was fi led in Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3456/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC988,2025-06-13T22:37:58.324355 SIJU KURIANversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,17-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 64/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, ARAVIND KUMAR Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302, 201, 404 and 419 – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance upon – Prosecution case that the accused- labourer in the farmhouse of the victim, murdered the victim by hitting him with iron rod and then hid the dead body in a pit located in the garden – house and sold them as also sold the land to make undue monetary gain – Acquittal by the trial court on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – However, the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable u/ss. 302, Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 64/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC378,2025-06-13T22:44:10.972217 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)versusHARI CHAND AND ANR.,19-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2926/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal as [2014] 1 SCR 783 declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Decision Date : 19-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2926/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC395,2025-06-13T22:43:30.802816 REVANASIDDAPPA & ANR.versusMALLIKARJUN & ORS.,01-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2844/2011,Reference answered,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a child who is conferred with legislative legitimacy u/s. 16(1) or 16(2) is, by reason of s. 16(3), of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 entitled to the ancestral/coparcenary property of the parents or is the to the self-earned/separate property of the parents. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s. 16 – Children of void and voidable marriages – Conferment of legitimacy – Inheritance rights of legitimised children: Held: While conferring legitimacy in terms of s. 16(1) on a child born Decision Date : 01-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2844/2011 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC783,2025-06-13T22:46:19.719420 THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATIONversusTHAKUR DWARA KALAN UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6918/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in raising the amount of compensation per square yard on the date of notifi cation u/s.4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of cumulative annual increase at the a period of 11 years, taking base fi gure from an order of Reference Court dtd.30.08.2000 relating to acquisition of land of the same village of the year 1989, and the period of 11 years being counted from 1989 to 2000, the year of the notifi cation issued u/s.4 of the 1894 Act. Land Acquisition Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6918/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC940,2025-06-13T22:39:59.344103 STATE OF U.P. & ANRversusEHSAN & ANR,13-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5721/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction the High Court should have refrained from adjudicating the contentious issue with regard to taking of actual possession of the surplus land from the landholder, when the same was not decided in the previous even though it had arisen for consideration. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – The High Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 08.10.2018 declaring that the land in dispute shall continue to be in possession of the fi rst respondent-original Decision Date : 13-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5721/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC906,2025-06-13T22:40:52.985121 RAHEEM SHAH & ANRversusGOVIND SINGH & ORS.,24-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4628/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAHEEM SHAH & ANR versus GOVIND SINGH & ORS. - [2023] 10 S.C.R. 9132023 INSC 651 A.S. BOPANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI Delay – Condonation of – Suit filed by Respondent No.1 was decreed by the trial court – Appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit filed appeal, dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on the ground of limitation – Second Appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed before the lower Appellate Court was that the judgment was not in the knowledge of the appellants, that aspect of the matter was required to be kept in view by the lower Appellate Court as the appellants in fact had not taken effective part except filing written statement – When there was Decision Date : 24-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4628/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC651,2025-06-13T22:37:29.251350 A. SRINIVASULUversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,15-06-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2417/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Penal Code, 1860: ss.120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471 – Criminal conspiracy and cheating – Prosecution case that the appellant, officials of PSU and other private persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the PSU in the matter of award of contract – Contract granted to one tenders causing wrongful loss to the PSU – Illegalities alleged in the procedure followed for inviting the tender – FIR lodged u/s. 120B r/w ss. 193, 420, 468, 471 r/w ss. 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act – Final report against accused persons including the public Decision Date : 15-06-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2417/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC971,2025-06-13T22:39:28.213535 "M/S TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SALES AND P.R.) SHRI R.K. SINHAversusCOMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.",09-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3773/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether “tinted glass sheets” manufactured by the assessee is liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass” under the Notifi cation No.5784 dated 07.09.1981 being Entry No.IV or as unclassifi Act, 1948 – s. 3A – Tinted glass sheets manufactured by the assessee – Levy of tax: Held: Tinted glass sheet during the process of manufacture undergoes a change and is diff erent from a plain glass sheet, thus, exigible to tax as ‘all goods and wares made of Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3773/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC892,2025-06-13T22:42:05.717850 MOHAMMED ABDUL WAHIDversusNILOFER & ANR,14-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8146/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether under the Code of Civil Procedure, there is envisaged a diff erence between a party to a suit and a witness in a suit, does the phrase plaintiff ’s/ defendant’s witness exclude the plaintiff or defendant themselves, when they appear as and whether Ord. VII r. 14, Ord VIII r. 1-A and Ord. XIII r. 1 CPC, enjoin the party under-taking cross examination of a party to a suit from producing documents, for the purposes thereof, by virtue of the use of the phrase(s) plaintiff /defendant’s witness or witnesses of the other party, Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8146/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1075,2025-06-13T22:48:53.309524 NAVEEN @ AJAYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,19-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 489/2019,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether appellant was aff orded a fair trial; whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Appellant was convicted and sentenced for committing rape and murder of 3 – His death sentence was confi rmed by the High Court – Appellant contended that the entire trial was completed within a span of 15 days and appellant was not aff orded a fair trial – Propriety: Held: The Order-sheet would clearly indicate that the trial was conducted in a Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 489/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC936,2025-06-13T22:39:40.559563 M/S. BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITEDversusM/S. RAJWANT SINGH & OTHERS,01-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 657/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, MANOJ MISRA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 256(1) Proviso – Non- appearance of complainant – Dismissal of complaints for non- prosecution – Sustainability of – On facts, the appellant-complainant filed eight complaints u/s 138, N.I. Act – Complainant’s statement and Accordingly, complainant’s evidence closed with date set for recording of defence evidence – Application u/s 311 CrPC also filed by complainant – However, complainant failed to register appearance on subsequent dates – Magistrate dismissed the complaints for Decision Date : 01-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 657/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC187,2025-06-13T22:56:22.009394 YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANIversusNANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.,25-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3114/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Power of attorney: Role of power of attorney holder – Application for restoration, at the behest of the power of attorney holder, whose power of attorney stood cancelled – Tenability of – Is not tenable – On facts, suit by original plaintiff Subsequently, the original plaintiff died in 2006 and his LRs brought on record – Suit dismissed by the trial court – First appeal filed by the LRs and the appellant-son of the original plaintiff, also dismissed – Thereafter in 2015, second appeal filed by VM, the power of Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3114/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC428,2025-06-13T22:40:43.136877 SHRI SUKHBIR SINGH BADALversusBALWANT SINGH KHERA AND ORS.,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1116/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Representation of People Act, 1951 – s. 29-A(5) – Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 420, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 r/w s. 120B, 191, 192 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 202, 204, 315, 482 – A private complaint was filed by the 468, 471, 191, 192 of IPC against the appellants – It was alleged in the complaint that while complying with the requirements of s.29-A(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 an affidavit was filed before the Election Commission of India (ECI), which conflicted with the Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1116/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC466,2025-06-13T22:38:29.234239 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXversusM/S. KUMAR PAINTS AND MILL STORES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,02-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5937/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – s. 2(e)(i) – Mixing of base paint with different colours, result into a new product or not – High Court held that mixture of the base paint with different colours- did not result in a ‘new’ product result from the process of ‘manufacture’ as defined under section 2(e)(i) of the 1948 Act – Revenue contended that the sale of paints which had undergone mixing amounted to ‘manufacture’, thereby resulting in a new product, which was afresh incidence of taxation Decision Date : 02-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5937/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC193,2025-06-13T22:55:51.136115 SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI & ORS.versusB. UDAYASRI,05-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6500/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the dispute between the parties is arbitrable, and once a party has availed the remedy before a public forum under a special benefi cial legislation, can it be compelled to go for arbitration. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – – Arbitration Act & Conciliation, 1996 – s.11(6A), 8(1) – Arbitrability of consumer dispute – Constructed house/villa was not handed over to the buyer/consumer-respondent on time – Later, builder terminated the agreement and the appellants-builders/owners fi Decision Date : 05-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6500/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC870,2025-06-13T22:42:33.456426 DEEPAK ANANDA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS,04-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 88/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA 5 S.C.R. 717 717 DEEPAK ANANDA PATIL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS (Civil Appeal Nos 88-89 of 2023) JANUARY 04, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.11 – Complaints filed seeking removal of were directed to be deleted – Correctness of – Held: Order u/s.11 has serious consequences for the members – An omnibus order was passed by the Regional Joint Director(Sugar), preceded by a general notice to show cause which was issued to the cooperative society – Decision Date : 04-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 88/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC11,2025-06-13T22:33:01.673178 M/S MODI NATURALS LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX UP,06-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5822/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (a) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim full amount of tax paid towards the purchase of raw Rice Bran as ITC on the basis of the provisions of s.13(1)(a) r/w. S. No. 2(ii) of the and s.13(3)(b) r/w. Explanation (iii) of s.13 of the UP VAT Act?; (b) Whether the scope of the word “goods” as defi ned u/s. 2(m) of the UP VAT Act as outlined in s.13(1)(f) of the UP VAT Act should be limited to only “taxable goods”?; (c) Whether the decision of the Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5822/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC974,2025-06-13T22:38:00.254374 YADAIAH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS,01-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4835/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In the instant appeal, the resumption order concerning the assignment of non-occupied land in the 1960s to landless scheduled caste/scheduled tribe persons for the purpose of cultivation which was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court pertains to the issues of law concerning res judicata, nature of assignment and violation of conditions of assignment. Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – Assignment/Alienation of government land – Assignment of non-occupied land to landless scheduled Decision Date : 01-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4835/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC664,2025-06-13T22:36:49.280481 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAMBIR AND ORS,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 362/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the decision of Constitution bench in Indore Development Authority case – Applying the law laid down in Indore Development Authority and more particularly, considering the fact that Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 362/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC67,2025-06-13T22:29:58.304396 STATE OF PUNJABversusPRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER,28-02-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 302/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 302 of 2023) FEBRUARY 28, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Constitution of India – Art.174 – Governor (not furnished the relevant information sought) – The Governor noted that the CM in his correspondence underscored the mandate of Art. 167 of the Constitution as per which the CM is bound to furnish full details and information sought by the Governor – On 22.02.2023, the Decision Date : 28-02-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 302/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC181,2025-06-13T22:56:45.739608 DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANRversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.,21-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1295/2019,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 397, 450 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution that appellants- accused (A1 and A2) trespassed into house of PW-1, wherein he also did his gold and silver business, concealing iron rods and robbed gold ornaments and brutally Accused held guilty of offences punishable u/ss.302, 397 and 450 and sentenced accordingly – Legality of – Held: Though there were no eye-witnesses to the actual killings, there were three separate witnesses PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were independent of each other and had no animosity Decision Date : 21-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1295/2019 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC411,2025-06-13T22:42:23.250023 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.versusB. S. DHILLION & ORS.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1597/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to far compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – On facts, award passed with respect to the subject land in the year 1992 – Possession of the land was taken DDA on the spot by preparing the possession proceedings – Writ petition by the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court relying upon the Pune Municipal Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1597/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC214,2025-06-13T22:54:49.154372 HEMAVATHI AND ORS.versusV. HOMBEGOWDA AND ANR.,11-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5780/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in allowing Regular Second Appeal fi led u/s.100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without framing the substantial question of law. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second Appeal – Substantial question of law Impropriety: Held: First appellate court is the fi nal Court insofar as the question of facts are concerned and it is only when substantial questions of law would arise in a case that the High Court can entertain a Regular Second Appeal – If at the stage of admission such substantial Decision Date : 11-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5780/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC848,2025-06-13T22:45:22.554059 MANJUNATH & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,06-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 866/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In a case primarily involving a dying declaration in addition to the ocular and circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the appellants-accused along with other accused persons, whether the High Court was justifi ed in overturning the same in respect Evidence – Dying declaration – Reliance upon in addition to the ocular and circumstantial evidence – Legality: Held: The dying declaration, although undoubtedly a substantive piece of evidence upon which reliance can be placed, in the present facts is rendered nugatory as Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 866/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC978,2025-06-13T22:38:02.779024 DAVINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB,22-06-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, M.M. SUNDRESH Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376, 452 and 506 – Acquittal under – Allegation that appellant committed offence against the prosecutrix (PW-6) u/s. 376 at her residence – The appellant-accused was charged and convicted u/ss. 376, 452 and 506 by the Trial Court and the same was On appeal, held: There was delay in filing complaint – There was no attempt to recover the knife from the appellant as it is a specific case of the prosecution that he committed the offence by threatening to harm the prosecutrix – There was no reason as to non-examination of the sole Decision Date : 22-06-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC585,2025-06-13T22:39:22.258351 PRADEEPversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,05-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 553/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Evidence – Testimony of child witness – Sole basis of conviction – When not proper – Appellant along with co-accused was convicted for the offences punishable u/s. 302 r/w s.34, IPC and ss. 449, 324 r/w s.34, IPC based on the testimony of PW-1, minor son of the deceased was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers – Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 553/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC599,2025-06-13T22:38:41.371702 SHAKTI YEZDANI & ANR.versusJAYANAND JAYANT SALGAONKAR & ORS.,14-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7107/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed u/s. 109A of the Companies Act, 1956 read with the Bye-laws under the Depositories Act, 1996 is entitled to the benefi cial ownership of the shares or securities subject matter exclusion of all other persons who are entitled to inherit the estate of the holder on testator’s death as per the law of succession. Companies Act, 1956 – s. 109A and s. 109B – Companies Act, 2013 – s. 72 – Depositories Act, 1996 – Byelaw 9.11.1 – Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7107/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1076,2025-06-13T22:48:59.923962 B.C. NAGARAJ & ANRversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS,13-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5529/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the retired physical instructors of the Government College are entitled to the benefi t of revised pay scale when the same benefi t was granted to the similarly placed employees. Service law – Revised pay scale – Benefi t of – College – When the same benefi t of University Grant Commission pay scale under the Government order dated 15.11.1999 was granted to the similarly placed employees: Held: Retired physical instructors should not be denied the same relief, when the same benefi t was granted to the Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5529/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC828,2025-06-13T22:44:36.505517 E. JEEVANANDAMversusN. KOTESWARA RAO & ORS.,23-01-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 27337/2017,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.B. PARDIWALA Public Amenity – Sewerage facilities to the area – Claim of petitioner over the land on which the proposed sewerage line was sought to be laid – A resolution was passed by the local body to provide sewerage facilities to the of streets – The petitioner purchased the property in 2011, inclusive of the road over which the proposed sewerage line was sought to be laid – The sewerage main was laid down both upstream and downstream except to the extent of the 110 meters (land of petitioner) – After various Decision Date : 23-01-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 27337/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC714,2025-06-13T22:29:06.852080 UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH & ORS.versusJAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE & ANR.,06-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5707/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in dismissing the appeal fi led by appellants and upholding the interim order of Single Judge directing them to notify the symbol allotted to Respondent no.1 (R1) and allow the candidates contest in the then-upcoming General Elections of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil on the reserved election symbol (plough) already allotted to it. Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 – Paragraphs 9, 10, 10(A), 12 – Denial of the Plough Decision Date : 06-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5707/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC804,2025-06-13T22:45:24.593180 M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTDversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7934/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - [2023] 4 S.C.R. 3822023 INSC 329 M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.271C – Interpretation of – Belated remittance of the TDS after deduction, such assessee if liable to pay penalty u/s.271C – Held: No –s.271C(1)(a) shall be applicable in case of failure on the part of the the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB – Words used in s.271C(1)(a) are ‘fails to deduct’ – It does not speak about belated remittance of the TDS – Thus, there shall not be any penalty leviable Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7934/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC329,2025-06-13T22:47:26.713712 SANWARLAL AGRAWAL & ORS.versusASHOK KUMAR KOTHARI & ORS.,21-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1312/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Decree – Execution of – Expansion of decree – Impermissibility of – Parties entered into a joint venture agreement for a project – Each party brought in 10 crores as loans to finance the project – Respondents bid for the entire 50% shareholding of of 36.75 crores which was accepted, reduced in writing by way of email dtd. 28.03.19 – However, disagreement arose as to whether this amount was inclusive of the loan of 10 crores – Suit filed by respondents for declaration that the agreement dtd. 28.03.19 was binding on the Decision Date : 21-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1312/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC149,2025-06-13T22:58:20.308733 STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusSMT. PRIYANKA,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3639/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Service Law: Death-cum-Retirement gratuity – Payment of – To heirs/dependent of deceased employee, when employee died before he could exercise the option of retirement – Respondent- wife of deceased employee applied for payment of gratuity due to her husband, but the same was at the age of 60 years – Writ proceedings – High Court held that respondent would be entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and to the benefit of death- cum-retirement gratuity being heir of the deceased employee – Justification of – Held: Justified Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3639/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC109,2025-06-13T23:00:39.119053 SATHYANversusSTATE OF KERALA,11-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2363/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : (i) Whether the conviction, solely on the basis of offi cial witnesses is sustainable in the instant facts? (ii) Whether the delay of nearly 3 years in fi ling the challan can be said to be materially aff ecting the correctness of the judgement of the lower judgement? Abkari Act – s. 8 – Conviction under: Held : No reason is forthcoming on behalf of the appellant to challenge the veracity of the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 (offi cial witnesses) – In the instant case, conviction on the basis of testimony of the police witnesses Decision Date : 11-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2363/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC703,2025-06-13T22:36:09.595649 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORSversusRAJIV AND ANR.,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1278/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Land in question was used by the State for construction of road in the year 1996, however, no compensation was paid and the land was used without acquiring it under the provisions of the 1894 Act – Writ petition filed by respondents-land owners Judge, appellants directed to initiate the process for acquisition of the land in accordance with law – Division Bench dismissed the LPA filed by the appellants on ground of limitation – Held: When the writ petition and the claim of the land owners to claim the compensation for the Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1278/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC159,2025-06-13T22:57:33.938864 AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKAversusTOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,15-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 172/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA*, J.B. PARDIWALA* Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – ss. 1(3), 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32A, 53, 61, 238 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 – Rule 6 – – ss. 138, 139, 141, 142, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 190, 200, 256, 257, 305, 482 – A demand-cum-legal notice u/s. 138 of the NI Act was issued on behalf of the respondent calling upon the company as accused no.1 and appellant herein as accused no.2 to Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 172/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC232,2025-06-13T22:53:16.379209 DEV GUPTAversusPEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.,09-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5013/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Order of the High Court rejecting the appellant’s Writ Petition which had questioned the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission under the 2% sports quota. Education Institution – Sports quota – Imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks as an eligibility condition (in the qualifying examination) for enabling a candidate to claim admission in engineering courses under the 2% sports quota – Discriminatory Decision Date : 09-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5013/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC695,2025-06-13T22:36:22.225693 "MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI",10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5769/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Constitution of India – The Constitution (Thirty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1975 – Art. 371-F – Sikkim State Income-Tax Manual, 1948 – Sikkim (Collection of Taxes and Prevention of Evasion of Payment of Taxes) Act, 1987 – Income Tax ss. 2(35)(a), 2(35)(b), 6(3), 148, 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273, 274,271- B – By a notification dated 07.11.1988 issued u/Art. 371-F(n) of the Constitution, the Income Tax Act, 1961 were extended to the State of Sikkim – The case of the assessees (incorporated under the Registration of Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5769/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC330,2025-06-13T22:46:41.821089 M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PVT. LTD.versusASHOK S DHARIWAL AND OTHERS,19-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 73/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(2)(a) – Prior and post 2019 Amendment – Whether the applicant can be permitted to adduce evidence to support the ground relating to Public Policy in an application filed u/s. 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 case, the arbitration proceedings commenced and even the award was declared prior to the amendment of s.34(2)(a) by Act 33/2019, so s.34(2)(a) pre-amendment shall be applicable – In s.34(2)(a) pre-amendment, an arbitral award could be set aside by the Court if the party making Decision Date : 19-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 73/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC57,2025-06-13T22:30:25.171748 M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.versusRAMBHA DEVI AND ORS,13-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018,Directions issued,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. versus RAMBHA DEVI AND ORS - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 2412023 INSC 832 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kgs. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” – Entitlement to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs, on the strength of Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Proceedings listed for directions. | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC832,2025-06-13T22:44:53.472532 "COMMANDING OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION SPECIAL FORCE, MUMBAIversusBHAVNABEN DINSHBHAI BHABHOR & OTHERS",26-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3592/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether a Constable of a Railway Protection Force (RPF) can be treated as a “Workman” u/s.2(1)(n), Employees Compensation Act, 1923 even though, by virtue of amended s.3, Railway Protection is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union; and whether, on account of availability of alternative remedy to apply for compensation u/ss.124 and 124-A, Railways Act, 1989, a claim under the 1923 Act is maintainable. Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(n) – Constable of a RPF Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3592/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC859,2025-06-13T22:42:56.306320 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusJAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1300/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. [2023] 3 S.C.R. 12 12 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2023) FEBRUARY 24, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement acquisition proceedings w.r.t the entire land in question are deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – It was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over due to stay – Held: Despite the Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1300/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC166,2025-06-13T22:57:09.160900 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANPREET SINGH & ORS,16-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 277/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the respondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasers seeking declaration that deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act of 2013 – Original writ Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 277/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC46,2025-06-13T22:31:06.694025 NARESH @ NEHRUversusSTATE OF HARYANA,09-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1786/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conviction of the appellants for off ences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.149, IPC based on the statement of PW-9, as an eyewitness to the crime, if justifi ed. Evidence – Of eyewitness – When not to be relied upon: Held: Evidence of the eye-witness should quality and calibre and it should not only instil confi dence in the court to accept the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted at its face value – In the present case, testimony of PW-9 (cousin of the deceased) was shrouded with inconsistencies and he had Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1786/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC889,2025-06-13T22:42:15.380954 SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.,08-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2344/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : In a case where in the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time, the appellant not named in the FIR as one of the accused persons and no allegation worth the name in the entire FIR against Court was justifi ed in declining to quash the FIR. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR, when in the further statement of the fi rst informant’s name of the appellant surfaced for the fi rst time – High Court declining to quash the FIR – Decision Date : 08-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2344/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC687,2025-06-13T22:36:33.747017 ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERSversusV. GOPINATH & ORS,13-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1890/2010,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Tamil Nadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 – s.39 – Development Control Rules – Rule 19 – Regulation 29(6) – Chennai Metropolitan Area – Appellants were owners of certain apartments situated in a complex which consisted of 12 blocks – Total area of sq. metres – Portion of land was earmarked in terms of Rule 19 of the Development Control Rules (DCR) as Open Space Regulation Area (OSR) – Said rule mandates that 10% of the area of any developmental plan having area 10,000 sq. meter or more should be reserved as open space for Decision Date : 13-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1890/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC123,2025-06-13T22:59:31.556815 "PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3versusABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD.",24-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6580/2021,Dismissed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,,2023INSC417,2025-06-13T22:41:55.211673 AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS,17-03-2023,TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 409/2021,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 321, 406 – Constitution of India – Art. 139A – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. 39 – Petitioner-brother of deceased sought transfer of the criminal trial pending in West Bengal to Assam by unknown persons – Respondents-accused were charged u/s. 302 r/w s.120B of the IPC and u/ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act 1959 – Charge-sheet was filed – Trial commenced – Respondent no.2 (main accused) was in the custody – During pendency of trial, a notification Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 409/2021 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC257,2025-06-13T22:51:53.035527 SHIVA KUMAR @ SHIVA @ SHIVAMURTHYversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,28-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 942/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Penal Code, 1860 – ss.366, 376 and 302 – Power to impose modified punishment – Appellant convicted u/ss. 366, 376 and 302 IPC – Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the rest of his life – High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellant contended that in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors., a modified sentence can be imposed only by the Constitutional Courts and not by the Sessions Decision Date : 28-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 942/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC306,2025-06-13T22:48:31.878136 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPURversusPRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.,24-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7689/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Income Tax Act, 1961 – Explanation to s.37(1) – ‘any expenditure’ in s.37 – Expenditure/loss incurred for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law, not deductible in terms of Explanation 1 to s.37 – High Court relying upon the Piara Singh case allowed the loss of confiscation of silver bars as a business loss – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Explanation to s.37(1) provides that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law is not an Decision Date : 24-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7689/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC416,2025-06-13T22:42:07.197539 SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRSversusANJUMAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS,22-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6075/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether the suit for specifi c performance was fi led within the period of limitation; (ii) Whether the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Suit – Specific performance – Limitation – Readiness and Respondents fi led suit for specifi c performance – The suit was decreed – The First Appellate Court dismissed the suit – The respondents thereafter fi led Second Appeal, which was allowed by the High Court – Propriety: Held: Clause 3 of the agreement to sell (dated Decision Date : 22-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6075/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC898,2025-06-13T22:43:24.499437 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 397/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – On facts, possession not taken due to stay, however, compensation was sent in RD - Writ petition seeking declaration to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – Allowed by the High Court relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Impugned judgment contrary to law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 397/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC74,2025-06-13T22:29:17.950644 GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS.versusKRISHAN KUMAR & ORS.,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 946/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand reported as allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 946/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC140,2025-06-13T22:59:02.005134 M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUMversusKUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9106/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has committed any illegality or perversity in recording the fi nding that there was delay in delivery of consignment. (ii) Whether the NCDRC was justifi ed in not allowing compensation by calculating the total weight of the subject consignment in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol). Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Appellant’s case that the goods were tendered to respondent no.1 on a Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9106/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC996,2025-06-13T22:37:29.461091 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIAversusBONNIE FOI LAW COLLEGE & ORS.,10-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 969/2023,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.49, 24(3)(d) – Bar Council of India (Training) Rules, 1995 – Pre-enrolment training in terms of the 1995 Rules; Pre-enrolment/Post-enrolment examination, if can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council Held: Bar Council of India is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking a pre-enrolment training course or examination prescribed by it – Wide powers given to the Bar Council of India u/s.49 r/w s.24(3)(d) are adequate powers with it under the 1961 Act to provide such norms and Rules Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 969/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC116,2025-06-13T22:59:37.401922 SUNIL & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS. ETC,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2883/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, SANJAY KAROL Service Law – Inter-se seniority – Filling of vacant posts of private secretaries in the High Court of Delhi – Written examination was conducted – Results were declared – Writ petitions filed by some of the candidates seeking re-evaluation – High Court resulting in increased marks for all – Revised list was drawn – Issue of inter-se seniority arose – Special Committee by its decision dated 01.10.2018 accorded notional seniority as per the revised marks/merit list – Held: Considering the fact that the earlier Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2883/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC459,2025-06-13T22:39:23.435591 MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,16-10-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 320/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates u/ss.16 and 23(5), Advocates Act, 1961 as well as u/Or. IV, r.2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, if unconstitutional being violative of the mandate of equality u/Artilce 14 and Right to Practice any Profession u/ Article Right to Life u/Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as claimed. Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16, 23(5) – Challenge to – Plea of the petitioners inter alia that designation of senior Advocates has created a class of Advocates with special rights, privileges and status and the Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 320/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Petition dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC918,2025-06-13T22:40:29.599272 GURUDEEP SINGHversusREGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 128/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Contempt of Court – Lands were acquired by NTPC and compensation was awarded – Land oustees were proposed to be recruited by the NTPC as Junior Mazdoor – Pursuant thereto, Notification No.1 of 2017 issued – High Court directed NTPC to conclude the entire process of i.e. 17.12.2021 – However, a fresh Notification No.1 of 2022 was issued and Notification No.1 of 2017 was cancelled – Contempt case filed – High Court held that the appellants-chairman & managing director and General Manager of NTPC violated the orders of the Court by Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 128/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC617,2025-06-13T22:38:58.661242 P. V. NIDHISH & ORS.versusKERALA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR.,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 309/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Wakf Act, 1995 – s.52A added by 2013 amendment – Penal provision – Operation of, if retrospective – Held: No – Giving effect to a penal statute so as to cover past acts is a proscribed action in law – Therefore, s.52A cannot cover cases where leases of wakf or lessee was in physical possession and facing civil proceedings for eviction at the time the amendment of 2013 came into force – Interpretation of Statutes. Wakf Act, 1995 – s.3(ee) added by 2013 amendment – “Encroacher” – Interpretation – Appellants Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 309/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC452,2025-06-13T22:38:56.873211 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANITA SINGH & ORS.,01-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2994/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4, 6, 11, 30, 31 – Respondent no.1 purchased a land – The said land was subject matter of acquisition – award was announced – Writ petition was filed invoking s.24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that neither the compensation has been paid to the Respondent no.1 nor the possession of the land had been taken by the acquiring authority, hence, the acquisition lapsed – Land Acquisition Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2994/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC473,2025-06-13T22:38:07.950485 DEBASISH PAUL & ANR.versusAMAL BORAL,18-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6565/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in directing the trial court to dispose of the application fi led by the tenant u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when the trial court had already rejected the application fi led by the tenant u/s.7(1) and (2) of Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for protection against eviction, on the ground of delay of 10 months. Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 – Applicability of, to proceedings and appeals under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Tenant, if entitled to take recourse to s. 5, when his Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6565/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC925,2025-06-13T22:40:04.481361 INDRA BAIversusORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER,17-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4492/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2 and s.4 – Total disablement – Functional Disability – Appellant-employee was employed as a loading and unloading labourer with R-2-company for truck insured with R-1 – While loading poles in a truck, the appellant suffered on the left arm – There was no grip left in her left hand – Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner upon consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant rendered permanently unfit to do labour work, which she was doing at the time of the accident and awarded total Decision Date : 17-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4492/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC624,2025-06-13T22:38:03.459248 PUNJAB & SIND BANKversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.,07-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6751/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. PUNJAB & SIND BANK versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. - [2023] 15 S.C.R. 9032023 INSC 1079 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in sustaining the State’s claim of priority in respect of dues under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 of the Respondent no.2 (defaulting borrower), superseding the bank’s claim based on over its immovable property. Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – s.35 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.35 – Implication – Claim of primacy over the assets of the defaulting borrower – Bank Decision Date : 07-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6751/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1079,2025-06-13T22:49:55.037191 SMT. SASIKALA DEVI. PversusTHE STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8716/2012,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Service Law: Pay fixation – Inter-University transfer – Fixation of pay of the employee on the promotional post in the transferee University – Entitlement to benefits of promotion – Employee appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the University of Calicut and promoted as and was promoted there – Thereafter, employee applied for inter-university transfer to Kerela University and was placed as the junior-most Assistant in the entry cadre of Assistant Grade -II, the post to which she was appointed in the University of Calicut – Subsequently, the Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8716/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC447,2025-06-13T22:39:20.239539 STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.versusM/S. SAW PIPES LTD.,17-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3481/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 – s. 55A, 45, and 47 – Respondent-assessee was engaged in business of executing indivisible works of undertaking contract of coal tar and enamel coating on pipes – Respondent deposited tax at rate of 2%, however, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that of 2% as deposited but it fell under residuary entry-8 to the notification dated 18.10.1993 – Demand of difference in tax as well as the levy of interest u/s.47(4A) and penalty u/s. 45(6) of the Act, 1969 was made – By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3481/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC376,2025-06-13T22:44:32.429605 JOSEPH SHINEversusUNION OF INDIA,31-01-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2204/2020,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, AJAY RASTOGI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, HRISHIKESH ROY, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Judgments/Orders – Clarification of – Army Act, 1950 – ss. 45, 63 – Air Force Act, 1950 – ss.45, 65 – Navy Act, 1957 – ss.54(2), 74 – Union of India (UOI) sought clarification of the judgment of Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union as [2018] 11 SCR 765 – Held: In Joseph Shine case, the scheme of the Acts in the context of Article 33 of the Constitution did not fall for the consideration – Said judgment was not concerned with the effect and operation of the relevant provisions of the Acts in question – Decision Date : 31-01-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2204/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC87,2025-06-13T22:28:53.124110 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusCOSMO FILMS LIMITED,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 290/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 – Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) – Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP) – Notification No.18/2015-Customs exempted payment of basic customs duty, additional duty (countervailing duty, special additional duty), inputs imported against a valid Advance Authorization (AA) – GST regime was introduced w.e.f 01.07.2017 – However, no corresponding amendment was made to the aforesaid Notification w.r.t IGST and compensation cess – Notification No.79/2017- Customs amended the aforesaid Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 290/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC463,2025-06-13T22:39:08.430772 ROHAN DHUNGAT ETC.versusTHE STATE OF GOA & ORS. ETC.,05-01-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 12574/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Goa Prisons Rules, 2006 – r. 335 – Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence under Rules of 2006 while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release – Held: r. 335 of the Rules, 2006 provides that the period and Parole shall be counted as remission of sentence – Once the period of parole is to be counted as remission of sentence, the period of parole is also required to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment. Parole – Object and Decision Date : 05-01-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 12574/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC16,2025-06-13T22:32:51.552211 CBIversusR.R. KISHORE,11-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377/2007,Matter referred to larger bench,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act) required approval of the Central Government to conduct inquiry or investigation into any off ence alleged to have been committed by senior the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and provided a kind of immunity to such offi cers. Whether there could be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, was the moot question that arose Decision Date : 11-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 377/2007 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matters be placed before appropriate Bench | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC817,2025-06-13T22:45:06.279621 DEVESH SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,11-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5068/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether National Council for Teacher Education-NCTE vide notifi cation dated 28.06.2018, was right in including B.Ed. qualifi cation as an equivalent and essential qualifi cation for appointment to the post of primary school teacher (Level-1); and whether justifi ed in quashing the said notifi cation, holding the B.Ed. candidates to be unqualifi ed for the posts of primary school teachers (Level-1). Right to Education Act, 2009 – s. 23(1) – Appointment to the post of primary school teachers – Inclusion of B.Ed as a necessary Decision Date : 11-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5068/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC704,2025-06-13T22:36:13.950543 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. BHARAT ENTERPRISE,23-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3441/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, KRISHNA MURARI, B.V. NAGARATHNA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitrator passed an award allowing claims which were submitted after the submission of the final bill (containing No Claims Certificate) by the Respondent-Contractor – During the arbitration, the appellant filed an application u/s.16 invoking the Contract which interdicted the submission of a new claim after the submission of the final bill – Application rejected – Petition filed by the appellant u/s.34 challenging the award, allowed – Order set aside by High Court in appeal u/s.37 – Held: When a contractor Decision Date : 23-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3441/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC277,2025-06-13T22:50:20.944521 RAJARAM S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.versusMARUTHACHALAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS,18-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978/2013,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Money Lending – The appellant’s wife subscribed to chit funds (1992 and 1995) with the respondent for which two signed blank cheques were submitted as security – After maturity of the chit funds, appellant and his wife sought amount – However, respondent presented those cheques for encashment without any intimation to appellant – Said cheques were dishonoured as the appellant had closed the account – Respondent filed two complaint cases u/s 138 of NI Act – Both cases were dismissed by Decision Date : 18-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC51,2025-06-13T22:30:28.545317 PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELYversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB,05-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – As per the prosecution, two days prior to the date of the incident, a dispute allegedly arose between the deceased-complainant’s brother and their step mother wherein she allegedly threatened the deceased that he would not survive – Two co-accused) came in a car and took the deceased on the pretext of purchasing shoes, when the complainant was also present in the house and allegedly noticed that the step mother was carrying her 12 bore double barrel licensed gun in the car – Later, dead body of the deceased was found Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC614,2025-06-13T22:38:39.328307 YASHPAL JAINversusSUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS,20-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4296/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the impugned order passed quashing the order dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Civil Revision by the High Court whereby the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing the impleadment application fi led by the appellant had been rejected, to aside; whether any further directions require to be issued for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of the suit pending for trial for past 41 years? Suit – Suit was instituted by the original plaintiff in 1982 to declare the sale deed executed by fi rst defendant in Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4296/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal allowed with directions | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC948,2025-06-13T22:39:09.354533 "GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHERversusM/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS",17-03-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 414/2023,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA* Constitution of India : Art. 137 – Review of judgment or orders by the Supreme Court – Review of the judgments/orders passed by this Court, on basis of the judgment overruled by Maintainability of – On facts, land acquisition matters – Based on *Pune Municipal Corporation’s case on the interpretation of s. 24(2) of 2013 Act, several decision passed by this Court – However, the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case subsequently overruled by the Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 414/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC259,2025-06-13T22:52:08.876840 LAJJA RAM & ORS.versusRATI CHAND & ORS. ETC,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2835/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. LAJJA RAM & ORS. versus RATI CHAND & ORS. ETC - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 15252023 INSC 1091 HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for Consideration: Nature and extent of a bhondedar’s right over a shamlatdeh property (land reserved & used for common purpose in villages) and whether the bhondedar can exercise ownership rights over the granted land. Customary Practice – Bhondedar – land – Nature and extent – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Punjab Mujara Act, 1887 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 – In an earlier proceeding for declaration and occupancy rights before Asst. Collector Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2835/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LAJJA RAM & ORS.versusRATI CHAND & ORS. ETC-[2023] 16 S.C.R. 15252023 INSC 1091Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROLHEADNOTES Issue for Consideration: Nature and extent of a bhondedar’s right over a shamlatdeh property (land reserved & used for common purpose in villages) and whether the bhondedar can exercise ownership rights over the granted land. Customary Practice – Bhondedar – land – Nature and extent – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Punjab Mujara Act, 1887 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 – In an earlier proceeding for declaration and occupancy rights before Asst. CollectorDecision Date :09-11-2023| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2835/2011| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2023INSC1091,2025-06-13T22:37:14.820422 SANTOSH @ BHUREversusSTATE (G.N.C.T.) OF DELHI,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 575/2011,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 r/w. s.34 – Acquittal under – Prosecution case that ‘S’ was tenant of an apartment on the second floor of a building owned by PW-3 – On 12.09.2000, at about 10.40 a.m., an information was given to the police that a dead body is lying in As per prosecution, two disclosure/ confessional statements were made by each of the two accused (‘S’ and ‘N’) during police custody – Trial Court held that the proven circumstances constituted a chain which conclusively indicated that the accused ‘S’ in Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 575/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC443,2025-06-13T22:39:27.297181 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED AND OTHERS,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 687/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity – ‘Change in Law’ event – Deallocation of Lohara Coal Blocks, if a ‘Change in Law’ event – Held: Yes – Deallocation of Lohara Coal Blocks would amount to ‘Change in under the Power Project Agreements – No interference warranted with the concurrent findings of MERC and APTEL – Methodology of arriving at the compensation payable on account of ‘Change in Law’ event also not interfered with – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 687/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC399,2025-06-13T22:42:35.012234 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusADANI POWER MAHARASHTRA LIMITED AND ANOTHER,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 677/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Electricity– Change in Law– SHAKTI Policy, if amounts to Change in Law –ADANI Power Maharashtra Limited (APML) and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) entered into four long term seeking compensation in Tariff on account of Change in Law under the PPAs before Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) –Allowed– Subsequently, APML filed a fresh petitionbefore MERC seeking reliefin support of Change of Law under the respective PPAs fornon- Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 677/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC399,2025-06-13T22:43:08.488190 PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,16-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1304/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code,1860 – ss. 302,34,201 – Two accused persons (including appellant) were convicted for offence of murder by trial Court –The prosecution case, rested upon three circumstances (a) the alleged confessional statement of appellant;(b) prior animosity deceased; and (c) the recovery of material from the appellant – The High Court upheld the conviction of appellant and acquitted co-accused – On appeal, held: The testimonies of PW-12(son of the deceased) and PW-13(co-villager) negated circumstances that there was tension between the Decision Date : 16-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1304/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC242,2025-06-13T22:52:58.860570 SHRAMJEEVI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusDINESH JOSHI & ORS.,22-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5328/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 –s.19 – Procedure and Powers of Tribunal –Held: NGT though not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, is nevertheless bound by principles of natural justice – It is a judicial tribunal exclusively tasked with the disputes and causes – In the present case, the NGT had to take into consideration that the nature of its directions meant that all those living or owning land near the Teliya Talab, a man-made lake/reservoir in Mandsaur, who had obtained sanctions from the Nagar Palika Parishad and Decision Date : 22-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5328/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC275,2025-06-13T22:50:42.701223 PRIYA PRAMOD GAJBEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS,11-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7117/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA Education/Educational Institutions – MBBS admission – Seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe – Appellant secured the admission claiming that she belonged to ‘Mana’ Scheduled Tribe – Claim invalidated – Documents of pre-Constitution period relied upon by Probative value of – Held: Documents of the pre- Constitution period showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors have got the highest probative value – If an applicant is able to produce authentic and genuine documents of the pre- Constitution period showing that he belongs Decision Date : 11-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7117/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC663,2025-06-13T22:38:28.654445 THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH & ANRversusAMAN KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC,01-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 646/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Constitution of India – Art.226 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(b), (2) – FIR registered against one ‘AS’ and his wife ‘YS’ – FIR quashed by High Court – Justification of – Held: In the present case, FIR does make cognizable offence having been committed by ‘AS’ and ‘YS’ – Power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases – Whenever its powers are invoked either u/Art.226 or s.482, Decision Date : 01-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 646/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC189,2025-06-13T22:55:57.362618 "ARVIND KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT, DELHI",17-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2390/2010,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Penal Code, 1860 : s. 304A – Causing death by negligence – Scuffle between the victim-constable and the appellant-police guard – Semi Automatic Fire (SAF)-carbine of the appellant got entangled in the chain of the appellant’s belt resulting in accidental firing of five victim in his neck leading to his death – Case of the appellant that he was requested by the sub-inspector to ask the victim to desist from continuing with his conversation on the telephone – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 and sentenced to life by the courts below – On Decision Date : 17-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2390/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC622,2025-06-13T22:38:01.411269 MD. ASFAK ALAMversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.,31-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2207/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Grant of anticipatory bail – Disentitlement to – Husband accused of s. 498A and various other provisions under the Penal Code, and under the Dowry Prohibition Act – Anticipatory bail application pending and no husband – Grant of an interim order by the High Court directing the police not to arrest the husband during the pendency of his application u/s. 438 – Thereafter, the investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the Sessions Judge – Decision Date : 31-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2207/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC660,2025-06-13T22:36:54.383262 "THEIR WORKMEN THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY (WELFARE), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA EXECUTIVE STAFF UNION.versusEMPLOYER IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.",03-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4152/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Approbate and Reprobate – Held: A party to a proceeding cannot be permitted to challenge the same but thereafter abide by it out of its own benefit from it; get the opposite party to effectively alter its position and then press its challenge after the passage of a considerable length of time – In the present case, the management of FCI filed writ petition challenging the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal but, depsite Decision Date : 03-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4152/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC588,2025-06-13T22:39:16.560092 BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusDURGA DEVI,02-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6182/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : s. 51 – Protection under – Suit by the respondent for possession of the land by demolition of the structure put on by the appellant and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant from interfering – Appellant’s case that two years ago he had carried out construction of the verandah in the land as part of his residential house bonfidely believing it to be his own land – Suit decreed in favour of the respondent – However, the first appellate court held that the Decision Date : 02-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6182/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC95,2025-06-13T22:28:29.061673 ABHISHEK SAXENAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR,28-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3628/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ABHISHEK SAXENA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 11262023 INSC 1088 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the chargesheet submitted showed prima facie case u/ss. 323, 384 and 406, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt, for extortion and for criminal breach of trust; Whether the High Court has fallen in error in not invoking the powers u/s. the proceedings qua the appellant. Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 384 and 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – An FIR was registered against the appellant, his parents and relatives on 04.09.2016 alleging commission of offences u/ss. 323, 363, 384 and 406 of the Decision Date : 28-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3628/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1088,2025-06-13T22:36:59.760642 GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTRI FINANCE LIMITED)versusTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA,20-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2402/2008,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992: s. 15(Z) – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Regulations, 1992 – Sch. III, para 4 – Fees continuity benefits under – Entitlement of individual membership into a corporate entity – On facts, a member of Calcutta Stock Exchange-CSE, registered as a stock broker, transferred his membership of CSE in favour of the appellant company which was a member of National Stock Exchange- NSE – Appellant company then Decision Date : 20-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2402/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC262,2025-06-13T22:51:28.121563 ICON EDUCATION SOCIETYversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1760/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KUMAR Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 – s.9 – Fee-fixation – Power of Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) – Held: AFRC constituted under the 2007 of ‘regulation’ in respect of the fees proposed by the institution, conditioned by the parameters in s.9(1) of the 2007 Act – Liberty given to unaided institutions to propose the fees that they wish to charge, keeping in mind the factors set out in s.9(1) of the 2007 Act Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1760/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC256,2025-06-13T22:52:13.319377 BHIM RAO BASWANTH RAO PATILversusK. MADAN MOHAN RAO AND ORS.,24-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4632/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11, Or. XII, r.6 – Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss. 8, 33A, 33B, 81, 84, 100 – Appellant was a successful candidate in the election – The respondent preferred an appellant u/ss. 81 & 84 r/w ss. 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) of 1951 Act alleging, inter-alia, furnishing of false information, non-disclosure of cases pending and those in which appellant was convicted – Appellant filed application u/Or. VII, r.11 of CPC for its rejection – Decision Date : 24-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4632/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC641,2025-06-13T22:37:24.121256 M/S IL&FS TAMIL NADU POWER COMPANY LIMITEDversusT. MURUGANANDAM & OTHERS,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1811/2015,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Environmental Law – Appellant was granted the Environment Clearance (EC) in accordance with the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) under EIA Notification, 2006 – NGT upheld the validity of the EC to review the EC based on the cumulative impact assessment study and stipulate any additional conditions, if required – MoEF based on the recommendations of the EAC, issued a corrigendum to the EC imposing additional conditions to the EC – Corrigendum quashed by NGT – On Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1811/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC136,2025-06-13T22:58:58.925486 THE BELGAUM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDHRUVA & ANR.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2950/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Allotment – Allotment of plots – Demand of additional price for the plots was raised from the respondents-allottees on account of enhancement of compensation of the land utilized for carving out the plots allotted – Correctness of – Held: Clause 5 in the allotment was given to vary the price of the plot in case there is change in the size of plot – This clause does not talk about demand of additional price on account of enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land for carving of the plots – Even the clauses in the Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2950/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC451,2025-06-13T22:38:53.112017 UNION OF INDIA & OTHERSversusJOGESHWAR SWAIN,05-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the dismissal order of the constable found guilty of misconduct, since it was vitiated by infraction of the prescribed procedure as also was based on no evidence. Service Law – Border Security Border Security Force Rules, 1969 – rr. 49(3), 142(2) – Dismissal from service – Plea of guilty – Procedural safeguards u/r. 142(2) – Non-compliance of – Allegations against Border Security Force constable of clicking the photographs of lady doctor while Decision Date : 05-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC802,2025-06-13T22:45:35.165040 APPAIYAversusANDIMUTHU @ THANGAPANDI & ORS.,20-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14630/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was correct in holding that owing to the non-production of any document by appellant evincing as to how the sons’ of the seller obtained the suit property in a partition Exhibit A1-registered sale deed whereby the property was sold vendor, being a registration copy-secondary evidence, could not be admitted in evidence as proof of the contents of its original. Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 65(e), 74, 76, 77 and 79 – Registration Act, 1908 – s. 57(5) – Admissibility in evidence of certifi ed copies Decision Date : 20-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14630/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC835,2025-06-13T22:44:14.003163 LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & ANR.versusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.,05-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5647/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Claim for payment of interest on refund of the amount deposited by the appellants-charitable institutions with the respondent to avail the benefi t of the construction based on additional FAR, if justifi ed. Interest – Claim for, on refunded Held: On facts, as on the date when the writ petition was fi led and the petitioner had voluntarily off ered to deposit the amount, the amount was to be paid and recoverable under the notifi cation dated 10.10.2008 and 23.12.2008 if the benefi t of additional FAR was to be availed – Decision Date : 05-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5647/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC797,2025-06-13T22:45:46.961780 "MS. INDIRA JAISINGversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL",12-05-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 709/2022,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, ARAVIND KUMAR Advocates Act, 1961: s. 16 – Designation of Senior Advocates – Criteria for – Guidelines laid down in *Indira Jaising case, to bring in greater transparency and objectivity in the designation process of Senior Advocates – 2017 Judgment given effect by the Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018 – Plea that the guidelines enumerated not Decision Date : 12-05-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 709/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC524,2025-06-13T22:35:21.168798 INDRAKUNWARversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,19-10-2023,CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1730/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether, in explaining the purported incriminating circumstance against her, the convict-appellant ought to have disclosed, over and above denial of any relationship with the deceased child, the specifi cs of her miscarriage and its aftermath; particularly has failed to discharge its burden of establishing such relationship between the deceased and the convict -appellant. Constitution of India – Right to Privacy – Personal life of a woman accused of committing a crime – Failure of Prosecution to discharge its duty: Held: The Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1730/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC934,2025-06-13T22:39:57.262220 BIRBAL NATHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS,30-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1587/2008,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in acquitting the accused for the major off ences u/ss. 302 and 307 IPC, and convicting them only for the off ences u/ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 and reducing their sentences to the period already undergone contractions in the two statements of the injured eye witness, one given to police u/s.161 Cr.PC., and the other given before the court, would be suffi cient to discredit a witness. Penal Code, 1870 – ss. 304 Part I, 308, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149 – Culpable homicide not Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1587/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC957,2025-06-13T22:38:28.982451 M/S. KEWAL COURT PVT. LTD. AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.,09-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6257/2014,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue pertains to the true construction, meaning and import of the expression ‘vacant land’ contained in Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 especially with reference to sub-clause and Regulation) Act, 1976 – s.2(q) – Expression ‘Vacant land’ – Construction, meaning and import of – Interpretation and scope of s.2(q)(i) & (ii): Held: Discordance between *Jhonson’s case [two-Judge Bench] and **Billimoria’s case Decision Date : 09-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6257/2014 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matter to be placed before Hon’b le CJI for appropriate directions | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC884,2025-06-13T22:42:11.192208 SHANTI BHUSHAN (D) THR. LR. & ORSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS,25-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8388/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Stamp Act,1899 – ss.31,32, 47-A and Art. 23 of the Schedule IB – Market Value of property – Determination of – A property was purchased by the appellants under a registered sale deed from the vendor – Appellants were already in possession land as tenants – The value of the property and paid the stamp duty quantified at Rs. 46,700/- – The Assistant Stamp Collector, held that the market value of the land will have to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 24,000/per sq. meter – Thus, on the date of the sale deed, the market value of the sale deed Decision Date : 25-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8388/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC425,2025-06-13T22:41:45.508144 INDRAJIT DASversusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA,28-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 609/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302/34, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Information received from one of the prosecution witness that his nephew was missing since the previous evening – Victim had gone on his bike but did not return – On informed that the victim had gone out with two friends – Both the friends alleged to have confessed their crime before the investigating officer – One of them being juvenile, tried under Juvenile Act – As regards the other the trial court held that the prosecution had fully Decision Date : 28-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 609/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC175,2025-06-13T22:56:28.712965 SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDERversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6027/2014,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 2542023 INSC 836 J.K. MAHESHWARI, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in denying the absorption of appellant as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary section and also rejecting his claim for continuity of service. Service Law – Claim for absorption as an Higher Secondary section – Tenable or not: Held: The appellant was appointed as a substitute teacher in the payscale of a primary teacher – When he fi led the fi rst round of proceedings in O.A. No. 209 of 1991, no plea was raised that he worked as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Decision Date : 20-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6027/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC836,2025-06-13T22:44:10.379951 CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRYversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.,17-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 836/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons – Legality of – A complaint was made against the appellant-archbishop and other accused persons for having committed an offense u/s 120B, 406, 409, 418, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468 r/w 34 of IPC alleging along with other accused persons had fraudulently disposed of certain immovable property belonging to the church – The first complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the court at Maradu on 30.09.2021 without taking cognizance of the complaint as the counsel for complainant did Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 836/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC250,2025-06-13T22:51:58.268624 M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTDversusKASHIRAM VERMA,16-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5758/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Labour Laws: Labour dispute – Non-mentioning of the permanent address of the workman, addressed furnished is care of Union, and as such efforts to serve him at the given address remained futile – Held: Effective relief can granted to a worker only if the permanent address of in the pleadings – Issuance of directions to the authorities working under the various labour laws to take corrective measure – Parties to furnish their permanent address – Even if the representative of the workman is appearing, he shall furnish permanent address of the Decision Date : 16-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5758/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC243,2025-06-13T22:52:52.747130 KAMAL PRASAD & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH),10-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1578/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Case of the prosecution rested primarily on the testimonies of three witnesses, conviction of the appellants for off ence punishable u/ss.148, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, IPC and ss.4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, sentence imposed, if justifi ed. Evidence – Testimonies of eyewitnesses – Reliance upon: Held: Death of the deceased ‘C’ and his son ‘K’ is undisputed – Deceased ‘C’ having sustained multiple injuries upon vital parts of the body as a Decision Date : 10-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1578/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC895,2025-06-13T22:41:38.183809 M/S. S.D. SHINDE TR. PARTNERversusGOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS,22-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6107/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Award made in favour of the appellant- contractor was challenged by the respondent-State u/s.30, 33, Arbitration Act, 1940 and was set aside by Courts below inter alia holding that the claim was time-barred – Legality. Arbitration ss.30 and 33 – Jurisdiction of Courts – Scope: Held: A claim crystallizes upon the issuance of the fi nal bill which in this case was on 14.12.1992 – Contractor’s complaint with respect to payment was fi rst aired in 1988; the rejection resulted in an appeal before the Decision Date : 22-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6107/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC751,2025-06-13T22:35:37.762034 M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusMUKUL KUMAR & ANR.,11-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5590/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the commercial entity’s claim pertaining to an arbitral award, in appeal u/s. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is liable to be included at a belated stage-after the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors and pending Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor – Resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors-CoC and pending approval by the adjudicating authority – Inclusion of commercial entity’s Decision Date : 11-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5590/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC816,2025-06-13T22:45:21.072757 R. RAGHAVENDRANversusC. RAJA JOHN & ORS.,13-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2552/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the observations made by NCLAT in the impugned judgment, in the context of the judgment of the Tribunal in Saravana Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bafna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors., that if the Corporate Debtor is an MSME it is not necessary for with other Resolution Applicants to regain the control of the Corporate Debtor, can be sustained or not in the conspectus of the observations in the Bafna’s case, the appeal where against was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Corporate debtor, Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2552/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC849,2025-06-13T22:44:34.742509 SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATIONversusMINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.,23-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 640/2022,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Supreme Court Bar Association sought writ of mandamus directing Union Ministry of Urban Development to (i) grant permission for the conversion into a chamber block for lawyers of land admeasuring 1.33 acres situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the Supreme Court; (ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as ‘a Supreme Court Complex’ , so that all the buildings can be utilized for conversion into chambers or for being redeveloped as a Decision Date : 23-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 640/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC278,2025-06-13T22:50:39.228694 ANOOP BARTARIA & ETCversusDY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR.,21-04-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2397/2019,Dismissed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,,2023INSC413,2025-06-13T22:42:15.600077 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusEMINENT MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS.,16-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 337/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR AUTHORITY v. EMINENT MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2023) JANUARY 16, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – High Court relying upon to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act solely on the ground that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner – On appeal, held: Possession of land in question was taken on 27.09.2012 – The entire compensation with respect to land in question was deposited with Treasury – Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 337/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC43,2025-06-13T22:31:09.515490 "KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KSCARDBversusTHE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM AND ORS.",14-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10069/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the appellant-assessee, a co- operative society, is entitled to claim deduction of the whole of its profi ts and gains of business attributable to the business of credit facilities to its members who are all co-operative societies u/s.80P, Income Tax Act, 1961. Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80P – Appellant, if a co-operative bank within the scope and meaning of sub-section (4) of s.80P and thus, not eligible to the benefi t of deduction as Decision Date : 14-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10069/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC830,2025-06-13T22:44:26.957272 ZUNAIDversusSTATE OF UP. & ORS.,29-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2628/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ZUNAID versus STATE OF UP. & ORS. - [2023] 11 S.C.R. 7152023 INSC 778 BELA M. TRIVEDI, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: CJM rejected the fi nal report submitted by the investigating offi cer and accepted the Protest Petition as the Complaint Case, whether the course opted by the CJM was just, legal and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Code of Criminal The Investigating Offi cer, after completing the investigation, submitted the Final Report – Appellant- complainant fi led a Protest Petition – The concerned CJM vide order dated 15.11.2018 rejected the Final Report of the Investigating Offi cer and directed that the Protest Petition Decision Date : 29-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2628/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC778,2025-06-13T22:46:27.318118 THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusTAMIL NADU MAKKAL NALA PANIYALARGAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC,11-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10563/2017,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law – Direction for creations of posts – Impermissibility of – Held: Courts cannot direct for creations of posts – In the present case, the respondents were not in employment or holding a civil post or appointed against the cadre post in any of the Government establishment where the service conditions are governed/regulated by the statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 – In absence of sanctioned post, the State cannot be compelled to create Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10563/2017 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC350,2025-06-13T22:45:48.633521 MANMOHAN GOPALversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.,20-10-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 858/2021,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MANMOHAN GOPAL versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 10732023 INSC 953 S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Applications fi led by the daughter-in-law (original comlainant and R-2) for recovery of both arrears of maintenance and monthly maintenance. Constitution of India – Art. 142 – persistent defiance by husband, and the petitioner-father-in-law, who have, through one pretext or another stalled compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court – Husband has abandoned wife and virtually fl ed to Australia – Documents reveal that considerable amounts of money were Decision Date : 20-10-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 858/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC953,2025-06-13T22:38:54.455541 ANIL MINDA AND OTHERSversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 345/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 132, 158, 158BC, 158BE(b) – Period of Limitation – Commencement of – Whether the period of limitation of two years for the block assessment under Section 158BC/158BE would commence from the date of the date of the last authorization – Held: Supreme Court in the case of VLS Finance Limited held that the relevant date would be the date on which the Panchnama is drawn and not the date on which the authorization/s is/are are issued – It cannot be disputed that the block assessment Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 345/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC287,2025-06-13T22:50:06.492619 LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR.versusMANISH SETHI AND ORS.,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 945/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. [2023] 2 S.C.R. 392 392 LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH SETHI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 945 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 [M. R. SHAH, C.T RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KAROL JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 945/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC137,2025-06-13T22:58:43.447698 RAJIV KUMAR JINDAL AND OTHERSversusBCI STAFF COLONY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS,27-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10127/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 : ss. 20(4), 21(c) – Winding up of sick industrial company – Operating agency to prepare complete inventory – On facts, Operating Agency- IDBI initiated process to sell the sick industrial company-BCI in terms of the order passed by the BIFR – Submission of solitary bid by the appellant – Operating authority accepted the same – However, the appellant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of Asset Sale Committee (ASC) – In view thereof, Decision Date : 27-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10127/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC439,2025-06-13T22:40:06.301898 SEEMANT KUMAR SINGHversusMAHESH PS & ORS.,21-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 872/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiಕನ್ನಡ - Kannadaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH versus MAHESH PS & ORS. - [2023] 3 S.C.R. 5872023 INSC 272 KRISHNA MURARI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Bail – Adverse remarks – Expunction of – During the pendency of bail proceedings of respondent no.1, the High Court made adverse remarks against the appellants, who had no lis in the proceedings – Further, the High Court issued direction for seeking reports against Remarks made by High Court against appellant no.2 are unreasonable and without justification as appellant no.2 has no personal involvement in the case – No evidence against appellant no.2 has been analysed and no opportunity has been given to him to explain himself – Also, Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 872/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC272,2025-06-13T22:51:24.716345 VISHALAKSHI AMMAversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1720/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, MANOJ MISRA Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972: ss. 40, 40A – Time for declaration of custody or possession of any captive animal or animal article – Relaxation of – On facts, the appellant filed the application/ declaration on 25.05.2011 much beyond the prescribed period – Refusal of the of the deer horn found from the house of the appellant which was in custody and possession of the appellant on the ground of delay in the application/declaration – Writ petition by the appellant – Single Judge directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider whether time has been Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1720/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC255,2025-06-13T22:51:46.756104 PANCHAYAT QURESHIAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS,13-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1538/2008,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the closure of the slaughter house was eff ected after following due process of law. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 – Permanent Lok Adalat Board to close down the slaughter house for violation of rules and regulations, causing pollution in the area – SPCB issued directions u/s. 33A of the 1974 Act for closure of the slaughter house – Order of Permanent Lok Adalat challenged in writ petition – Writ petition Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1538/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC841,2025-06-13T22:44:49.933854 ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS.versusIL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,03-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6411/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Order 8 Rule 1 – Being a for fi ling written statements expired on 08.03.2020 – On 06.06.2020, the further condonable period of 90 days also expired – No written statements were fi led within the said timelines – Appellants fi led applications on 20.01.2021 for acceptance of written statements by Decision Date : 03-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6411/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC867,2025-06-13T22:42:45.609733 "SUBHASH DESAIversusPRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.",11-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 493/2022,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Constitution of India: Art.191(2) – Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules – r.95 – Coalition Government – Split in Political Party – Losing Confidence of the House – Power of Floor Test – After the State elections in 2019, a coalition government of Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) [a post-poll alliance of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Indian National Congress (INC) and some independent MLAs] was formed in Maharashtra, with Mr. Thackeray of Shiv Sena as the Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 493/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC516,2025-06-13T22:35:34.224771 SWEETY KUMARIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS,22-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6072/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the rejection of the candidatures of the appellants due to non-production of the original certifi cate at the time of interview by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) is justifi ed and what relief can be granted to (Judicial Branch) (Recruitment), Rules, 1955 – rr.7(b), 9 – Non-production of original certifi cate at the time of interview – Rejection of candidatures – Impermissible: Held: The language of the rules makes it clear that the production of the original certifi cates Decision Date : 22-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6072/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC853,2025-06-13T22:43:21.276255 BICHITRANANDA BEHERAversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS,11-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6664/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in dismissing the appeal fi led by the appellant against the judgment of State Education Tribunal whereby the State was directed to approve the appointment of Respondent No.5 on the post of Physical Education Trainer in question and release of block grant in his favour. Service Law – Delay/Laches – Solitary post of PET in the school in question – Respondent No.5 challenged the approval order dtd. 02.04.2005 of the appellant before the Tribunal, claiming to be continuing as the PET in the Decision Date : 11-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6664/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC902,2025-06-13T22:41:17.304382 KAMALAKARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,12-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1485/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellant-accused u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 498A and s.306 – The prosecution alleges that after two years of marriage, all the three accused, i.e., started ill-treating and assaulting victim-deceased – Appellant brought victim back to her parents’ house – The appellant refused to take her back to his house and told the informant that he will be remarried – After two months, victim poured kerosene oil on her body Decision Date : 12-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1485/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC989,2025-06-13T22:41:11.762048 EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,16-01-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10499/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Service Law : Removal from service – Constable found guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline – Suppression of pending criminal litigation in the verification form submitted at the time of appointment – Departmental inquiry – Order of removal Single Judge of the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the constable – However, the Division Bench set aside the order – On appeal, held: Constable has committed gross misconduct – There was deliberate suppression of fact which was an Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10499/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC42,2025-06-13T22:30:56.634704 GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERSversusR. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC.,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1580/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Land Grabbing: Land grabbing matters – By a Government Order, the State of Tamil Nadu, constituted Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in Tamil Nadu for investigating the cases pertaining to land grabbing, however, without defining land grabbing cases – By the other grabbing cases were ordered to be transferred to the Special Courts constituted to exclusively deal with the land grabbing cases – Writ Petitions against the said G.Os – High Court set aside the G.Os on the ground that the same does not lay down any yardstick or guideline to pick and Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1580/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC490,2025-06-13T22:36:31.910112 JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2352/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.245, 245C(1), 245HA, 245D – Application u/s.245C(1) was filed by the appellants before the Settlement Commission – Order dtd. 31.03.2008 passed by the Settlement Commission – High Court while dismissing the writ petition, filed by the cause notice for re-assessment issued in terms of order dtd. 31.03.2008, observed that the said order was a nullity – Justification of – Held: Settlement Commission specifically observed in the order dtd. 31.03.2008 that it was not practicable to examine the records, investigate the Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2352/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC453,2025-06-13T22:38:25.942161 TAJVIR SINGH SODHI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.,28-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2164/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Service law: Selection process – Quashing of – Selection process conducted for appointment of drug inspectors – 64 persons including some appellants selected and appointed as drug inspectors and are serving on the said posts – However, the challenged alleging discrepancies in the selection procedure – High Court quashed the selection and appointment – Upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the Decision Date : 28-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2164/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC309,2025-06-13T22:48:25.683419 PRAKASH NAYI @ SENversusSTATE OF GOA,12-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2010/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and s.84 – Plea of Insanity – “Schizophrenia” – Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 IPC for having caused the death of the victim-deceased by attacking him at a store in which the deceased was working, with an iron of trial, the defence pleaded insanity – At one of the hospitals where the accused was undergoing the treatment before the date of incident, it was recorded that the accused was suffering from anxiety neurosis with reactive depression and has symptoms of acid peptic disease and mild Decision Date : 12-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2010/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC24,2025-06-13T22:32:21.681242 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSURENDER SINGH & ORS.,11-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1548/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Writ petitions u/s. 24(2) claiming that Act had lapsed as neither the possession was taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid – High Courts relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners – On appeal, held: The Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1548/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC358,2025-06-13T22:45:40.521528 JHABBAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.versusJAGTAR SINGH S/O DARSHAN SINGH,17-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1497/2008,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:ss. 4, 15, 19, 20 , 21 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – ss. 118, 121, 123 – Right of pre-emption – Suit for possession of the suit lands by the respondent against the appellants-buyer, on the ground that he in the joint khewat along with the owner-vendor had a superior right to pre- empt the sales, and that he was not put to any notice of sale of the suit lands to the appellants by the owner-vendor – Dismissed by the trial court on the ground that khewat had remained no more joint as per the Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1497/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC373,2025-06-13T22:44:39.712145 MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.,08-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2340/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: In the instant case wherein FIR was registered u/ss. 395, 504, 506 and 323 IPC against the appellants, the questions which arose for consideration are whether the said case falls within the parameters laid down for quashing the FIR; whether the plain reading of of dacoity punishable u/s. 395 IPC; whether any case of criminal intimidation punishable u/ss. 504 and 506(2) IPC is made out; and whether the allegations levelled in the FIR inspire any confi dence considering the delay of one year in lodging the FIR. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. Decision Date : 08-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2340/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC683,2025-06-13T22:36:35.403844 AUTHORISED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIAversusC. NATARAJAN & ANR,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2545/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 : ss. 13(4), 17 – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r. 9 – Contract Act – ss. 73, 74 – Power of forfeiture by the Authorized Officer – Exercise forfeiture order by the High Court – Justification of – On facts, default committed by one in discharging its debts to the Bank and declared as non-performing asset – E- auction held by the Authorized Officer for secured asset of the defaulter– Respondent declared the Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2545/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC341,2025-06-13T22:47:11.958976 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusDILIP PAUL,06-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6190/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the High Court by which it allowed the writ petition fi led by respondent and thereby set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% of his pension for all times upon the respondent in connection with disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on allegations of a lady employee of sexual harassment at workplace, the following questions arose for consideration:- I. Whether the Central Complaints Committee constituted by the Competent authority to Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6190/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC975,2025-06-13T22:37:42.553783 DEREK A C LOBO & ORS.versusULRIC M A LOBO (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.,07-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5094/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit (probate of Will) and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the grant of probate of the last Will and testament dated 10.11.1992 of their the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In view of the undisputed position that the Will was executed by C, the question to be considered is whether the circumstances taken as suspicious circumstances by the High Court are in troth, suspicious circumstances, Decision Date : 07-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5094/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1093,2025-06-13T22:49:53.306646 CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.)versusCOMMANDING OFFICER & ORS.,26-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7175/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant was transfused with one blood unit in the year 2002 at 171 Military Hospital. In 2014, appellant’s blood samples revealed that he was suff ering from HIV. The Complaint fi led by the appellant before the NCDRC Whether the dismissal of his complaint was justifi ed. Consumer Protection – Medical Negligence – Jurisdiction – Whether the appellant’s case is under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – What are alternative basis for exercising jurisdiction – Can the Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7175/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC857,2025-06-13T22:43:06.129278 IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,26-04-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – r. 5 – Eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) – Protection of forest land – Issuance of directions by this Court, by protected forests-national park or wildlife sanctuary, to have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest, wherein the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9.2.2011 shall be strictly adhered to; that with respect to the Decision Date : 26-04-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC430,2025-06-13T22:40:22.414062 GAJANAND SHARMAversusAADARSH SIKSHA PARISHAD SAMITI & ORS.,19-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 100/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act, 1989 – s.18 – For termination from service, the approval of Director of Education required or not – Appellant-employee was terminated after a departmental enquiry – Tribunal set aside the order of termination by of the Director of Education as mandatory u/s. 18 of the Act, 1989 was not obtained – Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal and has set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the Single Judge and Decision Date : 19-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 100/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC58,2025-06-13T22:30:17.023122 ROOPWANTIversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.,24-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1904/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1904/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC157,2025-06-13T22:57:44.277734 BISHAMBHAR PRASADversusM/S. ARFAT PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND ORS,20-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2963/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, VIKRAM NATH Industrial Development – Industrial land – Appeals from judgment passed by the High Court whereby the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed – As a corollary, the decision by the Cabinet Committee of the State of instructions issued to the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (“RIICO”) to cancel a series of permissions and approvals granted/awarded to Respondent No.1 in respect of industrial land in Kota, Rajasthan, were set aside – Whether the Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2963/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC406,2025-06-13T22:42:51.942055 OM PRAKASH AHUJAversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC.,04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2769/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Insurance claim – Repudiation of – Denial of renewal of policy – On facts, pursuance to the health insurance policy, the claimant incurred expenses on the treatment of his wife for ovarian cancer – Claim for reimbursement the respondent-Insurance company, however, the same was repudiated on the ground of non- disclosure by the claimant that his wife was suffering from a rheumatic heart disease – Filing of complaint – Allowed by the District Forum and issuance of direction for renewal of the health Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2769/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC598,2025-06-13T22:39:03.418322 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.versusSATPAL & OTHERS ETC. ETC.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 18428/2021,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, HIMA KOHLI Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Determination – Land acquired and 5.3.2007 of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi in District Sonipat, Haryana – For land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 for villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for land acquired Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 18428/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC113,2025-06-13T23:00:26.350302 "CC AND CE AND ST, NOIDAversusM/S INTERARCH BUILDING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.",02-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11330/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Finance Act, 1994 – ss. 64,65(105)(zzq),65(105)(zzzza),66, 67 and 73 – Service (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 – Rule 2A – CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Payment of service tax – Liability for – Respondent–assessee was engaged in the business of steel buildings – They paid service tax under the category “commercial or industrial constructions services” as referred u/s.65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Respondent availed CENVAT credit and short paid the Service Tax in cash – Revenue was of the Decision Date : 02-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11330/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC476,2025-06-13T22:37:40.689935 KEKHRIESATUO TEP ETC.versusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,12-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 415/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 39, 40, 43D(5) – Bail under –Special Judge found that appellants had not voluntary succumbed to the demands of the organization and investigating agency admitted that accused persons were cooperating in investigation –Bail Special Judge – However, High Court reversed the order of the Special Judge – Before the Supreme Court, appellants contended that they were forced to make payments – Held: There are twin requirement under sub-section (5) of s. 43D – First one being that the public Decision Date : 12-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 415/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC362,2025-06-13T22:45:10.267684 P. SHYAMALAversusGUNDLUR MASTHAN,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1363/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Specific Relief Act, 1963 : s. 28 – Rescission of agreement to sell, the specific performance of which is decreed – On facts, agreement to sell the suit property between the late mother of the appellant and the respondent – Suit for specific performance by the respondent – and directed the respondent to deposit balance sale consideration, however, the respondent failed to pay the same – After 853 days the respondent filed an application u/s. 148 CPC and s. 28 of the Specific Relief Act for extension of time to deposit the balance amount – Trial court Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1363/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC162,2025-06-13T22:57:28.300643 THIRU K. PALANISWAMYversusM. SHANMUGAM & ORS.,23-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1392/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiதமிழ் - Tamil Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. THIRU K. PALANISWAMY versus M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. - [2023] 7 S.C.R. 11182023 INSC 156 DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY Injunction – Prayer for temporary injunction – Political Party – Party Constitution – Dispute inter-se in the political party – The topmost position in the party was earlier assigned to the General Secretary but, after the demise of the then General organisation went through various changes and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator – However, when the proposition for amendments of the byelaws, essentially to revert to the system of single leadership at the apex level, was likely to come up Decision Date : 23-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1392/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC156,2025-06-13T22:57:47.245987 SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWALversusTHE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,20-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1198/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Bail – A criminal complaint u/ss. 406, 407, 415 to 420, 120B r/w s.34 IPC was filed against six persons, including the appellant – Complaint was, that Farmax India Ltd. availed the services of the accused in raising Global Depository Receipts (GDRs), to the tune of INR the accused raised the said amount, they transferred to Farmax only a sum of INR 2.20 crores – According to the Enforcement Directorate, the appellant and the others had committed the offence of money-laundering – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was lodged – Decision Date : 20-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1198/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC408,2025-06-13T22:43:02.431282 STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusHEMENDHRA REDDY & ANOTHER. ETC.,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.B. PARDIWALA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 169, 173(2), 173(8) – Further Investigation – Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire prosecution instituted by the CBI against the accused persons for on the ground that the CBI could not have undertaken further investigation under sub- section (8) of s.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and filed a charge-sheet having once already submitted a final report under sub-section (2) of the s.173 of the CrPC (closure report) – Held: Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC460,2025-06-13T22:39:04.471315 M. K. RAJAGOPALANversusDR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER & ANR,03-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1682/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, VIKRAM NATH Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss. 12A, 29-A(e), 30(2)(e) & 30(6) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 36-A(2)(iii) – Disapproval of resolution plan by the Appellate resolution plan before CoC – Held: Is unexceptionable and calls for no interference – When the modified resolution plan, even if carrying minor modification /revision was not finally approved by CoC, its presentation to the Adjudicating Authority amounts to a material irregularity Decision Date : 03-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1682/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC486,2025-06-13T22:37:19.981959 HARENDRA RAIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.,18-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1726/2015,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: In a double murder case, wherein it was alleged that accused no.1-respondent no.2 had opened fi re from his rifl e resulting in injury to three persons, out of which two died, and the trial court had acquitted accused-respondent nos. 2 to 8 of all the charges, High Court in criminal revision, the issues before this Court were: (i) Whether the Supreme Court, in appeal against acquittal, could consider the High Court’s judgment dated 13.03.2007 passed in a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition (fi led pursuant to abduction of CW1, mother of one of the Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1726/2015 | Direction Issue : Acquittal of main accused reversed and matter listed for hearing on sentence. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC738,2025-06-13T22:35:50.028973 NORTHERN DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusRAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.,09-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 733/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land acquired u/s.4 of the Act, 1984 vide Notification dated 13.11.1959 – High Court, relying upon case of Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed writ petition filed by respondents and declared that acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the assessed compensation was never paid to the original owners or his acknowledged Decision Date : 09-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 733/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC107,2025-06-13T23:00:21.595874 ALPHA G184 OWNERS ASSOCIATIONversusMAGNUM INTERNATIONAL TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,15-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4718/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Consumer Protection Act, 1986: ss. 12(1)(a), 13(6) – Procedure on admission of a complaint – Joint complaint by numerous consumers without representative capacity – Permissibility of – On facts, appellant-association of allottees filed numerous possession, compensation for the delay and additional demands raised, against the respondent – Affidavits filed by the appellant along with the individual affidavits of the allottees – Writ petition by the respondent which was stayed by this Court – Nonetheless, the Decision Date : 15-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4718/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC536,2025-06-13T22:34:40.847956 RANVIR SINGH ETC. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,12-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1384/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, M.M. SUNDRESH Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 148, 302/149, 324/149, 304 Part-II – Acquittal under – Appellants-accused persons were charged of having committed an offence u/ss. 148, 302/149, 324/149 – Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-28) was recorded as an FIR, in pursuance of the information given by person ‘H’, in which he stated that he along with the other two persons (K and PW-12) was attacked by the appellants – The Statement of the H was recorded at the place of occurrence by PW-20 (Investigating officer) and later H died at the hospital – Trial Court Decision Date : 12-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1384/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC25,2025-06-13T22:32:27.527073 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION & ORS,14-03-2023,CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 345/2010,Dismissed,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case – Curative petitions filed by the Union of India seeking increase in the settlement amount – Held: Present petitions were filed by the Union of India 19 years post the settlement seeking to reopen the same – The very settlement was the need to provide immediate succour to the victims through medical relief, rehabilitation measures etc. – Without a settlement, immediate funds would not have been available for the victims – Finality was reached at an early stage by way of the settlement – Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 345/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC222,2025-06-13T22:53:45.393271 KASHIBAI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA,28-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 627/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 306 r/w 34 – Appellants-accused were convicted u/ss.498A, 306 r/w 34 and sentenced – Held: Deceased was subjected to harassment at the instance of appellants – Prosecution has successfully brought home the charges levelled against them for the However, it failed to adduce any clinching evidence to conclude that the appellants abetted the deceased to commit suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption u/s.113A, Evidence Act, and to hold the accused Decision Date : 28-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 627/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC722,2025-06-13T22:56:40.435104 SOUNDARAJANversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL,17-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Appellant-Sub-Registrar demanded gratification of Rs.500/- from the complainant-PW 2, for handing over the registered sale deed – Complaint filed – Trap laid witness PW-3, the appellant caught red-handed while accepting the bribe – However, complainant did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 7 and s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) – Upheld Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1592/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC377,2025-06-13T22:44:23.017490 P.C. MODIversusTHE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU VISHWA VIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER,13-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4267/2011,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) Whether a PTI/Sports Offi cer falls within the expression “teacher”. (ii) Whether the appellant (working as a sports offi cer/PTI) would have been entitled to continue in the service of the respondent No.1-University as a PTI the age of 62 years, at par with other teachers of the Vishwavidyalaya. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 – Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Statute, 1964 – Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (General Condition of Service Regulations, 1929) – The Decision Date : 13-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4267/2011 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1067,2025-06-13T22:49:04.803200 IN RE: FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA)versusIN RE: FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA),17-04-2023,SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2/2019,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Environment – Felling of trees – By order dated 29.11.2022, MMRCL was permitted to move the Tree Authority on its application for felling of 84 trees – On 02.01.2023, MMRCL, 185 trees, without moving Supreme Court – On 15.03.2023, the Superintendent of Gardens and Tree Officer granted permission for felling 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees, subject to the condition that 1533 trees would be planted on the property – The High Court held that propriety Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC381,2025-06-13T22:44:08.916702 STATE OF PUNJABversusPRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER,10-11-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1224/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: (i) Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills which have been passed by the State Legislature; (ii) Whether it is permissible in law for the Speaker to reconvene a sitting Sabha session which has been adjourned but has not been prorogued. Constitution of India – Art. 200 – The Governor is a symbolic head and cannot withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature: Held: The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted with certain Decision Date : 10-11-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1224/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1017,2025-06-13T22:37:03.234381 VISHAL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,02-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 162/2023,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 – r. 19A – Loss of the investor wealth in securities market – The Hidenburg Report – Investigation – The batch of petition in the instant case are regarding the loss of investor wealth in the securities market because in the share of the Adani Group of Companies because of the report published by one Hidenburg Reasearch in which it was alleged that the Adani Group of Companies has manipulated its share prices and also has failed to disclose the transaction with related parties in contravention of the Decision Date : 02-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 162/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC191,2025-06-13T22:55:24.512168 HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,05-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9697/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Forest Act, 1927: s. 4 – Declaration of reserved forest – Forest inhabitants – Right to be heard by Forest Officer – On facts, land in possession of the appellants-bhoomidars, declared as reserved forest – Initiation of eviction drive against the appellants – the appellant had a rightful claim over the said land – Writ petition by the Forest Department – Allowed by the High Court and directed eviction of the appellants – Review petition there against also dismissed – On appeal, held: Right of forest inhabitants to be heard on Decision Date : 05-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9697/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeals allowed and contempt petitions dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC600,2025-06-13T22:38:37.847822 AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETCversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,15-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 598/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/149, 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 161, 164 – The case of prosecution was that the accused persons, entered into the house of the PW-1 and her sister and had caused the death their family members – In the course of committing the offence, the accused persons also inflicted the injuries upon the PW-1 and her sister – Presuming them to be dead, the accused persons left the house – Thereafter, the PW-1 and her sister came out of the house shouting and Decision Date : 15-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 598/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC127,2025-06-13T22:59:20.598923 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusVIKAS MISHRA @ VIKASH MISHRA,10-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 957/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Application for default bail – Frustration of judicial process by conduct – Respondent was accused of having committed offence u/s 409/120B of IPC – On 16.04.2021, the respondent-accused was arrested by the CBI and was custody for a period of seven days i.e., till 22.04.2021 – However, during the said period the respondent-accused was admitted in the hospital and thus could not be interrogated by the CBI – Thereafter, he obtained interim bail on 21.04.2021 which came to be extended till 08.12.2021 Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 957/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC345,2025-06-13T22:47:22.161787 STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER & ORS.,10-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 859/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Just compensation –Determination of – Acquisition of land for public purpose – High Court awarded compensation for lands acquired vide notification dated 13.01.2010 at Rs.2,98,54,720/- per acre with all statutory benefits materially erred in taking into consideration and/or relying upon the earlier judgment of Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ram Chander which awarded Rs.2,38,00,000/- per acre for lands acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008 and then granting a cumulative increase of 12 % – Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 859/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC120,2025-06-13T23:00:00.658279 HARVINDER SINGH @ BACHHUversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,13-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 266/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witness despite contradictions, only because he was educated and a god fearing ss. 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 r/w s.34 – Murder and attempt to rape – High Court convicted the appellant for murder and attempt to rape, setting aside the order of acquittal by the trial court – Correctness: Held: Trial court gave substantial reasons for arriving at its Decision Date : 13-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 266/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC907,2025-06-13T22:40:54.640482 ASHOK KUMARversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,31-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4758/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s. 24 A – Insurance Claim – Repudiation of – Theft of insured vehicle of the appellant – FIR lodged by the appellant – Insurance company intimated about the theft on the sixth day – Complaint filed before the district forum alleging that the Insurance Company was delaying the settlement of the claim – During pendency, repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company – Thereafter, the complaint dismissed as withdrawn– Filing of the fresh complaint – Award of 75% of Decision Date : 31-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4758/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC659,2025-06-13T22:36:53.110959 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusKHAJAN SINGH & ANR.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 361/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S. 24(2) – High Court relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors observed that though possession of the land in paid, the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act – On appeal, held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in the Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 361/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC65,2025-06-13T22:29:41.011670 JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,13-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1012/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Assault by mob, Seven accused were convicted, including the present appellant-accused no.6, for the off ences punishable u/s. 396 r/w. s.149, s.395 r/w. s.149, s.307 r/w. s.149, s.435 r/w. s.149 and s.201 r/w. s.149 of the IPC. Accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 were conviction of appellant-accused no.6 justifi ed; (b) Whether conviction of accused no. 2, 3, 4 was justifi ed, when role ascribed to them was that they were part of mob. Evidence – Conviction of appellant-accused no.6 based on sole testimony of PW-2 – Propriety: Held: Considering Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1012/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC829,2025-06-13T22:44:38.369891 ASTHA GOPAL KHAKRAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,11-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7524/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court if erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar. Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation cation of) Caste Certifi cate Rules, 2012 – rr.3, 16 – Claim of the appellant as belonging to the Nomadic Tribe-Lohar, rejected – Legality: Held: For verifi cation of Caste status, the claimant was required to furnish the information mentioned in r.16 which specifi ed the Decision Date : 11-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7524/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC945,2025-06-13T22:41:15.759774 THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.versusH. B. KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST & ANR.,21-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2837/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Constitution of India – Art.30(1) – Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions – Respondent no.1- a minority institution was running a government aided school- respondent no. 2 – Decision of the appellants refusing to provide respondents towards the salary of the principal of the respondent no.2 on his attaining the age of superannuation as per the Grant-in-aid Code, if arbitrary or violative of Art.30(1) – Held: As per the Grant-in-Aid Code, the minority educational institutions like the respondents could not Decision Date : 21-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2837/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC147,2025-06-13T22:58:17.324220 QAMAR GHANI USMANIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT,10-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1045/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Default bail – Appellant-accused was arrested on 29.01.2022 – 90 days period u/s. 167 was to expire on 29.04.2022 – On 22.04.2022, IO prayed for extension of time to complete the investigation, to investigate by 30 days in absence of accused – The accused came to be informed about the extension on 23.04.2022 itself – On 22.05.2022, the IO again prayed for further extension, the same was allowed by 30 days – Second Extension was granted in the presence of the accused Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1045/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC337,2025-06-13T22:46:56.974898 U.P. SINGHversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,14-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5494/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court whether justifi ed in reversing the award of the Tribunal whereby it had accepted the prayer of the workman and the order deeming that he had voluntarily retired was set aside. Labour Laws – Workman was appointed as Clerk-cum- Cashier with Initially, he was working at Barabanki, thereafter, transferred to Zaidpur, Barabanki and then to Shahjanhanpur – Suspended on account of disorderly behaviour – On enquiry, was found guilty and awarded punishment of stoppage of two graded increments with cumulative eff ect vide order Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5494/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1077,2025-06-13T22:49:01.342925 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJENDER SINGH & ORS.,24-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1301/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S. 24(2) – Specific case on behalf of the DDA that possession of the lands in question were taken over and the compensation with respect to the said lands was sent in RD due to relying upon the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not Decision Date : 24-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1301/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC165,2025-06-13T22:57:45.316247 "M/S DHARTI DREDGING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR",01-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3005/2010,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Note 2 to Section XVII – Inapplicability of – Items excluded and denied the benefit of exemption notification, if integral parts of “Cutter Suction Dredger” – Appellant imported a Cutter Suction accessories and equipments including Pipes, Anchor Boats, Multicats, Dredging pumping units, Engines and other spares and accessories classified under the Chapter Heading 8905 10 00 of the 1975 Act – Claimed benefit of nil rate of duty under the notification – Assistant Decision Date : 01-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3005/2010 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC184,2025-06-13T22:56:04.663623 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusRATI RAM & ANR.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 399/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondents/original in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act – On appeal, held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in the case Indore Development Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 399/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC75,2025-06-13T22:29:27.195899 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANRversusVIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA,28-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1313/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR versus VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA - [2023] 5 S.C.R. 4852023 INSC 726 V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.426(2)(b), 427(2) – Interplay between – Held: While s.426 covers the case of an escaped convict, clause (b) of sub-section (2) thereof creates a conundrum in respect of life convicts – But s.427, though does not deal convict, provides enough room for finding out how a sentence imposed on a subsequent conviction, in respect of a life convict, should be handled – Application of s.427(2) by the High Court to the case on hand is perfectly in order – Detenu to be set at liberty – Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1313/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC726,2025-06-13T22:39:12.122991 THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusDEBABRATA TIWARI & ORS. ETC. ETC.,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8842/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Held: Existence of a policy issued by the State Government is a sine qua non for making appointments on compassionate basis – However, in the present case, there was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointment to posts under of West Bengal – Hence, in the absence of such a policy, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the respondents-heirs of the deceased employees who worked in the concerned municipalities – Further, the object for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8842/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC202,2025-06-13T22:55:06.801608 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBURHANI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT SNEH NAGAR AND OTHERS,03-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5071/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – ss. 50 and 54 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 5A and 6 – Indore Development Authority (IDA) passed a resolution u/s.50 of Act, 1973, declaring its intention to scheme providing for other connected land uses – IDA published the said scheme – State Government by order delegated its power to the District Collector to act as Under Secretary – IDA started mutual negotiations with the landowners for procurement of their land for the Decision Date : 03-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5071/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC200,2025-06-13T22:55:10.711898 PARANAGOUDA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER,19-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3274/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the courts below were justifi ed in convicting and sentencing the accused for the off ences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the accused u/s. be sustainable; and whether accused can be convicted for the off ence punishable u/s. 306 IPC though not charged for said off ence. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 498A, 304B rw s. 34, 306 – Cruelty against married women – Abetment of suicide - Accused-husband and in-laws subjected the Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3274/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC933,2025-06-13T22:39:20.620590 CHEN KHOI KUIversusLIANG MIAO SHENG & ORS.,13-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5849/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Registrar of Society, empowered to grant registration under West Bengal Societies Registration Act 1961, also has the power to cancel such registration. West Bengal Societies Registration Act 1961 – Power to review or cancel registration by the registrar who earlier granted the registration: Held: Registrar of the Society can cancel registration granted to the Society by exercising power of procedural review which is inherent within the authority who passed the order – There is no substantive power of review provided in the Decision Date : 13-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5849/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC827,2025-06-13T22:44:32.816421 SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTDversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,21-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 84/2016,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ - Santali Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 7672023 INSC 865 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in rejecting the challenge raised by the owner of coal mining colliery in Madhya Pradesh as regards the levy of terminal tax within the limits of the Municipal Council. Constitution of India – 243-ZC, Fifth Schedule Paragraph 5 – Law applicable to Schedule Area – Terminal tax – Levy of, within the limits of the Municipal Council – Challenge to, by the owner of coal mining colliery in Madhya Pradesh – Rejected by the High Court on the ground that the land Decision Date : 21-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 84/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC865,2025-06-13T22:43:35.972993 TOTTEMPUDI SALALITHversusSTATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.,18-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2348/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, VIKRAM NATH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Issues arose as to whether the debts in connection with the recovery certifi cate issued in the year 2015, could form subject matter of an application u/s.7 IBC; whether the the banks having approached the DRT, were barred under the doctrine of election from debts; and whether the date of default should go back to the date on which the loan account of the corporate debtor was declared as non-performing asset. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s. 7 – Debts in connection with the recovery certifi cate issued in the year 2015, if could Decision Date : 18-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2348/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC923,2025-06-13T22:40:06.295263 GOSTHO BEHARI DASversusDIPAK KUMAR SANYAL & ORS.,28-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4725/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : ss. 2, 12 – Contempt of Court – Punishment for – Appellant unauthorizedly constructed a structure which deviated the plans sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation – Demolition order passed, however, the same was not carried out by the against appellant – Order passed suspending the appellant’s licence to practice medicine – On appeal, held: Punishment of suspension of licence could not be given under the 1971 Act – Power to punish a registered medical practitioner for misconduct rest exclusively with Decision Date : 28-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4725/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC653,2025-06-13T22:37:02.315749 ASSOCIATION OF OLD SETTLERS OF SIKKIM AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.,13-01-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 59/2013,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA* Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.10(26AAA) – Sikkim Subjects Regulations, 1961 – rr.3 and 4 – Right to Equality – Prohibition of discrimination – Clause 26AAA to s.10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 granted exemption to “Sikkimese” people – Explanation to Definition of “Sikkimese” in Explanation to s.10(26AAA) to the extent it excludes the Indians, who have settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on 26.04.1975; and proviso to s.10(26AAA) insofar as it excludes from the exempted category “a Sikkimese woman, who Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 59/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC29,2025-06-13T22:31:41.349957 S. M. PASHA & ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,17-02-2023,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4428/2016,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL Constitution of India: Art. 136 – Special Leave Petition by the tenants in occupation of the premises – Respondent no. 5 filed two IAs for perjury and one IA challenging the termination of the development agreement – During the pendency of the proceedings, the of respondent No. 5 was terminated by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority – New development agreement in favour of another developer has been entered into as the new developer has been appointed – Petitioner’s case that in view of the changed circumstances the Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4428/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC131,2025-06-13T22:58:46.121410 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGI SINGH AND ORS.,20-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 366/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is – High Court held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that no physical possession was taken in respect of the suit land – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Impugned Judgment contrary to law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 366/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC66,2025-06-13T22:29:20.932217 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBATTI & ORS,22-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1918/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased – The deceased was alleged owner of the land with respect to which the land acquisition proceeding took place – Respondent approached the High Court contending that the possession of the land have not be taken and the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition has lapsed – The High Court found that as a matter of fact, the possession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune Decision Date : 22-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1918/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC276,2025-06-13T22:50:57.250926 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ANRversusANNASAHEB CHUDAMAN PATIL MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE & ORS,10-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 966/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Education/Educational institutions: MBBS courses – Admission – Respondent-Medical College was established in 1990 with an annual intake capacity of 100 seats for the MBBS degree course – recognition became due in 2021 – On 25 November 2021, a letter of permission was issued by which the application submitted by the Medical College for increase in the intake capacity from 100 to 150 MBBS seats for 2021-22 was approved, on a condition that it would be withdrawn if minimum Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 966/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC117,2025-06-13T23:00:03.470511 SHILPA SAILESHversusVARUN SREENIVASAN,01-05-2023,TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1118/2014,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SANJIV KHANNA, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, J.K. MAHESHWARI Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Scope and ambit of – Held: The power u/Art. 142(1) is undefined and uncatalogued, so as to ensure elasticity to mould relief to suit a given situation – The Supreme Court can depart from the procedure as well as the the decision is exercised based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy – While deciding whether to exercise discretion, the Court must consider the substantive provisions as enacted and not ignore the same, albeit the Court acts as a problem solver by balancing Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1118/2014 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC468,2025-06-13T22:38:10.492705 VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA,02-01-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 906/2016,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Demonetisation – Notification No. 3407(E) dated 8th November 2016 by which Central Government declared that the bank notes of denominations of the existing series of the value of five hundred rupees and one thousand rupees shall cease to be legal tender with effect 2016 – Act or policy of ‘demonetisation’ – Interpretation of sub-section (2) of s.26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Meaning of “any” series of “any” denomination – Power of the Central Government to initiate and carry out Decision Date : 02-01-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 906/2016 | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC2,2025-06-13T22:34:15.049153 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRversusMANJEET KAUR & ANR.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1458/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – It was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the original writ petitioner or subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition not dealt by the High Court – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & ors held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act on the ground that neither possession of Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1458/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC221,2025-06-13T22:54:29.845116 M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTDversusTHE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.,01-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5393/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 : ss. 33 and 34 – Revision – As regards, tax liability on mosquito repellant manufactured by the appellant, the Revisional Authority suo moto called for the assessment records of appellant as found that erred in levying tax on mosquito repellant @ 4% instead of 10 % – It issued show cause notices and passed final revisional order enhancing the liability of the appellant to tax @10% instead of 4% – Writ petition thereagainst – High Court relegated the appellant to the Decision Date : 01-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5393/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC92,2025-06-13T22:28:44.369683 ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAYversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,09-11-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 699/2016,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Writ petition in the nature of public interest sought expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Constitution of India – Art. 32 of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – Directions issued: Held: (i) Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 699/2016 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC991,2025-06-13T22:37:09.089153 MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST & ANRversusSH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.,11-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6801/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Adverse possession – Ownership/title to property – Appellant, owner of land forming part of khasra No. 4833 – Suit for possession alleging that respondents had encroached the said land – Respondent’s case possession for the last 34 years; that they had become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession and the suit property is not part of Khasra No. 4833 – Trial court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the appellants and the respondents ejected from the suit property Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6801/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC348,2025-06-13T22:45:58.609141 SIRAJUDHEENversusZEENATH & ORS,27-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1491/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 23, 23A, 24, 33 – Remand for trial de novo by the High Court – Justified or not – The two civil suits filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for cancellation of sale deed and for prohibitory injunction were dismissed, the two partition of respective properties were decreed – These four decisions were challenged by the respondent No.1 in the High Court by way of four appeals – The instant appeal is directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court, whereby the appeal filed by the Decision Date : 27-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1491/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC173,2025-06-13T22:56:50.208807 ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIAversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC,24-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA versus KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. ETC - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 11332023 INSC 1090 K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, B.V. NAGARATHNA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to application fi led by the appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by this Court in Crl App Enforcement Directorate, Government of India v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. Etc. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 167(2) – Judgment/order as regards grant of default bail – Clarifi cation of – Application by the appellant seeking clarifi cation of the judgment dated Decision Date : 24-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 701/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1090,2025-06-13T22:41:54.412988 ADITI ALIAS MITHIversusJITESH SHARMA,06-11-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3446/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The appellant-minor daughter of the respondent-father is aggrieved of the order passed by the High Court by which the maintenance for the appellant ₹ 20,000/- per month, was reduced to ₹7,500/- per month by the High Court. Maintenance – The High Court of maintenance from ₹20,000/- to ₹7,500/- – Propriety: Held: The manner in which maintenance payable u/s. 24 of the Hindu Mariage Act, 1955 or s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by the Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, [2020] 13 SCR Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3446/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC981,2025-06-13T22:37:56.341585 HEINZ INDIA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF KERALA,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2338/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 – Entry 79, 127 – Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – s. 3, Entry 20-(A) of Part C of First Schedule; Entry 1(iii) of Part-F of First Schedule – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – s. 3(aaa), 3(b) – Whether medicated talcum statutes in question, medicated talcum powder – In the first set of appeals, the revisional authority was of the view that the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority (levying tax at 8% on ‘Prickly heat powder’) was prejudicial to the interest of revenue by treating Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2338/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC488,2025-06-13T22:36:34.167457 K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE)versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS,03-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 77/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. [2023] 6 S.C.R. 572 572 K C CINEMA (CORRECT NAME K C THEATRE) v. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS (Civil Appeal No 77 of 2023) JANUARY 03, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Constitution of India – Article 226, the Multiplexes/Cinema Halls Owners of the State of J&K not to prohibit cinema goers/viewers from carrying his/her own food articles and water inside the theatre – Legality of – Held: Trade and business of operating cinema theatres is subject to regulation by the State Decision Date : 03-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 77/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC6,2025-06-13T22:33:16.296972 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA (THROUGH STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)versusSUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS,18-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2568/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Customs Act, 1962 creates a fi rst charge overriding the charge in favour of the secured creditor. Companies Act, 1956 – ss.529A, 530(1) – Customs duty ‘due and payable’ – ‘relevant date’ – Preferential payments u/clause (a) to s.530(1) – Customs Act if negates or overrides the statutory preference in terms of s.529A, Companies Act Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2568/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC746,2025-06-13T22:35:41.599866 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJIB KHAN & ORS.,16-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 172/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Service Law – Entitlement to Nursing allowance – Respondents were working as Nursing Assistants in BSF and were paid “Hospital Patient care Allowance” – Respondents claimed to be entitled to “Nursing Allowance” at par with Staff Nurses – Single Judge & Nursing Assistants, thus respondents are entitled to Nursing allowance – It also held that educational qualification cannot be a ground for denial of Nursing Allowance – Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-Union of India – Decision Date : 16-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 172/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC41,2025-06-13T22:30:58.929557 R SUNDARAMversusTHE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE & ORS.,17-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1770/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, KRISHNA MURARI Service Law – Scheduled Tribe – Community Certificate – Validity – Post Retirement Benefit – Effect – Appellant was appointed as clerk-cum-shroff in the respondent bank on the basis of the community certificate – The appellant served in service for 38 2 days of his superannuation, he received a cessation order on the ground that his caste certificate being false and all his retirement benefits except PF were withheld from him – Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached High Court – High Court remanded the matter back to the Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1770/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC249,2025-06-13T22:51:30.782406 PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.versusGAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER,13-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6380/2021,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, A.S. BOPANNA Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Compensation – Award of, in a flat buyer agreement – Payment to be borne by the developer or by the developer and Housing Board – On facts, in a dispute between the developer and the Housing Board as regards development agreement, directing that any amount payable on account of refund of price, interest or compensation (if and when finally determined by the National Commission/Supreme Court) would be borne by the developer and the Housing Board in the ratio of 70:30 – Award attained finality – However, the Decision Date : 13-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6380/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC370,2025-06-13T22:44:58.328320 SAURAV DASversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-01-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1126/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:ss. 173, 207 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 seeking direction to all the States to upload all chargesheets on public domain/websites – Held: Relief sought is contrary to scheme of CrPC – as victim and/or even the investigating agency – Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments – Chargesheet are not public documents u/s. 73 of the Decision Date : 20-01-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1126/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC76,2025-06-13T22:29:15.730000 LOK PRAHARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,27-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1141/2020,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Rule 39-AA – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 59, 94 and 128(1), amended by Act of 2003 – Challenge to r. 39-AA – Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of rule 39-AA on the ground that the said Art.14 of the Constitution and is also contrary to s.123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Held: The Constitution Bench in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India held that after the amendment, voting to the Council of States has undergone a material change and that the norm of Decision Date : 27-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1141/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC302,2025-06-13T22:49:00.500594 GUNA MAHTOversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND,16-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 108/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 201 – Murder – Prosecution case that husband murdered his wife and dumped her dead body in well to cause disappearance of evidence and later lodged missing report with the police – Conviction u/ss. 302 and 201 by the courts below – On appeal, Officer has, in the attending circumstances rendered the prosecution case to be doubtful if not false – Offence u/s. 201 could not have been proven without his examination – Courts below presumptively, proceeded with the acquired assumption of the guilt of the accused for the Decision Date : 16-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 108/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC240,2025-06-13T22:52:56.266954 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusVIJAY GUPTA & ORS,24-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1784/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowing the writ petition filed by respondents-subsequent purchasers declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by of the subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition/ lapsing of the acquisition – Held: A subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition – High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondents praying for Decision Date : 24-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1784/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC297,2025-06-13T22:49:31.128111 IN RE : T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,28-04-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Rejected,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Environmental Laws: Mining activities beyond the distance of one kilometer from the boundary of the Protected Area, irrespective of the fact that such an area falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone-ESZ – Permissibility of – Held: Some of the Sanctuaries, the ESZ areas are less than one kilometer, in some, it is as less as 500 meters or even less than 500 meters – Thus, it is clarified that even in case where the ESZ boundaries are less than one kilometer from the Protected Area, the ban on mining shall extend upto a distance Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Rejected | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC442,2025-06-13T22:39:56.735031 PINAK PANI MOHANTYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,29-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 191/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Directions – Union of India, sought directions to transfer an amount of Rs. 5,000 crores out of unutilized amount of Rs. 23,937 crores (lying in “Sahara-SEBI Refund Account) to be disbursed against the legitimate dues of depositors of Sahara – Held: The amount lying in the “Sahara- SEBI Refund Account” is unutilized and the genuine depositors of the Sahara Group of Cooperative Societies are entitled to get back their money, the prayer in application is reasonable and in the larger public interest/interest of the Decision Date : 29-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 191/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC320,2025-06-13T22:48:16.812311 ARNAB ROYversusCONSORTIUM OF NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITIES & ANR.,17-03-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1109/2022,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue specifi cally addressed by the petitioner relates to the facilities for candidates who intend to avail of a scribe in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2023. Rights Act, 2016 – Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., by an Office Memorandum dated 10.08.2022, guidelines have been formulated by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment: Held: Paragraph 4 of the Offi ce Decision Date : 17-03-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1109/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Writ petition and Miscellaneous Application disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC261,2025-06-13T22:51:50.935095 GAS POINT PETROLEUM INDIA LTD.versusRAJENDRA MAROTHI & ORS.,10-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 619/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, rules 64, 84, 85 and 86 – Execution proceedings – Decree passed in civil suit – Property of judgment debtor auctioned and sold on 03.11.2011 in favour of respondent No.1 for recovery of amount – Appellant filed objection that the property was purchased by him from judgment debtor on 31.08.1999 and they were in possession of the same – Executing Court overruled the objections – Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal and remitted the matter back to the Executing Court – Writ petition – Decision Date : 10-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 619/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC119,2025-06-13T22:59:57.252807 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORSversusNEERAJA PIPES PVT. LTD.,15-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 760/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Notices/Process: Mode of service of orders and notices – Non- service of notice/assessment order – Consequence of – Assessee alleged that the Revenue did not provide copies of assessment order and proceeded to claim tax as arrears and attached the properties of High Court, relying on r. 64 held that revenue did not have record evidencing the service of assessment order on the assessee; and that it was not clear on what basis revised notices as well as notices of attachment claiming arrears of tax from the assessee were issued, and thus set aside the Decision Date : 15-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 760/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC236,2025-06-13T22:53:07.420495 BTL EPC LTD.versusMACAWBER BEEKAY PVT LTD AND OTHERS,18-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5968/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The issue pertains to the pre-qualifi cation requirement for bidders, notifi ed by the contractor; and whether the bid submitted by the successful bidder was liable to be rejected on the ground that the it had entered into a consortium agreement was not registered with the competent authority in terms of the Public Procurement Order. Contract – Complex technical contract – Power of judicial review – Writ petition by the competing bidder challenging the contract awarded to the Decision Date : 18-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5968/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC864,2025-06-13T22:44:18.218784 ANBAZHAGANversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,20-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2043/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, J.B. PARDIWALA Penal Code, 1860 – Alteration of conviction from s. 304-I to s.304-II of IPC – Single injury – Prosecution case that appellant and deceased picked up verbal altercation in regard to the pathway and the appellant had inflicted one blow with a “Hoe”-a of which the victim fell unconscious and later died – Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s. 304-I of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years – High Court dismissed the appeal Decision Date : 20-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2043/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC632,2025-06-13T22:37:31.209531 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusM/S JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,06-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13771/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: All the appeals are by the revenue assailing orders of various high courts dismissing its appeals fi led u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – The core and common issue raised in all the appeals is u/s. 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing offi cer which was set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and upheld by the High Courts by accepting the contention of the assessee. Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80-IA – The assessing offi cer accepted the claim of the Decision Date : 06-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13771/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1053,2025-06-13T22:50:02.422237 ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusSM. RANJAN BALA DASI & ORS.,14-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7775/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, HIMA KOHLI Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.68, 69, 71 and 90 – Proof of Will – Held: Wills cannot be proved only on the basis of their age – The presumption u/s.90, Evidence Act as to the regularity of documents more than 30 years of age is inapplicable when it comes to proof of wills, which Succession Act and s.68, Evidence Act – There are often situations when wills which otherwise may have satisfied the requirements of being attested, as provided by law, cannot be proved in terms of the said two provisions, for the reason that the attesting witnesses are not available, Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7775/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC225,2025-06-13T22:54:06.845426 THANESAR SINGH SODHI (D) THR. LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,09-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5500/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Detention order passed under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 subsequently revoked/withdrawn, proceedings under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) become non est and untenable, as claimed. Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – s.2(2)(b) and its proviso – Application – Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 – ss.3, 9, 12 – Decision Date : 09-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5500/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC997,2025-06-13T22:37:27.165880 BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITAversusWALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. (WIL),10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6810/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, KRISHNA MURARI Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(3) – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.2(j) r/w s.4 – “period of limitation” – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.10 – Application u/s.34(3) – Filing of, after the expiry of 120 days but filed on the first – Last day of the condonable period of 30 days u/s.34(3) had fallen during the said vacation – Benefit of s.4, Limitation Act, if available – Held: No – Issue is not res integra – In Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Subash Projects and Marketing Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6810/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC335,2025-06-13T22:46:54.485575 YAMAL MANOJBHAIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,04-05-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 55/2023,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Customs Act, 1962 – ss.123, 127B – Seized goods specified u/s.123, remedy of settlement u/s.127B if available – Held: Per Krishna Murari, J. In cases of seizure within the customs area, s.123 cannot apply and the accused is entitled to the remedy of by the Bombay High Court in Suresh Raheja case states the correct position of law – Per Sanjay Karol, J. Proviso to s.127B(1) specifies certain categories of goods that are barred from the jurisdiction of the settlement commission including goods mentioned u/s.123 and goods relating to NDPS Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 55/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matter to be placed before Hon’ble CJI. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC498,2025-06-13T22:36:53.402471 SANDEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR,28-07-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2195/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – The appellant- informant (PW-9) moved an application u/s. 319 before the Trial Court to summon three additional accused persons, R, K and P, who were named in FIR but not in the charge-sheet by the appellant as assailants in his examination-in-chief during trial – The trial Court allowed the application and summoned the three accused persons – However, the High Court set aside the said order in revision – The revision was allowed for the reasons that R was Decision Date : 28-07-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2195/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC654,2025-06-13T22:37:04.510264 NAIM AHAMEDversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI),30-01-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AJAY RASTOGI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Penal Code, 1860 – ss.375, 376 – Conviction u/s.376, when not justified – Plea of the respondents was that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her but subsequently he did not was no consent in the eye of law and the case fell under the Clause- Secondly of s.375 – Held: In the present case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant- accused or under Decision Date : 30-01-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 257/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC85,2025-06-13T22:29:01.326684 "SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 6, BANGALORE",19-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8463/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, M.M. SUNDRESH Income Tax Act, 1961 : ss. 92, 92A to 92CA, 92D, 92E, 92F and 260 A – Transfer pricing matters – Arm length price, determination of – Arm length price, determined by the tribunal – Thereafter, determination of the arm’s length price by the of powers u/s. 260A – Permissibility of - Held: There cannot be any absolute proposition of law that in all cases where the tribunal has determined the arm’s length price the same is final and cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal u/s 260A – Decision Date : 19-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8463/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC394,2025-06-13T22:43:11.020732 B V SESHAIAHversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR,01-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Conviction of the Appellants – Revision filed before High Court – Meanwhile, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to settle the dispute, in terms thereof Respondent No.2 was bound to file a compromise Court, however he failed to do so – Revision dismissed by High Court, conviction of the Appellants confirmed – On appeal, held: This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation – Decision Date : 01-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC93,2025-06-13T22:28:37.029277 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusRAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1615/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, MANOJ MISRA Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 : s. 24(2) – Land acquisition when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petitioner’s case that possession of the agricultural land has been taken – Writ petition by the declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation’s case and on the ground that compensation has not been paid or tendered allowed the writ petition – Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1615/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC216,2025-06-13T22:54:33.347599 COX AND KINGS LTD.versusSAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.,06-12-2023,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 38/2020,Unknown,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: The primary issue for consideration of the present Constitution Bench of Five Judges was determination of the validity of the ‘Group of companies doctrine’ in and its applicability to proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Earlier, the Group of Companies doctrine had been adopted and applied in Indian arbitration jurisprudence in Chloro Controls case, where a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had read the said doctrine Decision Date : 06-12-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 38/2020 | Direction Issue : Referred questions of law answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In",,2023INSC1051,2025-06-13T22:50:05.432287 "JYOTIRMAY RAYversusTHE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.",06-11-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6611/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the denial of employer’s contribution of Provident Fund and non-payment of gratuity to the employee-appellant because of the order of compulsory retirement, as directed by the impugned order, is Retirement benefi ts – Payment of Provident Fund (employer’s contribution) and gratuity – Forfeiture of – Writ petition by Sr. Manager compulsorily retired, challenging denial of the benefi t of leave encashment, provident fund (employer’s contribution), gratuity Decision Date : 06-11-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6611/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC979,2025-06-13T22:38:07.276787 MANISH SISODIAversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,30-10-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3352/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The two appeals are fi led by the appellant- former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi seeking bail in the prosecutions arising from a case registered by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Penal Code, 1860; and enforcement the Directorate of Enforcement, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.45 – Requirement for grant of bail under: Held: Referring to s.45 of the PML Act, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary it was held that provision does not require Decision Date : 30-10-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3352/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC956,2025-06-13T22:38:31.243998 SANJAY DUBEYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER,11-05-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1466/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 – Power of High Court to issue additional directions/orders in bail pleas – FIR was filed against accused u/ss.376, 506, IPC; POCSO Act, SCST Act and IT Act –FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant- Inspectorwith a note that guidelines be undertaken however, the DNA examination was not carried out – In the meantime, the accused filed his bail plea – High Courtcalled for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith – Appellant was found guilty of dereliction of dutyand direction Decision Date : 11-05-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1466/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC519,2025-06-13T22:35:30.943278 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMGS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS,17-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 944/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL Right to far compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act –Before the Supreme Court, the appellant-DDA contended that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser, who admittedly purchased the property after the acquisition proceedings commenced and award was Decision Date : 17-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 944/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC135,2025-06-13T22:58:51.572879 AMEENA BEGUMversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.,04-09-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2706/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: An order of detention dated 24.03.2023 was passed by the Commissioner of Police against appellant’s husband. Whether the alleged acts of commission for which the Detenu has been kept under detention are prejudicial to ‘public order’ and whether factors weighed in the mind of the detaining authority leading to the conclusion that the Detenu is a habitual off ender and for prevention of further crimes by him, he ought to be detained. Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Off enders, Goondas, Immoral Decision Date : 04-09-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2706/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC788,2025-06-13T22:45:54.123124 ANSAR AHMADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.,18-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1168/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ANSAR AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. - [2023] 4 S.C.R. 5772023 INSC 725 SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA Bail – Bail applications filed by two respondents herein in a case crime u/ss.147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B and 34 IPC and ss. 3 & 4 of Explosive Substances Act before the High Court was granted – It was alleged that appellant’s son was killed in a contract killing – one of the respondents was allegedly present at the spot at the time of occurrence, the other respondent was a part of the conspiracy hatched to eliminate victim-deceased – On appeal, held: The offences were serious in nature and the respondents were allegedly involved in a contract Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1168/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC725,2025-06-13T22:43:34.810573 M/S MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTSversusTHE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,12-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4188/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Clubbing of two Institutions run by the same Society for the purpose of coverage under the EPF Act. The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Coverage under the EPF Act Institutes run by the same Society – Society ran two institutions including the appellant, in the same campus – One had 8 employees and the other had 18 – Report of the Enforcement Offi cer that there being total 26 employees working in both the Institutes, managed by the same Decision Date : 12-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4188/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC909,2025-06-13T22:41:14.476318 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.,19-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2934/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783 w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Decision Date : 19-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2934/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC396,2025-06-13T22:43:13.504262 "COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, KANPURversusM/S. A. R. POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ETC.",21-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9569/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Central Excise Act, 1944 – s.4(A) – Interpretation of – Goods sold by the respondent if eligible to claim tax benefits within the purview of the notification u/s.4(A) – Held: While the goods in the impugned sale were notified u/s.4(A) by way of an r.3(b) of the 2011 Rules exempts the sale to institutional consumers from its purview – In the present case, the purchasers are military and paramilitary institutions, who purchase the goods in bulk from the respondent, and then further distribute it to their employees – Thus, Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9569/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC268,2025-06-13T22:51:12.408495 NARENDRASINH KESHUBHAI ZALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,16-03-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1179/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 25(1) A, 27(2) – Acquittal of accused – Appellant was accused of having committed the murder of the victim-deceased by shooting at him while he was sitting on a Nala with PW-3 – FIR charge-sheet was filed and the appellant was put on trial – Trial Court convicted the appellant on the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW-3) and such conviction was upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable, Decision Date : 16-03-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1179/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC241,2025-06-13T22:53:02.822909 MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN & ANRversusU P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS IN THE MATTER OF: STATE OF HARYANA,26-09-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1867/2006,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The State of Haryana sought a direction that it should be permitted to conduct the entire selection process of recruiting judicial offi Service Commission and the order dated 12.02.2009 should be modifi ed to facilitate this exercise. Judicial Service – Selection process – State Government sought selection process of recruiting judicial offi cers to be done through the Public Service Commission – State Decision Date : 26-09-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1867/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : IA No. 53466 of 2022. IA dismissed. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC860,2025-06-13T22:43:04.574919 MAKKELLA NAGAIAHversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,05-09-2023,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 429/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MAKKELLA NAGAIAH versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - [2023] 12 S.C.R. 2502023 INSC 800 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANJAY KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Claim of petitioner for juvenility after conviction u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Petitioner and other co-accused convicted u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – SLP also dismissed – Petitioner claimed juvenility – The Sessions Judge was directed to conduct an enquiry and to submit the report: Held: The Additional Sessions Judge submitted the report after Decision Date : 05-09-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 429/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC800,2025-06-13T22:45:41.125480 "SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE AND OTHERSversusTHE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND ANR.",18-08-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5262/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the order passed by the High Court denying the appellants-mother and her children, the entitlement to payable on the demise of her husband-military personnel is sustainable, where the military personnel contracted a marriage with the appellant and two children born from their relationship, during subsistence of his marriage with the legally wedded wife but, subsequently a decree of divorce was Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5262/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC744,2025-06-13T22:35:55.616663 VIRENDRASINGversusTHE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND ORS.,17-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1715/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, ARAVIND KUMAR Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 : ss. 16(1)(i), 40 – Disqualification – Appellant elected as a member of the Zilla Parishad – Petition by respondent no.3 u/ss. 40 and 16(1)(i) claiming appellant’s disqualification that the appellant had misused his elected post for gaining undue personal financial benefit whereby in E-tender floated for the project, work order was issued in favour of the appellant’s son – Application allowed by Divisional Commissioner – Writ petition thereagainst dismissed Decision Date : 17-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1715/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC372,2025-06-13T22:44:03.856342 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNARENDRA KUMAR JAIN & ORS.,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3340/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court declared that the land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – It was the case on behalf possession of the land was taken over and the original writ petitioners are not the recorded owners, they were subsequent purchasers – However, High Court allowed the writ petition relying on the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust – On appeal, held: The decision in Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3340/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC501,2025-06-13T22:36:48.083734 XversusM/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS.,16-10-2023,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2157/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Petition under Article 32 fi led for directions to the respondents to permit a medical termination of the Petitioner’s ongoing pregnancy. Relief sought, if can be granted; and jurisdiction under which this Court is adjudicating this case. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – ss.3(2B), 5 – According to the Petitioner, she did not discover that she was pregnant until after twenty weeks of the pregnancy had elapsed because she had lactational amenorrhea Decision Date : 16-10-2023 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2157/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Petition and application disposed of | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC919,2025-06-13T22:40:46.194832 DASANGLU PULversusLUPALUM KRI,19-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3710/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: Whether the indication made by the appellant-returned candidate in Form-26, as ‘not applicable’ in the column relating to ‘spouse’, in the facts of the present case would amount to non-disclosure of the properties owned by her spouse; and to a defect of substantial character requiring rejection of the nomination papers of a successful candidate after the election as having materially aff ected the result. Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.100(1)(d)(iv) – Appellant- returned candidate and her late husband who Decision Date : 19-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3710/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC930,2025-06-13T22:39:50.959960 NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.versusSUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.,10-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1987/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. versus SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. - [2023] 2 S.C.R. 7882023 INSC 339 M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the private respondent-writ petitioner proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – Department’s case that the possession of the subject land was taken over and used by the Department prior to 2013 and the compensation was not paid – High Court held the acquisition is Decision Date : 10-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1987/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC339,2025-06-13T22:46:31.968693 JITENDRA KUMAR RODEversusUNION OF INDIA,24-04-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, SANJAY KAROL Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974: s. 385 – Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily – Conviction and sentence of the appellant-Assistant Commercial Manager, Northern Railway u/s. 7 of PC Act by the trial court – In appeal before the High Court though the record record of the matter before trial court has been lost and is not traceable and the documents sent as reconstructed documents do not constitute the relevant trial court record, the High Court upheld the conviction despite going into the merits – Legality of – Held : Accused, in appeal, Decision Date : 24-04-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC419,2025-06-13T22:42:13.267191 BACHPAN BACHAO ANDOLANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,18-08-2023,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 427/2022,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, ARAVIND KUMAR HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The role of a ‘support person’ as envisaged in the Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Rules, 2020. Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 – Protection of Children from Sexual Off ences Rules, 2020 – Role of HELD: A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child – This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings Decision Date : 18-08-2023 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 427/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC745,2025-06-13T22:35:57.243926 THE DIRECTOR (ADMN. AND HR) KPTCL & ORS.versusC.P. MUNDINAMANI & ORS.,11-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2471/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1997 – Regulation 40(1) – As per Regulation 40(1) an increment accrues from the day following that on which it is earned – Appellant-KTCL denied the annual increment to on the ground that the day on which the increment accrued, the respondents were not in service – Whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment – Held: Merely because, Decision Date : 11-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2471/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC352,2025-06-13T22:46:05.805896 GANESH PRASADversusRAJESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.,14-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1699/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, J.B. PARDIWALA Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI, R.17 – Or. IX, R.8,9 – Respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against the appellant- defendant for a declaration that respondents are the lawful owners of the suit property and decree of eviction on the ground of non- payment of rent and written statement stating that the father of the respondent-plaintiff was mortgagor of the suit property who executed a mortgage deed in favour of father of appellant- defendant (mortgagee) and that is how his father was put in possession of the suit property and suit should fail as mortgage was Decision Date : 14-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1699/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC228,2025-06-13T22:53:28.953527 JUHRU & ORSversusKARIM & ANR.,21-02-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 549/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, J.K. MAHESHWARI Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Additional accused – Summoning of –Appeal filed by the father-in- law(appellant no.1), sister-in-law(appellant no.2), and brother-in- law(appellant no.3) of the deceased against the High Court judgment wherein the High Court accused – Earlier, respondent no. 1 (brother of the deceased woman) had filed an FIR u/s 304B, 498A, 406, 323 and 34 IPC against the husband of the deceased, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the abovementioned appellants – The investigating agency did not find any Decision Date : 21-02-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 549/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC148,2025-06-13T22:58:13.738180 "COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHERversusM/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.",04-07-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6033/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Central Excise Act, 1944: s. 11A – Demand for differential duty of excise – Invocation of extended period of limitation – Allegation that the assessee incorrectly determined the assessable goods by not including the monetary value of the duty benefits that it had obtained from its customers as a result of the transfer of the advance licenses – Demand of differential duty during the material period by the Department invoking the extended period of limitation available Decision Date : 04-07-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6033/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC591,2025-06-13T22:38:55.910842 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSversusRACHNA HILLS & ORS.,27-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1882/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA 969 969 THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. v. RACHNA HILLS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1882 of 2023) APRIL 27, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.] Service Law: Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921: ss. 16-E, 16-FF – Appointment of of Schools-DIOS for approval – However, before the grant of the requisite approval, Regn 17 was amended, prescribing a new selection procedure – Thereafter, DIOS returned the proposal for compliance with the new procedure – Writ petitions challenging the decision of DIOS Decision Date : 27-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1882/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC441,2025-06-13T22:40:09.905883 ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS,21-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6805/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI Constitution of India: Art. 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Abolition of, by Notification No. GSR 552(E) dt 2 August 2019 – Constitutional Validity of the Notification – Held: Abolition of OAT is constitutionally valid – Challenge validity of the impugned notification dated 2 August 2019 by which the OAT was abolished is rejected - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s. 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 21. Article 226 – Odisha Administrative Tribunal-OAT – Abolition of – Decision Date : 21-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6805/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC271,2025-06-13T22:51:19.868348 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusM/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANR.,28-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8980/2012,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968– s.16-B– Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.35–Held: s.16-B of the HPGST Act is not ultra vires any provision of law – It is legislation and is not ultra vires the Constitution and/ or the Banking Companies Act as erroneously held in the decision of the High Court impugned in CA No.9212 of 2012– Further, in view of the decision in Central Bank of India case, any observation in the decision impugned in CA No.8980 Decision Date : 28-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8980/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC446,2025-06-13T22:39:41.608558 "THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT & ORS.versusRATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ORS.",13-01-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8550/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Contract: Rights and liabilities of the parties stand crystallized on the date of entering into the agreement – In the instant case, appellant and respondent No.1 entered into agreement dated 22.05.2012 which categorically No.1 would pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 per hectare towards irrigation restoration charge – On the same day, respondent No.1 also gave an undertaking that it would pay the stipulated sum within a specific period of time – Thus, right from the very beginning i.e., in the sanction order, Decision Date : 13-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8550/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC33,2025-06-13T22:31:29.593484 UNION OF INDIAversusUZAIR IMRAN & ORS.,11-10-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6668/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the concurrent fi ndings returned by the tribunal and the High Court that denial of appointment to the third respondent was unwarranted, is justifi ed. Service Law – Appointment/selection – Post of Postal Assistant – Third respondent merit list, sent for training but later excluded on basis of the certifi cate of educational qualifi cation, whereby he completed 10+ 2 education from the vocational stream – Tribunal and the High Court decided in favour of the respondent – Correctness: Held: Third respondent was not Decision Date : 11-10-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6668/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC901,2025-06-13T22:41:20.330473 M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALversusGOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE) AND ORS.,04-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8486/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – ss.14, 15 – Finance Act, 1988 – Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Chapter 21, 24 of the Schedule – Additional Duties of Excise Importance) Act, 1957 – Finance Act, 2001 – Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 – Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 – Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Taxability of pan masala or gutka/gutkha under the aforesaid State enactments – Whether pan masala was an Decision Date : 04-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8486/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC487,2025-06-13T22:36:24.520540 SHINHAN BANKversusCAROL INFO SERVICES LIMITED,13-03-2023,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 1/2019,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss.7, 8 – Arbitration agreement – Leave and License agreement as also amenties agreement between the petitioner and the respondent – Disputes between Invocation of Arbitration clause by the petitioner by Proposing appointment of a sole arbitrator for settlement of disputes – However, denial of existence of an arbitration agreement by the respondent – Case of the respondent that the Amenities agreement contained an arbitration Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 1/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC217,2025-06-13T22:54:19.942029 RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,20-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8819/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KRISHNA MURARI*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Land Acquisition Act, 1894– U.P. Land Acquisition (determination of compensation and declaration of award by agreement) Rules, 1997 – Payment of compensation – Classification of landholders as Pushtaini or Gair-Pushtaini Held: Classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the purposes of awarding differential compensation is bad in law – Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners – Classification made between Decision Date : 20-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8819/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC144,2025-06-13T22:58:36.998291 SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR.versusMADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS,15-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1854/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The trial Court referred the matter to arbitration and the said decision was upheld by the High Court. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly referred the matter to arbitration or the dispute is of such a liable to be referred to arbitration, as there was no arbitration clause in the Conveyance Deed dated 17.12.2019 or if there was, yet the matter in any case is such that it is not arbitrable. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – A civil suit was fi led by the appellants-plaintiff s Decision Date : 15-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1854/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1081,2025-06-13T22:48:40.246539 K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS,01-02-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3626/2020,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"K.M. JOSEPH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA Environment Protection Act, 1986 – 2011 Notification issued under the 1986 Act – Respondent No.1 granted ex post facto clearance to the appellant purportedly invoking paragraph-4.3 of the aforesaid Notification, for laying of pipeline for the the Chennai Port to the storage terminal tank and for the establishment of the storage transit terminal – NGT held that the activity of putting up a storage tank transit terminal being contrary to the 2011 Notification was illegal as the storage terminal was not located ‘in’ Decision Date : 01-02-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3626/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC91,2025-06-13T22:28:40.438254 SATBIR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,29-08-2023,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2634/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Courts below, if justifi ed in rejecting the application of the appellant u/s.311, CrPC for his recall as a witness in the trial for further examination. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – Power under – Exercise of – Appellant fi accused-ex-employees of his company had stolen company data and used it to manufacture equipment, which was manufactured by his company – Evidence of the appellant was recorded before the CFSL Report came – Though, the CFSL expert in his examination described the data found on the Decision Date : 29-08-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2634/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC786,2025-06-13T22:46:29.220055 PUNJAB AND SIND BANKversusFRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD,18-04-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2924/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, ARAVIND KUMAR Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s. 34 – Respondent purchased the suit property wherein the appellant-bank was inducted as a tenant by the previous owner in the ground floor of Respondent availed various credit facilities from the appellant-bank to the tune of Rs.42.74 crore by mortgaging, inter alia, the suit property as collateral – Thereafter, a purported settlement agreement, dated 29.11.2010, filed in the ejectment suit which was filed earlier by the previous Decision Date : 18-04-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC386,2025-06-13T22:43:44.837972 GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITEDversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.,01-05-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3259/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DINESH MAHESHWARI*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.8 – Arbitrability of the dispute in question – Held: Except the principal licence agreement, none of the other agreements contained any arbitration clause, even if they related to the same property and also involved the appellant and the original licence agreement is said to be the genesis of the contractual relations of the appellant and the respondent No.1, that does not ipso facto lead to the availability of the arbitration agreement in relation to the dispute in question emanating from the tripartite agreement and which cannot Decision Date : 01-05-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3259/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC470,2025-06-13T22:38:05.313941 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSIDDHARTH KAPOOR & ORS.,13-03-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1596/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.R. SHAH*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. and declared with respect to the land in question deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – It is the specific case of the appellant-State that the possession of the land was taken – Held: The case relied on by High Court has been overruled by the subsequent Constitution Decision Date : 13-03-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1596/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC215,2025-06-13T22:54:51.896346 UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusAIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL,14-12-2023,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14524/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus AIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL - [2023] 16 S.C.R. 10262023 INSC 1074 ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal could have issued a direction to the Government to frame a policy for filling up the post of Judge Advocate General (Air) and; whether the Tribunal could have directed that the Respondent would capacity despite non-acceptance of the Promotion Board’s recommendation till such time that the policy is framed by the Government and be given an opportunity for consideration by the promotion board constituted under such new policy. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Jurisdiction of Decision Date : 14-12-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14524/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2023INSC1074,2025-06-13T22:48:50.560670 VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR,25-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2015,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sustainablility of the findings of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34 IPC; as also the approach of the High Court, if in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brother- in-law of the victim – Conviction and Decision Date : 25-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VIJAY SINGH @ VIJAY KR. SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1082024 INSC 735Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards sustainablility of the findings of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34 IPC; as also the approach of the High Court, if in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brother- in-law of the victim – Conviction andDecision Date :25-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2015| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC735,2025-06-12T21:53:32.987911 MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.versusBRAJRAJNAGAR COAL MINES WORKERS’ UNION,12-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4092/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the reference of an industrial dispute when a binding settlement under Section 18 (1) read with Section 19(2) and Section 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was arrived at between Act, 1947-Section 10 - Reference of disputes; Section 18 (1) read with Section 19(2) - Settlement binding on all parties. 32 workers, working continuously for 10 years, sought regularisation on the basis of Clause 11.5.1 and Clause 11.5.2 of the National Wage Agreement IV - Settlement arrived Decision Date : 12-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4092/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeals dismissed with directions | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD.versusBRAJRAJNAGAR COAL MINES WORKERS’ UNION-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 6272024 INSC 199Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the reference of an industrial dispute when a binding settlement under Section 18 (1) read with Section 19(2) and Section 36 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was arrived at between Act, 1947-Section 10 - Reference of disputes; Section 18 (1) read with Section 19(2) - Settlement binding on all parties. 32 workers, working continuously for 10 years, sought regularisation on the basis of Clause 11.5.1 and Clause 11.5.2 of the National Wage Agreement IV - Settlement arrivedDecision Date :12-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4092/2024| Direction Issue :Appeals dismissed with directions| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC199,2025-06-12T21:53:27.309986 NARESH KUMAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.,12-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1510/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Refusal by High Court to quash criminal proceedings against Appellants/Accused arising out of a civil transaction between Appellants and Respondent No.2, if justified. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Powers of the High Court under filed by Respondent No.2 against Appellants – Appellants, employees of a bicycle manufacturing company engaged Respondent No.2 for assembling, transporting and delivering bicycles – Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the fact of payment not being commensurate with the service rendered - FIR Decision Date : 12-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1510/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NARESH KUMAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7402024 INSC 196Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Refusal by High Court to quash criminal proceedings against Appellants/Accused arising out of a civil transaction between Appellants and Respondent No.2, if justified. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Powers of the High Court under filed by Respondent No.2 against Appellants – Appellants, employees of a bicycle manufacturing company engaged Respondent No.2 for assembling, transporting and delivering bicycles – Respondent No.2 aggrieved by the fact of payment not being commensurate with the service rendered - FIRDecision Date :12-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1510/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC196,2025-06-12T21:53:41.068725 HARESH SHANTILAL AVLANI & ANRversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,12-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4029/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. HARESH SHANTILAL AVLANI & ANR versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 10092024 INSC 251 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to fixing of the age of the deceased for applying a multiplier for the purposes of computing the compensation payable to the claimants. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Determination of – Calculation of multiplier, age of the deceased or the age of the dependents: Held: It is the age of the deceased which ought to be taken into consideration and not the age of the dependents for arriving at the multiplier – High Court erred in returning findings to the effect that the age of dependents of the deceased Decision Date : 12-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4029/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.HARESH SHANTILAL AVLANI & ANRversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10092024 INSC 251Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to fixing of the age of the deceased for applying a multiplier for the purposes of computing the compensation payable to the claimants. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Determination of – Calculation of multiplier, age of the deceased or the age of the dependents: Held: It is the age of the deceased which ought to be taken into consideration and not the age of the dependents for arriving at the multiplier – High Court erred in returning findings to the effect that the age of dependents of the deceasedDecision Date :12-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4029/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC251,2025-06-12T21:53:29.698551 STATE BANK OF INDIAversusINDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,27-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10424/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE BANK OF INDIA versus INDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 3842024 INSC 774 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, MANOJ MISRA 384 : 2024 INSC 774 State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited (Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024) 27 September 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Manoj Misra, J.] Issue for Consideration The issue which arises for consideration is the interpretation of Rule 50 of the National 2016 – Rule 50 – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 22 – Interpretation of: Held: Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order – Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules prescribes Decision Date : 27-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10424/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE BANK OF INDIAversusINDIA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 3842024 INSC 774Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, MANOJ MISRA384 : 2024 INSC 774 State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Limited (Civil Appeal No. 10424 of 2024) 27 September 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Manoj Misra, J.] Issue for Consideration The issue which arises for consideration is the interpretation of Rule 50 of the National 2016 – Rule 50 – National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 – Rule 22 – Interpretation of: Held: Rule 22(2) of the NCLAT Rules requires that every appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order – Rule 50 of the NCLT Rules prescribesDecision Date :27-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10424/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC774,2025-06-12T21:53:24.930705 SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORSversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.,14-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any interim order. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for anticipatory bail was filed in November 2022 and brought up for hearing on 04.04.2023, on which it was dismissed – Meanwhile, proclamation was issued u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2023 and thereafter process u/s.83 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 15.03.2023 – The core Decision Date : 14-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORSversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4212024 INSC 202Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any interim order. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Application for anticipatory bail was filed in November 2022 and brought up for hearing on 04.04.2023, on which it was dismissed – Meanwhile, proclamation was issued u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. on 04.01.2023 and thereafter process u/s.83 Cr.P.C. was initiated on 15.03.2023 – The coreDecision Date :14-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC202,2025-06-12T21:53:18.856236 DABLU KUJURversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND,12-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 12-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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, asDecision Date :12-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1511/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC197,2025-06-12T21:53:25.341068 RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ORS.,17-05-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 432/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 432/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.226Decision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 432/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC436,2025-06-12T21:53:34.570462 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.,17-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6798/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1 and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1, public interest pandemic, suppression of material facts by the landowners, leeway to be granted to government entities etc. Headnotes† Land Acquisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6798/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusTEJPAL & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 12112024 INSC 456Coram : SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1 and Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1, public interest pandemic, suppression of material facts by the landowners, leeway to be granted to government entities etc. Headnotes† Land Acquisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Decision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6798/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC456,2025-06-12T21:53:32.296579 ANISH M RAWTHER @ ANEES MOHAMMED RAWTHERversusHAFEEZ UR RAHMAN & ORS.,14-06-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4120/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 14-06-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4120/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 passDecision Date :14-06-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4120/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC460,2025-06-12T21:53:16.695542 JANARDAN DAS & ORS.versusDURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.,26-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 613/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JANARDAN DAS & ORS. versus DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS. - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 778 VIKRAM NATH, PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court. Decision Date : 26-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 613/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JANARDAN DAS & ORS.versusDURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 778Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court.Decision Date :26-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 613/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC778,2025-06-12T21:53:28.583667 MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,27-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10913/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATIL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 7702024 INSC 762 SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Appellant-Sarpanch was removed from office on the allegations of encroachment of government land by her. Whether the disqualification of the appellant was justified. Headnotes† Women representatives in elected bodies – Prejudicial treatment at all levels of – Allegations made by the private respondents as regards encroachment of government land by the appellant, a female Sarpanch – Mechanical orders passed by authorities, appellant removed from office – Removal affirmed by High Court – Justification: Held: There is no Decision Date : 27-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10913/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANISHA RAVINDRA PANPATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 7702024 INSC 762Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Appellant-Sarpanch was removed from office on the allegations of encroachment of government land by her. Whether the disqualification of the appellant was justified. Headnotes† Women representatives in elected bodies – Prejudicial treatment at all levels of – Allegations made by the private respondents as regards encroachment of government land by the appellant, a female Sarpanch – Mechanical orders passed by authorities, appellant removed from office – Removal affirmed by High Court – Justification: Held: There is noDecision Date :27-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10913/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Direction Issue :In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC762,2025-06-12T21:53:26.608578 ATUL KUMARversusTHE CHAIRMAN (JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS,30-09-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 609/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ATUL KUMAR versus THE CHAIRMAN (JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1502024 INSC 749 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to Schedule caste category student who lost his admission to IIT since he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500/- by a few minutes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142 under – Indian Institute of Technology IIT-Admission – Schedule caste category student allotted seat in Electrical Engineering course at IIT – Took all steps to comply with all formalities pursuant to the allotment to him of a seat for the course, however, lost his admission to Decision Date : 30-09-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 609/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ATUL KUMARversusTHE CHAIRMAN (JOINT SEAT ALLOCATION AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1502024 INSC 749Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to Schedule caste category student who lost his admission to IIT since he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500/- by a few minutes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142 under – Indian Institute of Technology IIT-Admission – Schedule caste category student allotted seat in Electrical Engineering course at IIT – Took all steps to comply with all formalities pursuant to the allotment to him of a seat for the course, however, lost his admission toDecision Date :30-09-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 609/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC749,2025-06-12T21:53:19.844974 "THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNLversusSUBHASHCHANDRA & ORS.",12-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4053/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 – Decision Date : 12-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4053/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 –Decision Date :12-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4053/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC208,2025-06-12T21:53:32.919867 SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.,14-03-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 562/2009,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 12912024 INSC 267 SANJIV KHANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration Various applications were filed before the Hon’ble Court seeking directions pertaining to demarcation of land for mining leases, implementation of R & R [Reclamation and Rehabilitation] Plans, imposition of a Maximum permissible annual production ceiling for mining leases, etc. Headnotes Environmental Law – Background of illegal mining in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka – Temporary ban on mining in the said Districts – Subsequent imposition of production ceiling on mining leases, Decision Date : 14-03-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 562/2009 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Directions issued in IAS Main Writ Petition pending. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12912024 INSC 267Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration Various applications were filed before the Hon’ble Court seeking directions pertaining to demarcation of land for mining leases, implementation of R & R [Reclamation and Rehabilitation] Plans, imposition of a Maximum permissible annual production ceiling for mining leases, etc. Headnotes Environmental Law – Background of illegal mining in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur in Karnataka – Temporary ban on mining in the said Districts – Subsequent imposition of production ceiling on mining leases,Decision Date :14-03-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 562/2009| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Direction Issue :Directions issued in IAS Main Writ Petition pending.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC267,2025-06-12T21:53:15.980152 V. VINCENT VELANKANNIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,30-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8617/2013,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 – Decision Date : 30-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8617/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 –Decision Date :30-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8617/2013| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC748,2025-06-12T21:53:22.246217 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusM/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR.,17-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6604/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 DELHI & ANR. versus M/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 11592024 INSC 455 SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration a) Whether the dismissal of a civil appeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operates as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round before this Court; b) Whether suppression of the first round of litigation by the fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the threshold; c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the present case; d) Whether the previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an inter se dispute precludes the Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6604/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeals and Miscellaneous applications disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 DELHI & ANR.versusM/S BSK REALTORS LLP & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 11592024 INSC 455Coram : SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration a) Whether the dismissal of a civil appeal preferred by one appellant in the first round operates as res judicata against the other appellant in the second round before this Court; b) Whether suppression of the first round of litigation by the fact, thereby inviting an outright dismissal of the appeals at the threshold; c) Does the doctrine of merger operate as a bar to entertain the civil appeals in the present case; d) Whether the previous determination of the rights of subsequent purchasers in an inter se dispute precludes theDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6604/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeals and Miscellaneous applications disposed of.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC455,2025-06-12T21:53:20.789207 TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITEDversusTAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION & ANR.,17-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6511/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 would apply to the parties; whether the Corporation can be termed as an industrial establishment of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947; and whether the members of the Union would qualify as workmen and thus, would be eligible for permanent status u/s. 3 of the Act; and whether the suggestion to institute an ‘Industrial Disputes Claim’ questioning Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6511/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeal filed by the Corporation dismissed. Appeal filed by the Union allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITEDversusTAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5962024 INSC 446Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 would apply to the parties; whether the Corporation can be termed as an industrial establishment of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947; and whether the members of the Union would qualify as workmen and thus, would be eligible for permanent status u/s. 3 of the Act; and whether the suggestion to institute an ‘Industrial Disputes Claim’ questioningDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6511/2024| Direction Issue :Appeal filed by the Corporation dismissed. Appeal filed by the Union allowed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC446,2025-06-12T21:53:27.691261 THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.versusPARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN,12-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4618/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to expunction of the observation by the High Court in an interim order that statutory protection contemplated u/s. 157 of the GST Act, in the nature of a good faith clause, not available to the officers of the State conducting search as not” justify protection. Headnotes Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s. 157 – Protection of action taken under this Act – Interim order by the High Court, criticising the prolonged stay of the search party at the residence of the respondents as unauthorized and Decision Date : 12-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4618/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 GUJARAT & ANR.versusPARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 11412024 INSC 277Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to expunction of the observation by the High Court in an interim order that statutory protection contemplated u/s. 157 of the GST Act, in the nature of a good faith clause, not available to the officers of the State conducting search as not” justify protection. Headnotes Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s. 157 – Protection of action taken under this Act – Interim order by the High Court, criticising the prolonged stay of the search party at the residence of the respondents as unauthorized andDecision Date :12-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4618/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC277,2025-06-12T21:53:35.944294 LAKHA SINGHversusBALWINDER SINGH & ANR.,27-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10893/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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, Decision Date : 27-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10893/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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,Decision Date :27-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10893/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC744,2025-06-12T21:53:25.720378 BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUFversusASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI,17-05-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4049/2020,IA disposed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4049/2020 | Disposal Nature : IA disposed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ofDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4049/2020| Disposal Nature :IA disposed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC445,2025-06-12T21:53:26.188743 BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERSversusBABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS,14-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8356/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had application to the subject Watan lands; whether the appellants (legal heirs of the original Watandar) were right in proceeding against the tenants u/ss.5, 11 & Offices Act, 1874 after the death of the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958; whether the tenancy in question was lawfully subsisting on Tillers’ Day and were the tenants entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands. Decision Date : 14-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8356/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERSversusBABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 5932024 INSC 203Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had application to the subject Watan lands; whether the appellants (legal heirs of the original Watandar) were right in proceeding against the tenants u/ss.5, 11 & Offices Act, 1874 after the death of the original Watandar, in February/March, 1958; whether the tenancy in question was lawfully subsisting on Tillers’ Day and were the tenants entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase of the tenanted agricultural Watan lands.Decision Date :14-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8356/2017| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC203,2025-06-12T21:53:20.471194 NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHIversusOWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS.,17-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2668/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Applicability of Section 196-A of Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989 vis-à-vis the provisions and mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.103 – Code of Criminal ss.4(1)(e), 196-A – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – s.120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 – Para 2(13) – Proceedings initiated under CrPC, 1989, Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2668/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHIversusOWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 10562024 INSC 447Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Applicability of Section 196-A of Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989 vis-à-vis the provisions and mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Headnotes† Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 – s.103 – Code of Criminal ss.4(1)(e), 196-A – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – s.120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 – Para 2(13) – Proceedings initiated under CrPC, 1989,Decision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2668/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC447,2025-06-12T21:53:33.493896 SUNITA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR,17-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3924/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself. Conviction and death by the High Court and a de novo trial was ordered, making certain observations against the Special Judge. Criminal Appeal Nos.3925-3927 of 2023 filed by the judicial officer. Criminal Appeal No.3924 of 2023 filed by the informant against the order of remittal for de novo trial. On facts, in Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3924/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUNITA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 6292024 INSC 448Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due opportunity to defend himself. Conviction and death by the High Court and a de novo trial was ordered, making certain observations against the Special Judge. Criminal Appeal Nos.3925-3927 of 2023 filed by the judicial officer. Criminal Appeal No.3924 of 2023 filed by the informant against the order of remittal for de novo trial. On facts, inDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3924/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC448,2025-06-12T21:53:28.714017 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS,30-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10046/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. versus JHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 9712024 INSC 768 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) was right in passing the impugned judgment holding that the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) was not bound by the directives of the under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it exceeded its review jurisdiction under Section 94. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.108 – Scope – State Electricity Regulatory Commissions, if ‘bound’ by the directions issued by State Government u/s.108 Decision Date : 30-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10046/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusJHABUA POWER LIMITED AND OTHERS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 9712024 INSC 768Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) was right in passing the impugned judgment holding that the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) was not bound by the directives of the under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and it exceeded its review jurisdiction under Section 94. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s.108 – Scope – State Electricity Regulatory Commissions, if ‘bound’ by the directions issued by State Government u/s.108Decision Date :30-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10046/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC768,2025-06-12T21:53:23.722655 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CHENNAI BRANCHversusBARAKATHULLAH ETC.,22-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2715/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged offences under section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, released the respondents on bail subject to the conditions. Whether from the perusal of the chargesheet and other material/documents produced against the respondents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, as contemplated in Decision Date : 22-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2715/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CHENNAI BRANCHversusBARAKATHULLAH ETC.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 10112024 INSC 452Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration The respondents-accused were arrested for the alleged offences under section 120(b), 153(A), 153(AA) of IPC and Section 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, released the respondents on bail subject to the conditions. Whether from the perusal of the chargesheet and other material/documents produced against the respondents, there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, as contemplated inDecision Date :22-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2715/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC452,2025-06-12T21:53:19.422169 SRI PUBI LOMBIversusTHE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.,13-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4129/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration In absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, whether the interference made by the Division Bench of the High Court in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge on the pretext that the proposed modification (in transfer order) is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by a MLA. Headnotes Service Law – Modified transfer order – Challenge to – The Single Judge of the High Court by upholding modified Decision Date : 13-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4129/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SRI PUBI LOMBIversusTHE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4072024 INSC 200Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration In absence of plea of malafide and no averment regarding violation of statutory provision taken by the private respondent before the High Court, whether the interference made by the Division Bench of the High Court in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge on the pretext that the proposed modification (in transfer order) is arbitrary or without application of mind for the sole reason that it was mooted by a MLA. Headnotes Service Law – Modified transfer order – Challenge to – The Single Judge of the High Court by upholding modifiedDecision Date :13-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4129/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC200,2025-06-12T21:53:24.151225 KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,25-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4003/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the said FIR and the chargesheet against that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 – Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by respondent no.2-wife making vague Decision Date : 25-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4003/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KAILASHBEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 622024 INSC 737Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration FIR was filed against the appellants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing of the said FIR and the chargesheet against that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out against them under Section 498A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w s.34 – Ingredients of – When not made out – Complaint filed by respondent no.2-wife making vagueDecision Date :25-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4003/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC737,2025-06-12T21:53:30.525756 K. VADIVELversusK. SHANTHI & ORS.,30-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4058/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further investigation – Applications filed by the investigation or re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage Decision Date : 30-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4058/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K. VADIVELversusK. SHANTHI & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 746Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further investigation – Applications filed by the investigation or re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stageDecision Date :30-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4058/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC746,2025-06-12T21:53:20.680323 BANO SAIYED PARWAZversusCHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CONTROLLER OF STAMPS & ORS.,17-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6533/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the appellant’s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.47 and s.48 – Bombay Rules 21 and 22A – Stamp Duty – Refund of – Appellant agreed to purchase a property from vendor – To that effect, a deed of conveyance was prepared and it was sent for payment of stamp duty, which was assessed at Rs.25,34,350/- – Accordingly, the appellant paid Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6533/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BANO SAIYED PARWAZversusCHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CONTROLLER OF STAMPS & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 7302024 INSC 443Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the appellant’s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.47 and s.48 – Bombay Rules 21 and 22A – Stamp Duty – Refund of – Appellant agreed to purchase a property from vendor – To that effect, a deed of conveyance was prepared and it was sent for payment of stamp duty, which was assessed at Rs.25,34,350/- – Accordingly, the appellant paidDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6533/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC443,2025-06-12T21:53:30.053910 "V. SENTHIL BALAJIversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT",26-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4011/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam. Headnotes† Prevention of – ss.3, 4, 45(1) (iii) – Offence of money-laundering – Appellant-former Tamil Nadu transport minister’s alleged involvement in the job racket scam – Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Enforcement Case Information Report – Bail Decision Date : 26-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4011/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SENTHIL BALAJIversusTHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 3932024 INSC 739Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam. Headnotes† Prevention of – ss.3, 4, 45(1) (iii) – Offence of money-laundering – Appellant-former Tamil Nadu transport minister’s alleged involvement in the job racket scam – Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Enforcement Case Information Report – BailDecision Date :26-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4011/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC739,2025-06-12T21:53:27.401455 ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.,27-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6682/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent. Headnotes Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Or. XLIV – Appellant-original claimant was injured in an accident – She filed a claim of Rs. 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – The Tribunal vide award dated 17.10.2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- – Dissatisfied, the appellant-claimant approached Decision Date : 27-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6682/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALIFIYA HUSENBHAI KESHARIYAversusSIDDIQ ISMAIL SINDHI & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8962024 INSC 457Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether a person being an award holder, of monetary compensation without actual receipt thereof, would be disentitled from filing an appeal seeking enhanced compensation as an indigent. Headnotes Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – s.173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Or. XLIV – Appellant-original claimant was injured in an accident – She filed a claim of Rs. 10 lakhs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – The Tribunal vide award dated 17.10.2016 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,745/- – Dissatisfied, the appellant-claimant approachedDecision Date :27-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6682/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC457,2025-06-12T21:53:18.421168 M/S SUNDEW PROPERTIES LIMITEDversusTELANGANA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ANR.,17-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8978/2019,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Whether the designation of an entity as a Special Economic Zone- developer ipso facto qualifies the entity to be a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application u/s. 14 of the Electricity Act; whether Regn 12 of Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013, and by implication r. 3(2) of the Distribution of Electricity Licence (Additional Requirements of Capital Adequacy, Creditworthiness and Code of Conduct) Rules, 2005 are applicable to a SEZ developer recognised as a Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8978/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 SUNDEW PROPERTIES LIMITEDversusTELANGANA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 7392024 INSC 439Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Whether the designation of an entity as a Special Economic Zone- developer ipso facto qualifies the entity to be a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application u/s. 14 of the Electricity Act; whether Regn 12 of Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013, and by implication r. 3(2) of the Distribution of Electricity Licence (Additional Requirements of Capital Adequacy, Creditworthiness and Code of Conduct) Rules, 2005 are applicable to a SEZ developer recognised as aDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8978/2019| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC439,2025-06-12T22:31:18.489186 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1496/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the decision by the National Commission which directed the appellant-insurer to release and pay an insurance claim to the respondent-contractor for the collapse of Act, 1986 – Insurance Contract – Exclusion clause – Interpretation – Payment of insurance claim – Contract for design, construction and management of a bridge awarded to the respondent and another company – Issuance of contractor’s all risk insurance Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1496/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3552024 INSC 431Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the decision by the National Commission which directed the appellant-insurer to release and pay an insurance claim to the respondent-contractor for the collapse of Act, 1986 – Insurance Contract – Exclusion clause – Interpretation – Payment of insurance claim – Contract for design, construction and management of a bridge awarded to the respondent and another company – Issuance of contractor’s all risk insuranceDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1496/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC431,2025-06-12T22:31:32.748942 AJWARversusWASEEM AND ANOTHER,17-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2639/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail enmity, the accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused by the High Court – Justification: Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffers Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2639/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AJWARversusWASEEM AND ANOTHER-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5752024 INSC 438Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439(1) – Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail enmity, the accused persons indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, resulting in death of his sons and serious injuries to his nephew – Grant of regular bail to the accused by the High Court – Justification: Held: Orders granting bail not justified and suffersDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2639/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC438,2025-06-12T22:31:27.189934 MR. R.S. MADIREDDY AND ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6473/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration (i) Whether respondent No.3(AIL) after having been taken over by a private corporate entity could have been subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court; (ii) Whether the appellants herein could have been non-suited on account of the fact that during petitions, the nature of the employer changed from a Government entity to a private entity; (iii) Whether the delay in disposal of the writ petition could be treated a valid ground to sustain the claim of the appellants even against the private entity. Headnotes Constitution of India – Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6473/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MR. R.S. MADIREDDY AND ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 9342024 INSC 425Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration (i) Whether respondent No.3(AIL) after having been taken over by a private corporate entity could have been subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court; (ii) Whether the appellants herein could have been non-suited on account of the fact that during petitions, the nature of the employer changed from a Government entity to a private entity; (iii) Whether the delay in disposal of the writ petition could be treated a valid ground to sustain the claim of the appellants even against the private entity. Headnotes Constitution of India –Decision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6473/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC425,2025-06-12T22:31:30.622049 KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusBIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6466/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration State Municipal Corporation having claimed to have acquired the property of respondent-land bearer in exercise of powers u/s.352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the High Court, if justified in holding that there was no such power of immovable property u/s.352 of the Act. Headnotes† Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – s. 352 – Power to acquire lands and buildings for public streets and for public parking places – Interpretation of s. 352 – If there is power of compulsory acquisition Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6466/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusBIMAL KUMAR SHAH & ORS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8312024 INSC 4354Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration State Municipal Corporation having claimed to have acquired the property of respondent-land bearer in exercise of powers u/s.352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the High Court, if justified in holding that there was no such power of immovable property u/s.352 of the Act. Headnotes† Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – s. 352 – Power to acquire lands and buildings for public streets and for public parking places – Interpretation of s. 352 – If there is power of compulsory acquisitionDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6466/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC4354,2025-06-12T22:31:38.135202 TARSEM LALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE,16-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2608/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on the Court should issue a summons to the accused or warrant; (c) After a summons are issued u/s. 204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the PMLA on a complaint, if accused appears before the Special Court, would he be treated as in custody and is it necessary for Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2608/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TARSEM LALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT JALANDHAR ZONAL OFFICE-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 8642024 INSC 434Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration (a) Whether the complaint filed u/s.44(1)(b) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 will be governed by sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC; (b) If the accused was not arrested by the ED till the filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on the Court should issue a summons to the accused or warrant; (c) After a summons are issued u/s. 204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s. 4 of the PMLA on a complaint, if accused appears before the Special Court, would he be treated as in custody and is it necessary forDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2608/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC434,2025-06-12T22:31:36.588015 SHAJI POULOSEversusINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & OTHERS,17-05-2024,TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No. 29/2021,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, if competent to impose, by way of Guidelines, a numerical restriction on the maximum number of tax audits that could be accepted by a Chartered Accountant, u/s. 44AB of the Year by way of a Guideline; the restrictions imposed, if unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal and thus, violative of the right guaranteed to Chartered Accountants u/Art. 19(1)(g) and impermissible u/Art. 14 of the Constitution; and exceeding of the specified number of tax audits, if can be Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No. 29/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHAJI POULOSEversusINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA & OTHERS-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 7772024 INSC 451Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, if competent to impose, by way of Guidelines, a numerical restriction on the maximum number of tax audits that could be accepted by a Chartered Accountant, u/s. 44AB of the Year by way of a Guideline; the restrictions imposed, if unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal and thus, violative of the right guaranteed to Chartered Accountants u/Art. 19(1)(g) and impermissible u/Art. 14 of the Constitution; and exceeding of the specified number of tax audits, if can beDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No. 29/2021| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC451,2025-06-12T22:31:19.635593 "GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHERversusM/S K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS",17-05-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 414/2023,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER versus M/S K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 9492024 INSC 454 SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose to resolve as to which of the two views on maintainability of the Review petitions-Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruling in favour review petitions whereas the Hon’ble companion Judge on the Bench holding that the review petitions were not maintainable, is the correct view; can the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, be considered persons aggrieved; whether the last sentence of Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 414/2023 | Direction Issue : Review petitions and miscellaneous application disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHERversusM/S K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 9492024 INSC 454Coram : SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue arose to resolve as to which of the two views on maintainability of the Review petitions-Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruling in favour review petitions whereas the Hon’ble companion Judge on the Bench holding that the review petitions were not maintainable, is the correct view; can the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, be considered persons aggrieved; whether the last sentence ofDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 414/2023| Direction Issue :Review petitions and miscellaneous application disposed of.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC454,2025-06-12T22:31:24.883538 RAJESH KUMARversusANAND KUMAR & ORS.,17-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7840/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to deposition of power of attorney holder in a suit for specific performance, in place and instead of the plaintiff-principal wherein the plaintiff is required to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract; and the specific performance after a long delay, on the last date of limitation. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Deposition of a power of attorney holder, when can be read in evidence – On facts, the appellant Decision Date : 17-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7840/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJESH KUMARversusANAND KUMAR & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 6122024 INSC 444Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to deposition of power of attorney holder in a suit for specific performance, in place and instead of the plaintiff-principal wherein the plaintiff is required to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the terms of the contract; and the specific performance after a long delay, on the last date of limitation. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Deposition of a power of attorney holder, when can be read in evidence – On facts, the appellantDecision Date :17-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7840/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC444,2025-06-12T22:31:21.340534 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,16-05-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Interlocutory applications preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in deciding the application filed by the applicant seeking permission on the subject land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet 2 No. 20, Civil Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. Headnotes Environment – Wildlife Sanctuary – Forest Land – Permission to construct a health/eco-resort – Applicant had Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Applications disposed of | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 7232024 INSC 426Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Interlocutory applications preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in deciding the application filed by the applicant seeking permission on the subject land being Plot Nos. 14/3 and 14/4, falling in Sheet 2 No. 20, Civil Station, Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. Headnotes Environment – Wildlife Sanctuary – Forest Land – Permission to construct a health/eco-resort – Applicant hadDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Direction Issue :Applications disposed of| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC426,2025-06-12T22:31:34.031207 DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION & ORS.versusSHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6462/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration When can the power under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be exercised; Is it the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to fix a meeting for hearing; Whether the failure of the claimant to request the a date for hearing, per se, is the ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary; Whether abandonment of claim by a claimant can be a ground to invoke clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Clause (c) of sub- section Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6462/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DANI WOOLTEX CORPORATION & ORS.versusSHEIL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 7612024 INSC 433Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration When can the power under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be exercised; Is it the Arbitral Tribunal’s duty to fix a meeting for hearing; Whether the failure of the claimant to request the a date for hearing, per se, is the ground to conclude that the proceedings have become unnecessary; Whether abandonment of claim by a claimant can be a ground to invoke clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 32. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Clause (c) of sub- sectionDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6462/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC433,2025-06-12T23:02:28.990294 LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusGURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.,16-05-2024,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1025/2019,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction in second appeal is circumscribed by provision of s.41 of the Punjab Act. Headnotes† Code of Civil s.100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – s. 41 – Second appeal – Framing of a substantial question of law for entertaining the second appeal – Requirement – On facts, suit for perpetual injunction by the plaintiff against the defendant that he and his brother were Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1025/2019 | Direction Issue : Review Petition allowed and Civil Appeal dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS.versusGURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3902024 INSC 429Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction in second appeal is circumscribed by provision of s.41 of the Punjab Act. Headnotes† Code of Civil s.100 – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – s. 41 – Second appeal – Framing of a substantial question of law for entertaining the second appeal – Requirement – On facts, suit for perpetual injunction by the plaintiff against the defendant that he and his brother wereDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1025/2019| Direction Issue :Review Petition allowed and Civil Appeal dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC429,2025-06-12T23:02:30.277142 SUBODH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6458/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SUBODH SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 7082024 INSC 458 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation for the left out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award for a period spreading over 84 months. Headnotes Compensation – Additional compensation for the left out portion of land – – Appellant claimed payments towards delay of 84 months – Correctness: Held: Respondents had acquired a land by Notifications issued u/s. 20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 – An award was declared on 08.02.2010 in respect of land that respondent acquired – A parcel Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6458/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUBODH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 7082024 INSC 458Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to additional compensation for the left out portion of land at least @ 5% of the value of the award for a period spreading over 84 months. Headnotes Compensation – Additional compensation for the left out portion of land – – Appellant claimed payments towards delay of 84 months – Correctness: Held: Respondents had acquired a land by Notifications issued u/s. 20(E)(1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 – An award was declared on 08.02.2010 in respect of land that respondent acquired – A parcelDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6458/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC458,2025-06-12T23:02:19.028775 TRISHA SINGHversusANURAG KUMAR,15-05-2024,TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1008/2023,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. TRISHA SINGH versus ANURAG KUMAR - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 5672024 INSC 450 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Parties arrived at an amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. However, the wife resiled from the settlement agreement. Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant decree of divorce. Headnotes† Constitution of under – Grant of decree of divorce – Present transfer petition was filed by wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by husband u/s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Parties arrived at settlement before the Mediator for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent – Decision Date : 15-05-2024 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1008/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TRISHA SINGHversusANURAG KUMAR-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5672024 INSC 450Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Parties arrived at an amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. However, the wife resiled from the settlement agreement. Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant decree of divorce. Headnotes† Constitution of under – Grant of decree of divorce – Present transfer petition was filed by wife seeking transfer of the petition filed by husband u/s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Parties arrived at settlement before the Mediator for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent –Decision Date :15-05-2024| Case No :TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1008/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC450,2025-06-12T23:02:31.570012 SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5539/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Subject land was designated as a Panchayat Ghar however, later it was re-assigned for residential use and allotments were made to allottees including appellants (writ petitioners in High Court) u/s.122-C, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land for cancellation of the allotments were initiated based on the report of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after 13 years from the date of allotment. Since, there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act, whether such initiation of the proceedings can Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5539/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2872024 INSC 430Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Subject land was designated as a Panchayat Ghar however, later it was re-assigned for residential use and allotments were made to allottees including appellants (writ petitioners in High Court) u/s.122-C, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land for cancellation of the allotments were initiated based on the report of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after 13 years from the date of allotment. Since, there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act, whether such initiation of the proceedings canDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5539/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC430,2025-06-12T23:02:26.043905 KARNAIL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,16-05-2024,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 526/2023,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Judgment and order under review ignored the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & others which had a direct bearing on the issue in question and took a view totally contrary thereto and held that the vesting is complete on mere assignment under Section 18(c) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It was also held that the unutilized land was not available for redistribution amongst the proprietors and the land reserved for common purposes cannot be Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 526/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KARNAIL SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 8942024 INSC 424Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Judgment and order under review ignored the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Bhagat Ram & others vs. State of Punjab & others which had a direct bearing on the issue in question and took a view totally contrary thereto and held that the vesting is complete on mere assignment under Section 18(c) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It was also held that the unutilized land was not available for redistribution amongst the proprietors and the land reserved for common purposes cannot beDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 526/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC424,2025-06-12T23:02:22.569850 PRABIR PURKAYASTHAversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI),15-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2577/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused- appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the order of remand thus, not informing him of the grounds of arrest in writing. Headnotes – Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 22(5) – FIR registered u/ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 22C, UAPA r/w ss.153A, 120B, IPC – Appellant was arrested in connection therewith however, the arrest memo did not contain the ‘grounds of arrest’ – Appellant Decision Date : 15-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2577/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PRABIR PURKAYASTHAversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 6662024 INSC 414Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused- appellant was vitiated as the copy of the remand application was not provided to him or his counsel before passing of the order of remand thus, not informing him of the grounds of arrest in writing. Headnotes – Constitution of India – Articles 22(1) and 22(5) – FIR registered u/ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 22C, UAPA r/w ss.153A, 120B, IPC – Appellant was arrested in connection therewith however, the arrest memo did not contain the ‘grounds of arrest’ – AppellantDecision Date :15-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2577/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC414,2025-06-12T23:02:34.062557 MUKATLALversusKAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.,16-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6460/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Headnotes Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property absolute property – Right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1), when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of the suit land: Held: For establishing full ownership on the Decision Date : 16-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6460/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MUKATLALversusKAILASH CHAND (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2982024 INSC 428Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Family property by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Headnotes Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property absolute property – Right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1), when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of the suit land: Held: For establishing full ownership on theDecision Date :16-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6460/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC428,2025-06-12T23:02:24.052259 RAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA,15-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2281/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010, the High Court relied upon the written dying declaration of the deceased Ex. 59 recorded by PW-6 and also the oral dying declarations of the deceased made before PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 and thereafter upheld the judgment trial court. The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Whether the dying declaration (Ex.59), in the instant case, was the valid piece of evidence. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) – Decision Date : 15-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2281/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJENDRA S/O RAMDAS KOLHEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 7402024 INSC 422Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration By the judgment and order dated 15.11.2010, the High Court relied upon the written dying declaration of the deceased Ex. 59 recorded by PW-6 and also the oral dying declarations of the deceased made before PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 and thereafter upheld the judgment trial court. The appellant was convicted for committing an offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Whether the dying declaration (Ex.59), in the instant case, was the valid piece of evidence. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) –Decision Date :15-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2281/2011| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC422,2025-06-12T23:02:36.752780 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.versusSURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.,17-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14603/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issues arose as regards the declaration of land to be surplus when there was a family settlement regarding the said land, whereby each family member had a separate share duly demarcated and thus could not be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one a fresh litigation could be allowed when the issue attained finality in the first round of litigation. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration of land to be surplus – Case Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14603/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.versusSURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 708Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issues arose as regards the declaration of land to be surplus when there was a family settlement regarding the said land, whereby each family member had a separate share duly demarcated and thus could not be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one a fresh litigation could be allowed when the issue attained finality in the first round of litigation. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration of land to be surplus – CaseDecision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14603/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:47.264434 STATE OF U.P. & ORSversusM/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS,23-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007,Unknown,9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 and phrase “intoxicating liquor”. The question is whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products; whether Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule Decision Date : 23-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007 | Bench : 9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","STATE OF U.P. & ORSversusM/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19312024 INSC 812Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 and phrase “intoxicating liquor”. The question is whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products; whether Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh ScheduleDecision Date :23-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007| Bench :9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC812,2025-06-13T11:14:54.799724 PIC DEPARTMENTALS PVT. LTD.versusSREELEATHERS PVT. LTD.,30-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8968/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH* 1409 : 2024 INSC 654 PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2024) 30 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in r.46, Chapter IX rr.2, 35, Chapter X r.27 – Filing of written statement – Power to extend time, after a considerable delay: Held: Power to extend time for filing written statement should not be employed as a matter of course, but with great caution so that the purpose of the Decision Date : 30-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8968/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PIC DEPARTMENTALS PVT. LTD.versusSREELEATHERS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14092024 INSC 654Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH*1409 : 2024 INSC 654 PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2024) 30 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in r.46, Chapter IX rr.2, 35, Chapter X r.27 – Filing of written statement – Power to extend time, after a considerable delay: Held: Power to extend time for filing written statement should not be employed as a matter of course, but with great caution so that the purpose of theDecision Date :30-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8968/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC654,2025-06-13T11:13:27.295268 MANIK & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,25-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1614/2012,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR* Issue for Consideration Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 218, all r/w. s.34 – Victim-S was taken into police custody for interrogation – Allegation that he was subjected to third degree torture – Thereafter, a burnt and buried body was found in the forest – Body was unidentified – Prosecution case that appellants-convicts Decision Date : 25-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1614/2012 | Direction Issue : In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANIK & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 7242024 INSC 734Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR*Issue for Consideration Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 330, 331, 342, 343, 348, 218, all r/w. s.34 – Victim-S was taken into police custody for interrogation – Allegation that he was subjected to third degree torture – Thereafter, a burnt and buried body was found in the forest – Body was unidentified – Prosecution case that appellants-convictsDecision Date :25-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1614/2012| Direction Issue :In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC734,2025-06-13T11:14:06.873726 KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.,03-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3990/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"RAJESH BINDAL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not exercising the discretion to extend the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a pre-emption suit. Headnotes† Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Extension of time suit – The court can allow such an extension when there is a bona fide mistake and the deficiency is minor – law laid down in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others, [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 – Followed – Non-deposit of a relatively small fraction of money due to Decision Date : 03-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3990/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KANIHYA @ KANHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSUKHI RAM & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8852024 INSC 374Coram : RAJESH BINDAL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not exercising the discretion to extend the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a pre-emption suit. Headnotes† Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Extension of time suit – The court can allow such an extension when there is a bona fide mistake and the deficiency is minor – law laid down in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh and Others, [1989] Supp. 1 SCR 17 – Followed – Non-deposit of a relatively small fraction of money due toDecision Date :03-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3990/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC374,2025-06-13T11:11:41.810085 SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR.,01-02-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 753/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2172024 INSC 97 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in altering the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates was assessed for selection to the posts of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand. Headnotes Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service of Service) Rules, 2001 – rr.14, 18, 21 – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – Selection to the posts of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand – Alteration in selection criteria after Decision Date : 01-02-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 753/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 2172024 INSC 97Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in altering the selection criteria after the performance of individual candidates was assessed for selection to the posts of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand. Headnotes Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service of Service) Rules, 2001 – rr.14, 18, 21 – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 – Selection to the posts of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand – Alteration in selection criteria afterDecision Date :01-02-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 753/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC97,2025-06-13T11:07:38.392717 GAURAV KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,30-07-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 352/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils (SBC) are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961; whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 Enrolment of advocates – Challege to the validity of Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961: Decision Date : 30-07-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 352/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GAURAV KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14892024 INSC 558Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration Whether the enrolment fees charged by the State Bar Councils (SBC) are in contravention of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961; whether payment of other miscellaneous fees can be made a pre-condition for enrolment. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 Enrolment of advocates – Challege to the validity of Enrolment fees charged by SBCs – The grievance is that the fees charged by the SBCs at the time of admission of persons on State rolls are more than the enrolment fee prescribed under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act 1961:Decision Date :30-07-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 352/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC558,2025-06-13T11:13:23.599661 M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.,01-03-2024,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 29/2023,Case Allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator u/s.11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; if yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation; when does the right to whether the court may refuse to make a reference u/s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the claims are ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – Applicability Decision Date : 01-03-2024 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 29/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 732024 INSC 155Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator u/s.11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; if yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation; when does the right to whether the court may refuse to make a reference u/s.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the claims are ex-facie and hopelessly time-barred. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 – ApplicabilityDecision Date :01-03-2024| Case No :ARBITRATION PETITION No. 29/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC155,2025-06-13T11:10:09.572958 AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS.versusHSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS 1 LIMITED),04-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3835/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. versus HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS 1 LIMITED) - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 9712024 INSC 242 HRISHIKESH ROY, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration The High Court facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 issued at Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The appellants’ objection to enforcement of the of s.48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected and the High Court had also directed that the order of attachment against the Award Debtors-appellants shall continue to operate during the execution proceedings to be undertaken by the respondent-Award Holder. Whether the High Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3835/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS.versusHSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY NAMED HPEIF HOLDINGS 1 LIMITED)-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 9712024 INSC 242Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration The High Court facilitated the enforcement of the final Award dated 27.09.2014 issued at Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). The appellants’ objection to enforcement of the of s.48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected and the High Court had also directed that the order of attachment against the Award Debtors-appellants shall continue to operate during the execution proceedings to be undertaken by the respondent-Award Holder. Whether the HighDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3835/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC242,2025-06-13T11:09:18.256867 NEK PAL & ORS.versusNAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.,26-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8038/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether substantial questions of law are required to be formulated at the time of admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or at any time subsequent thereto. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 Held: Unless substantial questions of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal, or any time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard – The reason is that a second appeal can be heard only on a substantial question of law formulated earlier – The act Decision Date : 26-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8038/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEK PAL & ORS.versusNAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10402024 INSC 574Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether substantial questions of law are required to be formulated at the time of admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or at any time subsequent thereto. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 Held: Unless substantial questions of law are formulated at the time of admission of the appeal, or any time subsequent thereto, a second appeal cannot be finally heard – The reason is that a second appeal can be heard only on a substantial question of law formulated earlier – The actDecision Date :26-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8038/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC574,2025-06-13T11:13:34.625400 NEERAJ SUD AND ANR.versusJASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR.,25-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012,Unknown,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration The NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation. Whether the NCDRC was justified in holding doctor negligent and awarding compensation. Headnotes† Negligence – Medical negligence and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – The State Commission, upon Decision Date : 25-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012 | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","NEERAJ SUD AND ANR.versusJASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) AND ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14752024 INSC 825Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration The NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation. Whether the NCDRC was justified in holding doctor negligent and awarding compensation. Headnotes† Negligence – Medical negligence and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – The State Commission, uponDecision Date :25-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC825,2025-06-13T11:14:46.183890 ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ETC.versusNITHU & ORS. ETC.,31-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1455/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English മലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ETC. versus NITHU & ORS. ETC. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 12352024 INSC 230 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration The appellant, a Cooperative Society, had issued a notification dated 29.01.2011 inviting applications for regular recruitment to, inter Plant Attender, Grade-III. The Respondents challenged the notification before the High Court of Kerala and prayed, inter alia, for their regularization on the post of Plant Attenders. The Respondents, admittedly, did not avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) but Decision Date : 31-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1455/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ERNAKULAM REGIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. ETC.versusNITHU & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12352024 INSC 230Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration The appellant, a Cooperative Society, had issued a notification dated 29.01.2011 inviting applications for regular recruitment to, inter Plant Attender, Grade-III. The Respondents challenged the notification before the High Court of Kerala and prayed, inter alia, for their regularization on the post of Plant Attenders. The Respondents, admittedly, did not avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) butDecision Date :31-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1455/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC230,2025-06-13T11:08:27.528034 IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,31-01-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11942024 INSC 78 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Institutionalisation and Reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee. Headnotes Environment – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Central Empowered Committee (CEC) – Institutionalisation and Reconstitution – (CEC) constituted by Supreme Court’s order in 2002 functioned as an ad hoc body almost for two decades – Suggestion of the Court to constitute the CEC as a permanent statutory body was accepted – Draft notification published by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Decision Date : 31-01-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11942024 INSC 78Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Institutionalisation and Reconstitution of the Central Empowered Committee. Headnotes Environment – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Central Empowered Committee (CEC) – Institutionalisation and Reconstitution – (CEC) constituted by Supreme Court’s order in 2002 functioned as an ad hoc body almost for two decades – Suggestion of the Court to constitute the CEC as a permanent statutory body was accepted – Draft notification published by Ministry of Environment, Forest and ClimateDecision Date :31-01-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC78,2025-06-13T11:08:21.628242 K. RAVIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.,29-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge framed which would be an interlocutory order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, in Decision Date : 29-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K. RAVIversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7002024 INSC 642Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227 Cr.P.C. has already been dismissed; and as regards the application u/s.397 Cr.P.C. against the order dismissing application seeking modification of charge framed which would be an interlocutory order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.216 – Alteration of charge – s.227 – Discharge – On facts, inDecision Date :29-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC642,2025-06-13T11:13:45.838017 PARVEEN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,23-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1014/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim- wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage – Decision Date : 23-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1014/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PARVEEN KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 542024 INSC 717Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A and 306 – Husband or relative subjecting her to cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman – Victim- wife committed suicide by consuming tablets of aluminum phosphide-insecticide within two years of marriage –Decision Date :23-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1014/2013| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC717,2025-06-13T11:14:32.171260 SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,25-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4758/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for conclusion of trials. Headnotes† Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and Appellant incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail: Held: Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of the offence – The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half years – The counter Decision Date : 25-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4758/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SANGRAM SADASHIV SURYAVANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13212024 INSC 899Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail; whether it is appropriate for High Court to fix a time bound schedule for conclusion of trials. Headnotes† Bail – Allegation against appellant for commission of offences punishable u/ss.489A, 489B and Appellant incarcerated for two and a half years – Whether appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail: Held: Six counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- each are subject matter of the offence – The appellant has been incarcerated for two and a half years – The counterDecision Date :25-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4758/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC899,2025-06-13T11:15:20.036599 INDORE VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN (IDA) & ANR.versusSHRI HUMUD JAIN SAMAJ TRUST & ANR.,24-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13089/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Appellant issued an advertisement inviting bids for leasing out land. Respondent’s bid was found to be the highest. The Tender Committee while finalizing the bids noticed that a property tax demand was outstanding in respect of the land not taken into account while fixing the base price and decided not to accept any of the bids. Respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition, inter alia, challenging resolution rejecting the bid and the issuance of fresh NIT. Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief. Decision Date : 24-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13089/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","INDORE VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN (IDA) & ANR.versusSHRI HUMUD JAIN SAMAJ TRUST & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9252024 INSC 904Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Appellant issued an advertisement inviting bids for leasing out land. Respondent’s bid was found to be the highest. The Tender Committee while finalizing the bids noticed that a property tax demand was outstanding in respect of the land not taken into account while fixing the base price and decided not to accept any of the bids. Respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition, inter alia, challenging resolution rejecting the bid and the issuance of fresh NIT. Single Judge concluded that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief.Decision Date :24-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13089/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC904,2025-06-13T11:15:22.052216 KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE,29-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 551/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107, 417 – When asked by the deceased, the appellant refused to marry committed suicide – On facts, whether the appellant, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide: Held: No – Dying declaration of the deceased indicates that it was the deceased who was in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him – There was no evidence to Decision Date : 29-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 551/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","KAMARUDDIN DASTAGIR SANADIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO KAKATI POLICE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12692024 INSC 908Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant-accused and convicting him under Sections 417, 306 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107, 417 – When asked by the deceased, the appellant refused to marry committed suicide – On facts, whether the appellant, instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide: Held: No – Dying declaration of the deceased indicates that it was the deceased who was in love with the appellant and wanted to marry him – There was no evidence toDecision Date :29-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 551/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC908,2025-06-13T11:15:11.984845 RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAYversusSRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.,19-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4831/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, – Witch (Daain) Act – ss.3 and 4 – Victim was accused of witchcraft – She abused physically & verbally and thereafter disrobed – FIR was registered against 13 accused persons – Trial Court took cognizance – Accused persons sought quashing of FIR Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4831/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAYversusSRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1122Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, – Witch (Daain) Act – ss.3 and 4 – Victim was accused of witchcraft – She abused physically & verbally and thereafter disrobed – FIR was registered against 13 accused persons – Trial Court took cognizance – Accused persons sought quashing of FIRDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4831/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:38.950892 LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD.versusHIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER,02-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4626/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court disposing the writ petition by accepting the statements of the respondent no. 1-tenderee and respondent no. 2-successful bidder, permitting the respondent no.1 of initial tendering process order and permitting the respondent no. 2 to execute the project on the same terms and conditions as in the initial tender, though the said tender was already withdrawn by the respondent no.1 in view of the report of the independent Committee confirming gross Decision Date : 02-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4626/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LEVEL 9 BIZ PVT. LTD.versusHIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 257Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court disposing the writ petition by accepting the statements of the respondent no. 1-tenderee and respondent no. 2-successful bidder, permitting the respondent no.1 of initial tendering process order and permitting the respondent no. 2 to execute the project on the same terms and conditions as in the initial tender, though the said tender was already withdrawn by the respondent no.1 in view of the report of the independent Committee confirming grossDecision Date :02-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4626/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC257,2025-06-13T11:11:16.599832 SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS,04-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1345/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction. Headnotes Child and Family Welfare – Custody of minor child – Custody of one of the twin daughters born to respondent No.2 and his wife is in question, who had undisputedly been living with of respondent No. 2) ever since she was 3-4 month old and thereafter with the family: Held: Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality – Welfare of the children is of paramount consideration and not Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1345/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 102024 INSC 163Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction. Headnotes Child and Family Welfare – Custody of minor child – Custody of one of the twin daughters born to respondent No.2 and his wife is in question, who had undisputedly been living with of respondent No. 2) ever since she was 3-4 month old and thereafter with the family: Held: Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of child’s talent and personality – Welfare of the children is of paramount consideration and notDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1345/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC163,2025-06-13T11:09:32.900110 SHANKARversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,02-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2367/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SHANKAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 102024 INSC 366 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether there is sufficient material against the appellant prompting the trial court to pass a summoning order u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Summoning order u/s. 319 – Legality of – Appellants facing trial for u/s. 319 by the trial court – High Court refused to quash the summoning order – Correctness: Held: Degree of satisfaction required to exercise power u/s. 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power – Only when the evidence is Decision Date : 02-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2367/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHANKARversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 102024 INSC 366Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether there is sufficient material against the appellant prompting the trial court to pass a summoning order u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – Summoning order u/s. 319 – Legality of – Appellants facing trial for u/s. 319 by the trial court – High Court refused to quash the summoning order – Correctness: Held: Degree of satisfaction required to exercise power u/s. 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power – Only when the evidence isDecision Date :02-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2367/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC366,2025-06-13T11:11:47.910127 M/S PRO KNITSversusTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS.,01-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8332/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the Notification dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, containing Instructions for the “Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation Medium Enterprises” as revised from time to time, is mandatory or directory. Headnotes† Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – ss.9, 10 – The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Decision Date : 01-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8332/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 PRO KNITSversusTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1402024 INSC 565Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the Notification dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, containing Instructions for the “Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation Medium Enterprises” as revised from time to time, is mandatory or directory. Headnotes† Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – ss.9, 10 – The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002Decision Date :01-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8332/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC565,2025-06-13T11:13:12.997714 T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusV.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14749/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in denying the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company. Headnotes† Motor Denial of interest – The High Court had partly accepted appeal while enhancing the compensation, however, it denied the interest for the delay of 708 days in filing appeal and interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 – Justified or not: Held: As far as assessment Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14749/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","T.C. JOHN @ YOHANNAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusV.J. ANTONY AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1143Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in denying the interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023, which was the period of delay in supplying the copy of paper book to the standing counsel for the insurance company. Headnotes† Motor Denial of interest – The High Court had partly accepted appeal while enhancing the compensation, however, it denied the interest for the delay of 708 days in filing appeal and interest for the period between 22.06.2016 to 13.07.2023 – Justified or not: Held: As far as assessmentDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14749/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:41.129736 UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR,03-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order by which it declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application by appellants- Union of India for restoration of the Non-condonation of – Length of the delay, relevant – Decree for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour of respondent in 1987 – Appeal thereagainst filed by appellants-Union of India, dismissed in 1992 – Said order of the appellate court was challenged by the Decision Date : 03-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusJAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (D) THROUGH HIS LR-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 762024 INSC 262Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order by which it declined to condone the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application by appellants- Union of India for restoration of the Non-condonation of – Length of the delay, relevant – Decree for possession of the suit premises was passed in favour of respondent in 1987 – Appeal thereagainst filed by appellants-Union of India, dismissed in 1992 – Said order of the appellate court was challenged by theDecision Date :03-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC262,2025-06-13T11:10:22.263348 VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.,22-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1031/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of acknowledge of debt in the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC: Held: It was contended by the Appellant that there is no unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt owed to Respondent – Financial Creditor Decision Date : 22-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1031/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","VIDYASAGAR PRASADversusUCO BANK & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14622024 INSC 810Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of acknowledge of debt in the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC: Held: It was contended by the Appellant that there is no unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt owed to Respondent – Financial CreditorDecision Date :22-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1031/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC810,2025-06-13T11:14:59.414277 N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,24-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6333/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted and is a valid document which continue to exist despite its revocation as the donor had not reserved the right to revoke the same. Headnotes† Gift – Gift deed – Revocation of gift deed by the appellant in favour of the respondent, gifting the property for the purpose of manufacturing and the same was accepted by the respondent – However, revoked after five years – Four years later, the respondent filed suit for declaration of title over the property Decision Date : 24-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6333/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.N. THAJUDEENversusTAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9522024 INSC 817Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered gift deed was duly acted upon and accepted and is a valid document which continue to exist despite its revocation as the donor had not reserved the right to revoke the same. Headnotes† Gift – Gift deed – Revocation of gift deed by the appellant in favour of the respondent, gifting the property for the purpose of manufacturing and the same was accepted by the respondent – However, revoked after five years – Four years later, the respondent filed suit for declaration of title over the propertyDecision Date :24-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6333/2013| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC817,2025-06-13T11:14:50.419917 KALI CHARAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS,26-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13119/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by respondent No.3-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA); Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land in the instant case, thereby justifying the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act; Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma validating the questioned acquisition while relying upon Nand Decision Date : 26-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13119/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","KALI CHARAN AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10642024 INSC 898Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the present acquisition is a part of the integrated development plan of ‘Yamuna Expressway” undertaken by respondent No.3-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA); Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land in the instant case, thereby justifying the decision of the State Government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act; Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kamal Sharma validating the questioned acquisition while relying upon NandDecision Date :26-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13119/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC898,2025-06-13T11:15:14.419235 "TARUN CHUGH, CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusSAROJ KUMAR PANDA",23-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12135/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Respondent No.1 filed a statement of claim before the Tribunal impugning his termination vide order dated 25.07.2017 – Tribunal passed ex-parte award dated 05.02.2019, the termination of the Respondent No.1 was held to be No.1 was directed to be reinstated with back-wages and other service benefits – The aforesaid ex-parte Award was challenged by all the parties impleaded by the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, namely, the officers in person, without joining the company-employer as a party – The Decision Date : 23-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12135/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TARUN CHUGH, CEO AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusSAROJ KUMAR PANDA-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 9812024 INSC 821Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Respondent No.1 filed a statement of claim before the Tribunal impugning his termination vide order dated 25.07.2017 – Tribunal passed ex-parte award dated 05.02.2019, the termination of the Respondent No.1 was held to be No.1 was directed to be reinstated with back-wages and other service benefits – The aforesaid ex-parte Award was challenged by all the parties impleaded by the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, namely, the officers in person, without joining the company-employer as a party – TheDecision Date :23-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12135/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC821,2025-06-13T11:14:27.820581 IN RE: REMARKS BY HIGH COURT JUDGE DURING COURT PROCEEDINGSversus,25-09-2024,SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 9/2024,Unknown,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY Issue for Consideration Certain misogynistic remarks as well as comments prejudicial to a particular community were made by a Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the course of the judicial proceedings. Suo motu case taken up Court. Headnotes† Judicial Discipline – Misogynistic comments to a woman lawyer and casual observations against a particular community at large made by the Judge during judicial proceedings – Suo motu proceedings taken up by the Supreme Court however, notice was not issued to Decision Date : 25-09-2024 | Case No : SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 9/2024 | Direction Issue : Proceedings concluded. | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: REMARKS BY HIGH COURT JUDGE DURING COURT PROCEEDINGSversus-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6682024 INSC 758Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROYIssue for Consideration Certain misogynistic remarks as well as comments prejudicial to a particular community were made by a Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the course of the judicial proceedings. Suo motu case taken up Court. Headnotes† Judicial Discipline – Misogynistic comments to a woman lawyer and casual observations against a particular community at large made by the Judge during judicial proceedings – Suo motu proceedings taken up by the Supreme Court however, notice was not issued toDecision Date :25-09-2024| Case No :SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 9/2024| Direction Issue :Proceedings concluded.| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC758,2025-06-13T11:14:05.731177 DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER,25-11-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2020,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 893 SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR 947 : 2024 INSC 893 Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020) 25 November 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Writ Petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and 1976 – Words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble – Challenge to: Held: Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution – The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament – This amending power extends to the Decision Date : 25-11-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","DR BALRAM SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 893Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR947 : 2024 INSC 893 Dr Balram Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2020) 25 November 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Writ Petitions seek to challenge the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and 1976 – Words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble – Challenge to: Held: Article 368 of the Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution – The power to amend unquestionably rests with the Parliament – This amending power extends to theDecision Date :25-11-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2020| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC893,2025-06-13T11:15:19.367538 S.V. SAMUDRAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR,04-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8067/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The Civil Judge modified the award passed by the Arbitrator reducing the amount awarded as also interest thereupon, i.e., Rs.14,68,239/- @ 18% to only 25% of the tender amount which equals to Rs.3,71,564/- and the interest percentage thereon was reduced to 9%. Whether the award as carried out by the Civil Judge as confirmed by the High Court, was justified within law. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 34 – The award passed by the Arbitrator was modified by the Civil Judge and the Respondents were directed to pay Rs.3,71,564 (25% of Decision Date : 04-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8067/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.S.V. SAMUDRAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2812024 INSC 17Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The Civil Judge modified the award passed by the Arbitrator reducing the amount awarded as also interest thereupon, i.e., Rs.14,68,239/- @ 18% to only 25% of the tender amount which equals to Rs.3,71,564/- and the interest percentage thereon was reduced to 9%. Whether the award as carried out by the Civil Judge as confirmed by the High Court, was justified within law. Headnotes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 34 – The award passed by the Arbitrator was modified by the Civil Judge and the Respondents were directed to pay Rs.3,71,564 (25% ofDecision Date :04-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8067/2019| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC17,2025-06-13T11:05:38.010269 "STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusDR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS",25-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3791/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus DR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13662024 INSC 894 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases, on any terms and conditions it – Land allocation policy – Distribution of State largesse – State distributing public land in the State of Telangana – Allotment of land parcels, vide several State Government Memoranda within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits through Cooperative Societies Decision Date : 25-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3791/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusDR. RAO, V.B.J. CHELIKANI AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13662024 INSC 894Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Issue arose that whether the Government, like any private individual, have the absolute discretion to frame policy, distribute resources and enter into a contract with whomsoever it pleases, on any terms and conditions it – Land allocation policy – Distribution of State largesse – State distributing public land in the State of Telangana – Allotment of land parcels, vide several State Government Memoranda within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits through Cooperative SocietiesDecision Date :25-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3791/2011| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC894,2025-06-13T11:15:18.623158 SANT BHAGWAN BABA SHIKSHAN MANDAL & ORS.versusGUNWANT & ORS.,03-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2225/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English മലയാളം - Malayalamमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SANT BHAGWAN BABA SHIKSHAN MANDAL & ORS. versus GUNWANT & ORS. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 5232024 INSC 405 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 and appointing him to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the appellant no.3-school. Headnotes Service Law – Appointment – Shikshan Sevak – Respondent no.1 was no.3-school – According to respondent no.1, he acquired requisite qualifications for the post of Shikshan Sevak and he had submitted several representations for the said post, but the same were not considered favourably – Appellant no.1 issued advertisement inviting application Decision Date : 03-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2225/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SANT BHAGWAN BABA SHIKSHAN MANDAL & ORS.versusGUNWANT & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5232024 INSC 405Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 and appointing him to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the appellant no.3-school. Headnotes Service Law – Appointment – Shikshan Sevak – Respondent no.1 was no.3-school – According to respondent no.1, he acquired requisite qualifications for the post of Shikshan Sevak and he had submitted several representations for the said post, but the same were not considered favourably – Appellant no.1 issued advertisement inviting applicationDecision Date :03-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2225/2011| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC405,2025-06-13T11:10:47.506167 "V.S. PALANIVELversusP. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.",28-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2022,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that Covid-19 lockdown was a valid reason for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; (ii) Whether the appellant was justified in alleging that the (iii) Whether it was incumbent for the Liquidator to constitute a Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee; (iv) Whether Liquidator had violated Regulation 33 of the IBBI Regulations, 2016; (v) What is the import of the order of attachment issued by the Income Tax Authorities in Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.S. PALANIVELversusP. SRIRAM, CS, LIQUIDATOR, ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 12632024 INSC 659Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that Covid-19 lockdown was a valid reason for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; (ii) Whether the appellant was justified in alleging that the (iii) Whether it was incumbent for the Liquidator to constitute a Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee; (iv) Whether Liquidator had violated Regulation 33 of the IBBI Regulations, 2016; (v) What is the import of the order of attachment issued by the Income Tax Authorities inDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2022| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC659,2025-06-13T11:13:48.496769 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.versusPROHLAD GUHA ETC.,01-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4434/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground. The authority found that their appointments were based on forged/ fabricated and bogus documents and their services were terminated. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the dismissal from service is legally sustainable or not. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Allegation that appointments of respondent-employees were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Employees were terminated from services – Original Decision Date : 01-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4434/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.versusPROHLAD GUHA ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 82024 INSC 563Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Respondent-employees were appointed on compassionate ground. The authority found that their appointments were based on forged/ fabricated and bogus documents and their services were terminated. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the dismissal from service is legally sustainable or not. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate ground – Allegation that appointments of respondent-employees were based on forged/fabricated and bogus documents – Employees were terminated from services – OriginalDecision Date :01-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4434/2014| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC563,2025-06-13T11:13:21.163929 RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.versusVIJAYAN & ORS.,22-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2161/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Issue arose with respect to the devolution of property by way of Marumakkathayam law. Nature and character of the scheduled properties. Whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong present facts, ‘PA’ had the legal right to transfer the entire property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by way of a mortgage deed or was her right only limited to one-sixth of the property as contended by the original defendants. Headnotes† Madras Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2161/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAMACHANDRAN & ORS.versusVIJAYAN & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10132024 INSC 885Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Issue arose with respect to the devolution of property by way of Marumakkathayam law. Nature and character of the scheduled properties. Whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong present facts, ‘PA’ had the legal right to transfer the entire property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by way of a mortgage deed or was her right only limited to one-sixth of the property as contended by the original defendants. Headnotes† MadrasDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2161/2012| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC885,2025-06-13T11:15:23.899476 SUNIL @ SONU ETC.versusSTATE NCT OF DELHI,24-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3978/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that as to whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or in the facts and circumstance of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 not amounting to murder – Pre-existing disputes between the parties leading to verbal altercation whereafter accused persons attacked the victims with knives and dandas, resulting in death of one – FIR lodged by one of the victim as also the appellant – Conviction of the Decision Date : 24-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3978/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUNIL @ SONU ETC.versusSTATE NCT OF DELHI-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6162024 INSC 727Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that as to whether the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or in the facts and circumstance of the case, the conviction needs to be altered to a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 not amounting to murder – Pre-existing disputes between the parties leading to verbal altercation whereafter accused persons attacked the victims with knives and dandas, resulting in death of one – FIR lodged by one of the victim as also the appellant – Conviction of theDecision Date :24-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3978/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC727,2025-06-13T11:14:20.687549 HDFC BANK LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.,22-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4324/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials. Headnotes† Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section 420 of IPC – Question of mens rea does not must disclose the following ingredients to make out an offence u/s.420 : (i) That the Accused has induced anyone since inception; (ii) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; (iii) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The Accused/Bank is a jurisdiction person, and as Decision Date : 22-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4324/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","HDFC BANK LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19022024 INSC 807Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials. Headnotes† Criminal law – Essential ingredients for offence under Section 420 of IPC – Question of mens rea does not must disclose the following ingredients to make out an offence u/s.420 : (i) That the Accused has induced anyone since inception; (ii) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; (iii) That mens rea existed at the time of such inducement. The Accused/Bank is a jurisdiction person, and asDecision Date :22-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4324/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC807,2025-06-13T11:14:58.154492 A.B. GOVARDHANversusP. RAGOTHAMAN,29-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9975/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there was redemption of the mortgage; whether the Single Judge rightly held the of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58 – Mortgage – Loan obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant- plaintiff – Under the agreement in question, the respondent produced title document of Decision Date : 29-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9975/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.A.B. GOVARDHANversusP. RAGOTHAMAN-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 10022024 INSC 640Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the respondent-defendant by way of the agreement agreed to create equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds for the loan obtained by him from the appellant-plaintiff; whether there was redemption of the mortgage; whether the Single Judge rightly held the of Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58 – Mortgage – Loan obtained by the respondent-defendant from the appellant- plaintiff – Under the agreement in question, the respondent produced title document ofDecision Date :29-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9975/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC640,2025-06-13T11:13:47.059166 DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICERversusJASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR.,04-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3831/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 for cancellation, suspension interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. Headnotes Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2) & (3) – Interpretation of: Held: Bare reading of the Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3831/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICERversusJASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 602024 INSC 173Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 for cancellation, suspension interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. Headnotes Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2) & (3) – Interpretation of: Held: Bare reading of theDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3831/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC173,2025-06-13T11:09:27.383472 SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTDversusRAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES,10-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6301/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the complaint, whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(7) – – Consumer complaint before the district forum alleging deficiency of service and seeking refund of amount from the opposite party – Instead of examining whether the service availed by complainant was for commercial purpose, the district forum determined whether the complainant fell Decision Date : 10-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6301/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTDversusRAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2142024 INSC 403Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the maintainability of the complaint, whether the service obtained by the complainant was for a commercial purpose. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s. 2(7) – – Consumer complaint before the district forum alleging deficiency of service and seeking refund of amount from the opposite party – Instead of examining whether the service availed by complainant was for commercial purpose, the district forum determined whether the complainant fellDecision Date :10-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6301/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC403,2025-06-13T11:12:55.040277 PREM RAJversusPOONAMMA MENON & ANR.,02-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1858/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed. Headnotes s.138 – Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demand Decision Date : 02-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1858/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PREM RAJversusPOONAMMA MENON & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 292024 INSC 260Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused therein held guilty with natural consequences thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, already stands passed. Headnotes s.138 – Appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant – On receipt of demand, appellant issued a cheque for the said amount – It was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and ‘payments stopped by drawer’ – The complainant issued a notice of demandDecision Date :02-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1858/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC260,2025-06-13T11:10:51.276934 CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.,02-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6772/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration For the selection in question, whether the Bangalore University was bound to comply with the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/ method of selection as per its advertisement; whether respondent No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules; advertisement issued by the University intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 suffered from any illegality. Headnotes† Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) – Decision Date : 02-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6772/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4712024 INSC 367Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration For the selection in question, whether the Bangalore University was bound to comply with the 2001 Rules which was to be the mode/ method of selection as per its advertisement; whether respondent No. 7 was entitled to be appointed as per the 2001 Rules; advertisement issued by the University intending to follow the 2001 Rules made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 suffered from any illegality. Headnotes† Karnataka SCs, STs and OBCs (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 – ss.4(1A), 2(2), 2(3)(vi) –Decision Date :02-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6772/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC367,2025-06-13T11:11:46.353488 PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRSversusINDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS,25-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10855/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRS versus INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 988 J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the eviction suit filed by the appellant-landlord and holding that the respondent-tenant was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and tenant be Decision Date : 25-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10855/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRSversusINDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 988Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the eviction suit filed by the appellant-landlord and holding that the respondent-tenant was entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and tenant beDecision Date :25-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10855/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:14:18.297493 RAJESH MONGAversusHOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.,04-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1495/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH 1 : 2024 INSC 162 Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1495 of 2023) 04 March 2024 [A.S. Bopanna* and M.M. Sundresh JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether an adjustable rate of interest on home loan would apply based only on the rate of loan – Home buyer filed loan application, opting an adjustable rate of interest – Manager of the Bank assured that the rate of interest would be charged based on the Prime Lending Rate of RBI – Loan amount disbursed, and thereafter, the rate of interest was revised from 7.25% pa Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1495/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJESH MONGAversusHOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 162Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, M.M. SUNDRESH1 : 2024 INSC 162 Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1495 of 2023) 04 March 2024 [A.S. Bopanna* and M.M. Sundresh JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether an adjustable rate of interest on home loan would apply based only on the rate of loan – Home buyer filed loan application, opting an adjustable rate of interest – Manager of the Bank assured that the rate of interest would be charged based on the Prime Lending Rate of RBI – Loan amount disbursed, and thereafter, the rate of interest was revised from 7.25% paDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1495/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC162,2025-06-13T11:09:23.364248 AKSHAY & ANR.versusADITYA & ORS.,29-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3642/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AKSHAY & ANR. versus ADITYA & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 8472024 INSC 657 BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Appellants-landowners executed a Joint Venture Agreement and an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Respondent No.2-builder for the development of the land and construction of flats. Respondent No.2 entered into sale agreements with the complainants-respondents filed by the respondents against the appellants and Respondent No.2 inter alia for declaration that they were guilty of deficiency in service and were jointly and severally liable to complete the construction as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and put the complainants Decision Date : 29-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3642/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AKSHAY & ANR.versusADITYA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8472024 INSC 657Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Appellants-landowners executed a Joint Venture Agreement and an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the Respondent No.2-builder for the development of the land and construction of flats. Respondent No.2 entered into sale agreements with the complainants-respondents filed by the respondents against the appellants and Respondent No.2 inter alia for declaration that they were guilty of deficiency in service and were jointly and severally liable to complete the construction as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and put the complainantsDecision Date :29-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3642/2018| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC657,2025-06-13T11:13:44.506238 V.D. RAVEESHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA,22-10-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 980/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the petitioner is guilty of committing offences u/ss.406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC, and if so, whether the sentences imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court call for interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPC Decision Date : 22-10-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 980/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","V.D. RAVEESHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22652024 INSC 1060Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the petitioner is guilty of committing offences u/ss.406, 420, 468, 465 and 471 IPC, and if so, whether the sentences imposed on him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court and High Court call for interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPCDecision Date :22-10-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 980/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1060,2025-06-13T11:14:57.575328 YASH DEVELOPERSversusHARIHAR KRUPA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.,30-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8127/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Development agreement in favour of the appellant was terminated by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) exercising its power under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Order by the High Court. Issue as regards scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order passed under Section 13; accountability of officers exercising power coupled with duty under Section 13; Performance audit of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Decision Date : 30-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8127/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.YASH DEVELOPERSversusHARIHAR KRUPA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14432024 INSC 559Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Development agreement in favour of the appellant was terminated by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) exercising its power under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Order by the High Court. Issue as regards scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order passed under Section 13; accountability of officers exercising power coupled with duty under Section 13; Performance audit of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance andDecision Date :30-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8127/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC559,2025-06-13T11:13:28.540465 MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS.versusM. MOANUNGBA & ORS.,28-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9927/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer. Headnotes† Service law – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer – Direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers in 2003 – Circulation of tentative seniority Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9927/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MHABEMO OVUNG & ORS.versusM. MOANUNGBA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7092024 INSC 641Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer. Headnotes† Service law – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of the incumbents appointed to the post of Junior Engineer on direct recruitment basis and those whose posts of Sectional Officer, Grade-I, were upgraded to Junior Engineer – Direct recruitment of the Junior Engineers in 2003 – Circulation of tentative seniorityDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9927/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC641,2025-06-13T11:13:59.055045 "VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS",01-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7768/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Appellants, legal representatives of the original opposite party-a sole proprietor (since deceased) who had entered into a Development Agreement with the respondents-complainants, if liable to discharge the obligations which had to in his personal capacity based on his skills and expertise. Headnotes Consumer Protection – Legal representatives of sole proprietor-developer (since deceased), if liable for personal contract of the deceased – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.37, 40 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Decision Date : 01-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7768/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS.versusJAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT & OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1272024 INSC 159Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Appellants, legal representatives of the original opposite party-a sole proprietor (since deceased) who had entered into a Development Agreement with the respondents-complainants, if liable to discharge the obligations which had to in his personal capacity based on his skills and expertise. Headnotes Consumer Protection – Legal representatives of sole proprietor-developer (since deceased), if liable for personal contract of the deceased – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.37, 40 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Decision Date :01-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7768/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC159,2025-06-13T11:10:14.974827 PARSWANATH SAHAversusBANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14804/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20, prior to the 2018 Amendment specific performance – Agreement of Sale was executed by the predecessor of the defendants- respondents (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant however, he died before the execution of the Sale deed – Defendants declined to Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14804/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","PARSWANATH SAHAversusBANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 11862024 INSC 1022Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment setting aside the decree of specific performance passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20, prior to the 2018 Amendment specific performance – Agreement of Sale was executed by the predecessor of the defendants- respondents (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant however, he died before the execution of the Sale deed – Defendants declined toDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14804/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1022,2025-07-15T09:34:00.536421 HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11758/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied. Headnotes† Land ss.4, 6, 23(1) – Assessment of Market Value for Acquired Lands – Comparable Sales Method – Deduction for Developmental Charges: Held: Compensation for acquired lands must reflect their fair market value as of the date of the Section 4 notification – The Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11758/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","HORRMAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17092024 INSC 797Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration (1) Whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation for their acquired lands, and if so, to what extent; and (2) Whether the methodology for calculating the quantum of such compensation has been appropriately applied. Headnotes† Land ss.4, 6, 23(1) – Assessment of Market Value for Acquired Lands – Comparable Sales Method – Deduction for Developmental Charges: Held: Compensation for acquired lands must reflect their fair market value as of the date of the Section 4 notification – TheDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11758/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC797,2025-06-13T11:15:00.067451 VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.,02-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1571/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1552024 INSC 100 VIKRAM NATH Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellant’s subsequent employment with the State Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by the State Government, such that the Appellants’ prior service with the Central Government would be considered in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. Headnotes Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 – r.25(ix) – Interpretation – Qualifying Service – Inclusion of the period of service rendered to the Central Government as a part of Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1571/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VINOD KANJIBHAI BHAGORAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1552024 INSC 100Coram : VIKRAM NATHIssue for Consideration Whether the Appellant’s subsequent employment with the State Government could be construed to mean that the Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by the State Government, such that the Appellants’ prior service with the Central Government would be considered in terms of Rule 25(ix) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022. Headnotes Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 – r.25(ix) – Interpretation – Qualifying Service – Inclusion of the period of service rendered to the Central Government as a part ofDecision Date :02-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1571/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC100,2025-06-13T11:05:58.054725 ANIL MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.,01-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1335/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ANIL MISHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 3852024 INSC 189 VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the entire proceedings of the case against the accused on the basis of a Settlement Agreement where the complainant in the FIR was not made a party. Headnotes During the pendency of the trial, a Settlement Agreement was i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4; and one of the victims i.e. Respondent No.5 – Trial Court on considering the said agreement rejected the same by observing that (i) chargesheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC of which Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 364 of the IPC Decision Date : 01-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1335/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANIL MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3852024 INSC 189Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether High Court was justified in setting aside the entire proceedings of the case against the accused on the basis of a Settlement Agreement where the complainant in the FIR was not made a party. Headnotes During the pendency of the trial, a Settlement Agreement was i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4; and one of the victims i.e. Respondent No.5 – Trial Court on considering the said agreement rejected the same by observing that (i) chargesheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 364 of the IPC of which Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 364 of the IPCDecision Date :01-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1335/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC189,2025-06-13T11:10:17.410691 STATE OF KERALAversusUNION OF INDIA,01-04-2024,ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1/2024,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration What is the true import and interpretation of the expression “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” contained in Article 131 of the Constitution; Does Article 293 enforceable right to raise borrowing from the Union government and/or other sources and if yes, to what extent such right can be regulated by the Union government; Can the borrowing by State-Owned Enterprises and liabilities arising out of the Public Account be included under the purview of Decision Date : 01-04-2024 | Case No : ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1/2024 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF KERALAversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 132024 INSC 253Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration What is the true import and interpretation of the expression “if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends” contained in Article 131 of the Constitution; Does Article 293 enforceable right to raise borrowing from the Union government and/or other sources and if yes, to what extent such right can be regulated by the Union government; Can the borrowing by State-Owned Enterprises and liabilities arising out of the Public Account be included under the purview ofDecision Date :01-04-2024| Case No :ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1/2024| Disposal Nature :Matter referred to larger bench| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC253,2025-06-13T11:11:32.365505 RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS,22-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13001/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI versus HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13432024 INSC 913 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Headnotes† Code 1908 – Order 43, 39 – Appeals from Orders – Appellate jurisdiction u/Or.43 – Scope: Held: Appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13001/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSIversusHARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13432024 INSC 913Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Headnotes† Code 1908 – Order 43, 39 – Appeals from Orders – Appellate jurisdiction u/Or.43 – Scope: Held: Appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying theDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13001/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC913,2025-06-13T11:15:25.323444 M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITEDversusA.S. RAGHAVENDRA,02-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5187/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the respondent would or would not come within the definitional stipulation of a “workman” as laid out under Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Headnotes Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – “workman” – When Business Head (South) in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales performed managerial and supervisory work, if a “workman”: Held: No – Respondent himself described his position as a Member of the senior management cadre, in-charge of supervising the Account Managers in the Decision Date : 02-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5187/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITEDversusA.S. RAGHAVENDRA-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 1002024 INSC 265Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the respondent would or would not come within the definitional stipulation of a “workman” as laid out under Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Headnotes Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – “workman” – When Business Head (South) in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales performed managerial and supervisory work, if a “workman”: Held: No – Respondent himself described his position as a Member of the senior management cadre, in-charge of supervising the Account Managers in theDecision Date :02-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5187/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC265,2025-06-13T11:10:56.394909 ACHIN GUPTAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.,03-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2379/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Decision Date : 03-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2379/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ACHIN GUPTAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 1292024 INSC 369Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The appellant herein was chargesheeted u/ss.323, 406, 498A and 506 of IPC. The appellant filed a quashing petition for the purpose of getting the criminal proceedings quashed. The High Court by its impugned order, declined to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent power u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –Decision Date :03-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2379/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC369,2025-06-13T11:11:44.939721 JAGGOversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14831/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment. Headnotes† Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally engaged by the Central Water housekeeping and support functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments – Appellants sought regularization of their services on the ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14831/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","JAGGOversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12352024 INSC 1034Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the regularization of services of long term serving employees performing essential function in government establishment. Headnotes† Service law – Regularization of services – Appellants originally engaged by the Central Water housekeeping and support functions (Safaiwali and Khallasi) at the establishments – Appellants sought regularization of their services on the ground that they were long-serving employees, engaged against work of perennial nature – Tribunal dismissed the application holding that theDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14831/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1034,2025-07-15T09:34:31.507588 SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusV. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS.,04-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7293/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration A suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the suit schedule properties. The Judgment of the High Court placed reliance upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed. Whether the High error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965; whether evidence could be led beyond pleadings. Headnotes Pleadings – Evidence beyond pleadings – Appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for the reason that Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7293/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusV. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 462024 INSC 165Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration A suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming share in the suit schedule properties. The Judgment of the High Court placed reliance upon 1965 partition which was not the pleaded case in the plaint initially filed. Whether the High error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965; whether evidence could be led beyond pleadings. Headnotes Pleadings – Evidence beyond pleadings – Appellants submitted that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for the reason thatDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7293/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC165,2025-06-13T11:09:25.273082 MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.,29-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3599/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of Respondent No.2-complainant, who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, for not returning the ornaments (gold) which he had given at the time of her marriage with and substance of the present dispute lie in the father’s right over the gifts, i.e.,‘stridhan’ given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.6 – Hindu Succession Act, Decision Date : 29-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3599/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MULAKALA MALLESHWARA RAO & ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7392024 INSC 639Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of Respondent No.2-complainant, who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, for not returning the ornaments (gold) which he had given at the time of her marriage with and substance of the present dispute lie in the father’s right over the gifts, i.e.,‘stridhan’ given by him to his daughter at the time of marriage. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.6 – Hindu Succession Act,Decision Date :29-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3599/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC639,2025-06-13T11:13:41.711582 PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,28-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3572/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in the present case, the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023) for a new case in which his arrest is not are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.50 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.25 – Appellant was in judicial Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3572/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PREM PRAKASHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9552024 INSC 637Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in the present case, the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023) for a new case in which his arrest is not are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.50 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.25 – Appellant was in judicialDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3572/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC637,2025-06-13T11:14:00.328542 ANEESversusTHE STATE GOVT. OF NCT,03-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2015,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder. Whether the High Court committed the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of s.106 – Murder of appellant-accused’s Decision Date : 03-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANEESversusTHE STATE GOVT. OF NCT-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 1642024 INSC 368Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder. Whether the High Court committed the impugned judgment affirming the conviction of the appellant. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of s.106 – Murder of appellant-accused’sDecision Date :03-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 437/2015| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC368,2025-06-13T11:11:43.260689 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusASHOK SIRPAL,24-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4277/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the order passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the accused who was convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and Prevention Decision Date : 24-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4277/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusASHOK SIRPAL-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9302024 INSC 819Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the order passed by the High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed on the accused who was convicted for embezzlement of Rs. 46 lakhs. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.389 – 2023 – ss.430 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.64 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.4 and 8(2) – Suspension of sentence pending appeal; release of appellant on bail – Respondent-accused convicted for the offences punishable under the Penal Code and PreventionDecision Date :24-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4277/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC819,2025-06-13T11:14:48.219781 M/S ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.versusMAST RAM & ORS.,20-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10662/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the subject land and all other liabilities associated with it were transferred to the Appellant in terms of the Scheme; Whether it was the Appellant or JAL who was legally obliged to pay the compensation amount determined under the Supplementary Award; Whether the the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 can be returned to the Respondent Nos. 1-6 at this stage under the scheme of the Act; In other words, what is the scope of Section 101; Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, being a Decision Date : 20-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10662/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ULTRA-TECH CEMENT LTD.versusMAST RAM & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 4432024 INSC 709Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the subject land and all other liabilities associated with it were transferred to the Appellant in terms of the Scheme; Whether it was the Appellant or JAL who was legally obliged to pay the compensation amount determined under the Supplementary Award; Whether the the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 can be returned to the Respondent Nos. 1-6 at this stage under the scheme of the Act; In other words, what is the scope of Section 101; Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh, being aDecision Date :20-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10662/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC709,2025-06-13T11:14:37.666171 LENIN KUMAR RAYversusM/S EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid down in law. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of “workman” – Determinative factor is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post – Onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman”: Held: Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024 dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024 allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","LENIN KUMAR RAYversusM/S EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 23032024 INSC 802Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid down in law. Headnotes† Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of “workman” – Determinative factor is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post – Onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman”: Held:Decision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024 dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024 allowed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC802,2025-06-13T11:15:00.715983 NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHERversusMANJU TOMAR AND OTHERS,28-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7440/2012,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter as regards, the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee-DSGMC, challenging the order passed by the High Court, whereby the NDMC was directed to reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and other benefits accruing to the staff of the school the same from DSGMC. Headnotes† Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – rr. 46, 47 – Closing down of a school or any class in a school – Absorption of surplus [employee] – School being run by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee-DSGMC receiving 95% grant from Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7440/2012 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012 disposed of. Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012 dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANOTHERversusMANJU TOMAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 6502024 INSC 635Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter as regards, the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee-DSGMC, challenging the order passed by the High Court, whereby the NDMC was directed to reimburse the pay and perquisites including the pension and other benefits accruing to the staff of the school the same from DSGMC. Headnotes† Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – rr. 46, 47 – Closing down of a school or any class in a school – Absorption of surplus [employee] – School being run by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee-DSGMC receiving 95% grant fromDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7440/2012| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal Nos. 7440-7441 of 2012 disposed of. Civil Appeal Nos. 7442-7444 of 2012 dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC635,2025-06-13T11:13:53.359753 SHENTO VARGHESEversusJULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.,13-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2531/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.; does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether. Headnotes† Code of s.102(3) – Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate: Held: The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in section 102(3) has not received judicial construction – The said expression must receive a reasonable construction Decision Date : 13-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2531/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHENTO VARGHESEversusJULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4092024 INSC 407Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration What is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C.; does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether. Headnotes† Code of s.102(3) – Implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate: Held: The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ as used in section 102(3) has not received judicial construction – The said expression must receive a reasonable constructionDecision Date :13-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2531/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC407,2025-06-13T11:12:50.383626 BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS.versusSUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7502/2012,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights Headnotes Adverse possession – Suit by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession – Dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 when the Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7502/2012 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS.versusSUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 602024 INSC 9Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights Headnotes Adverse possession – Suit by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession – Dismissed by the High Court on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights by adverse possession having continued so since 1944 when theDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7502/2012| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC9,2025-06-13T11:05:41.961257 SARFARAZ ALAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,04-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 45/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s right to make a representation, the communication regarding the same if to be made both orally and in writing. Headnotes Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, – Article 22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his right Decision Date : 04-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 45/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SARFARAZ ALAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2672024 INSC 18Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Validity of the detention order passed by the respondents; Detenue’s right to make a representation, the communication regarding the same if to be made both orally and in writing. Headnotes Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, – Article 22(5) – Detention order – Validity – Detenue’s right of making a representation – Communication thereof if to be made both orally and in writing – Appellant inter alia pleaded that the detenue was not informed/communicated regarding his rightDecision Date :04-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 45/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC18,2025-06-13T11:05:35.313952 SAROJ & ORS.versusIFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.,24-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12077/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT accordance with law. Headnotes† Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate: Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique Identification Decision Date : 24-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12077/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SAROJ & ORS.versusIFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9392024 INSC 816Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue arose that in case of conflict of the dates of birth between the two documents, School Leaving Certificate and the Aadhar Card, which of the two is to be taken as authoritative; and whether the High Court’s reduction of the compensation awarded by the MACT accordance with law. Headnotes† Deeds and document – Aadhar Card – Suitability of, to determine proof of age, vis-à-vis the school leaving certificate: Held: Aadhar card may not be used as proof of date of birth – Circular No.08 of 2023 by Unique IdentificationDecision Date :24-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12077/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC816,2025-06-13T11:14:52.169723 OM RATHODversusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.,25-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12110/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was in Decision Date : 25-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12110/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","OM RATHODversusTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 21872024 INSC 836Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Appellant had lower limb myopathy, a locomotor disability. He secured an all India PwD rank of 84 and a State PwD rank of 4 in NEET UG Examination 2024. However, was held ineligible to pursue MBBS course by the designated Medical Board holding that the appellant was 88% disabled which was higher than the maximum permissible disability fixed by the regulation governing admission in the PWD category for MBBS course. By way of the impugned judgment, High Court held that the certification of the degree of disability was inDecision Date :25-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12110/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC836,2025-06-13T11:14:46.850995 DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS,13-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6351/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 7142024 INSC 415 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration A land owned by the appellant was acquired and he did not receive any compensation for the same. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant was informed that value of land was Rs. 4,68,099/-. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters the appellant to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the land. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order. Headnotes Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In the year 1977, a land Decision Date : 13-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6351/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DHARNIDHAR MISHRA (D) AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 7142024 INSC 415Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration A land owned by the appellant was acquired and he did not receive any compensation for the same. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant was informed that value of land was Rs. 4,68,099/-. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Letters the appellant to file an appropriate application before the concerned authority for disbursement of the value of the land. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order. Headnotes Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Payment of compensation – In the year 1977, a landDecision Date :13-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6351/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC415,2025-06-13T11:12:45.181042 SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,30-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3731/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 7822024 INSC 661 SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 of IPC. It is stated by the appellants that they have settled the dispute with the injured persons vide compromise deed dated 29.01.2024. In the instant appeal, they are Court for compounding the offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Incident between relatives – Conviction under non-compoundable offences set aside: Held: On perusal of affidavits filed, this Decision Date : 30-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3731/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7822024 INSC 661Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 of IPC. It is stated by the appellants that they have settled the dispute with the injured persons vide compromise deed dated 29.01.2024. In the instant appeal, they are Court for compounding the offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Incident between relatives – Conviction under non-compoundable offences set aside: Held: On perusal of affidavits filed, thisDecision Date :30-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3731/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC661,2025-06-13T11:13:40.381258 PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,18-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14689/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAWAN KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1253 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”), the appellant made an online application for being appointed/ allotted a regular and rural retail outlet. The appellant was selected on draw on lots and he offered a to third parties - Shri Lila Dhar and Shri Dinesh Kumar, whose consent letters were made available along with the application. At the time of application, there was some dispute between Mr. Lila Dhar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as regards the land which was offered by the appellant. But the same Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14689/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","PAWAN KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1253Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”), the appellant made an online application for being appointed/ allotted a regular and rural retail outlet. The appellant was selected on draw on lots and he offered a to third parties - Shri Lila Dhar and Shri Dinesh Kumar, whose consent letters were made available along with the application. At the time of application, there was some dispute between Mr. Lila Dhar and Mr. Dinesh Kumar as regards the land which was offered by the appellant. But the sameDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14689/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:44.490068 MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,10-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 16956/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by accepting the alternative prayer that they should be allotted an extent of 974 sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs; Impugned judgment if liable to be set aside as contended by the plaintiffs, on the ground that no points for determination were framed therein, as required Decision Date : 10-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 16956/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 5942024 INSC 401Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Trial Court decreed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by accepting the alternative prayer that they should be allotted an extent of 974 sq. mts. in any Town Planning Scheme in the western zone of Ahmedabad, but rejected the main prayer Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation and non-suiting the plaintiffs; Impugned judgment if liable to be set aside as contended by the plaintiffs, on the ground that no points for determination were framed therein, as requiredDecision Date :10-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 16956/2017| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC401,2025-06-13T11:12:51.789471 BHARTI ARORAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,13-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1699/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was justified in recording the findings against as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.36-A, 58 – In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007 Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1699/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","BHARTI ARORAversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1044Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was justified in recording the findings against as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.36-A, 58 – In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007Decision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1699/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:51.251584 CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL,29-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1556/2013,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 7962024 INSC 665 SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration The appellants have been convicted u/ss.498A, 304B and 306 r/w.s.34 of the IPC. The Trial Court had convicted sister-in-law (appellant no.1), husband (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law of the deceased and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment, 3 years R.I and 10 years 498A and 306 of IPC respectively, along with fine and other default stipulations. Both the conviction and the sentence of the present appellants have been upheld in appeal and the High Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A, 304B and s.306 r/w. s.34 – Evidence Act, 1872 Decision Date : 29-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1556/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHABI KARMAKAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7962024 INSC 665Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration The appellants have been convicted u/ss.498A, 304B and 306 r/w.s.34 of the IPC. The Trial Court had convicted sister-in-law (appellant no.1), husband (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law of the deceased and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment, 3 years R.I and 10 years 498A and 306 of IPC respectively, along with fine and other default stipulations. Both the conviction and the sentence of the present appellants have been upheld in appeal and the High Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A, 304B and s.306 r/w. s.34 – Evidence Act, 1872Decision Date :29-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1556/2013| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC665,2025-06-13T11:13:43.292221 TIRITH KUMAR & ORS.versusDADURAM & ORS.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13516/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the parties to the instant lis. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.2(2) – Application of the Act – Constitution of India – Articles 366(25), 341, 342 – Central Provinces belonged to Sawara tribe, a notified scheduled tribe and thus, the HSA, 1956 does not apply to them – Granted a portion as property to M’s daughters and their descendants (respondents) on the grounds of justice, equity and good conscience – Correctness: Held: HSA, 1956 Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13516/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","TIRITH KUMAR & ORS.versusDADURAM & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 665Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could be applied to the parties to the instant lis. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.2(2) – Application of the Act – Constitution of India – Articles 366(25), 341, 342 – Central Provinces belonged to Sawara tribe, a notified scheduled tribe and thus, the HSA, 1956 does not apply to them – Granted a portion as property to M’s daughters and their descendants (respondents) on the grounds of justice, equity and good conscience – Correctness: Held: HSA, 1956Decision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13516/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:41.801172 DATTATRAYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,01-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 666/2012,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DATTATRAYA versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 9892024 INSC 167 SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellant u/ss. 302 and 316 IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years of R.I. respectively along with fine, for causing death of his wife as also the child she was bearing by pouring kerosene on fire. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part II and 316 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide – Prosecution case that on the fateful night the husband in an inebriated state, picked a fight Decision Date : 01-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 666/2012 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DATTATRAYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 9892024 INSC 167Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellant u/ss. 302 and 316 IPC and sentencing to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years of R.I. respectively along with fine, for causing death of his wife as also the child she was bearing by pouring kerosene on fire. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part II and 316 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide – Prosecution case that on the fateful night the husband in an inebriated state, picked a fightDecision Date :01-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 666/2012| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC167,2025-06-13T11:08:19.348491 BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIKversusD. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR.,14-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2646/2009,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL* Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates practising legal profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whether “Service” hired or availed of an advocate would fall within the definition of “Service” contained in the C.P. Act, 1986/2019; whether the legislature ever intended to include the professions or services rendered by the professionals within the purview of the CP Decision Date : 14-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2646/2009 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : In the judgment of Bela M. Trivedi, J.: Appeals allowed. In the judgment of Pankaj Mithal, J.: Appeals disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BAR OF INDIAN LAWYERS THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT JASBIR SINGH MALIKversusD. K. GANDHI PS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES AND ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4842024 INSC 410Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL*Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to whether a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates practising legal profession, would be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whether “Service” hired or availed of an advocate would fall within the definition of “Service” contained in the C.P. Act, 1986/2019; whether the legislature ever intended to include the professions or services rendered by the professionals within the purview of the CPDecision Date :14-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2646/2009| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Direction Issue :In the judgment of Bela M. Trivedi, J.: Appeals allowed. In the judgment of Pankaj Mithal, J.: Appeals disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC410,2025-06-13T11:12:43.196249 RAJU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,31-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1151/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness: Held: Decision Date : 31-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1151/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11472024 INSC 633Coram : SURYA KANT*, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness: Held:Decision Date :31-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1151/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC633,2025-06-13T11:13:22.513602 SACHIN GARGversusSTATE OF U.P & ANR.,30-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 497/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SACHIN GARG versus STATE OF U.P & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11342024 INSC 72 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration In a case wherein the dispute was commercial in nature having no element of criminality, whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 and the High Court in dismissing the application filed by the appellant for complaint case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons, duty of Magistrate – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 504 and 506 – Commercial dispute given criminal colour – Dispute between the parties related to the rate at which the assigned work was Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 497/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SACHIN GARGversusSTATE OF U.P & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11342024 INSC 72Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration In a case wherein the dispute was commercial in nature having no element of criminality, whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing summons for trial u/ss.406, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 and the High Court in dismissing the application filed by the appellant for complaint case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Issuance of summons, duty of Magistrate – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 504 and 506 – Commercial dispute given criminal colour – Dispute between the parties related to the rate at which the assigned work wasDecision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 497/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC72,2025-06-13T11:09:10.102060 ALI HOSSAIN MANDAL & ORS.versusWEST BENGAL BOARD OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & ORS.,09-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1873/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment to the posts of primary teacher as directed by the Division Bench was in departure from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers the remaining 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers were to be treated exclusively as part of 16,500 vacancies for which the recruitment process commenced via Notification dated 23.12.2020, or whether such vacancies can be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle that commenced via Decision Date : 09-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1873/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal Nos.1875-1876 of 2024 allowed. Civil Appeal Nos.1873-1874 of 2024 disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALI HOSSAIN MANDAL & ORS.versusWEST BENGAL BOARD OF PRIMARY EDUCATION & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 9352024 INSC 453Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment to the posts of primary teacher as directed by the Division Bench was in departure from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers the remaining 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers were to be treated exclusively as part of 16,500 vacancies for which the recruitment process commenced via Notification dated 23.12.2020, or whether such vacancies can be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle that commenced viaDecision Date :09-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1873/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal Nos.1875-1876 of 2024 allowed. Civil Appeal Nos.1873-1874 of 2024 disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC453,2025-06-13T11:13:01.500425 CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGHversusMUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.,03-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2991/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration (1) Whether respondent-purchasers were unaware of lis-pendens and could claim to be bona-fide purchasers and be entitled to protection u/s.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (2) Whether the principle of lis-pendens as enshrined u/s.52 would apply Punjab; and (3) When would the doctrine of lis-pendens take effect. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.52 and 41 – Transaction hit by lis pendens – Agreement to sell property between Appellant and Respondent No.3-owner – Appellant paid earnest money Decision Date : 03-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2991/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGHversusMUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 11482024 INSC 377Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration (1) Whether respondent-purchasers were unaware of lis-pendens and could claim to be bona-fide purchasers and be entitled to protection u/s.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (2) Whether the principle of lis-pendens as enshrined u/s.52 would apply Punjab; and (3) When would the doctrine of lis-pendens take effect. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – ss.52 and 41 – Transaction hit by lis pendens – Agreement to sell property between Appellant and Respondent No.3-owner – Appellant paid earnest moneyDecision Date :03-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2991/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC377,2025-06-13T11:11:38.684488 M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD.versusGENERAL MANAGER & ANR.,22-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13004/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate; and whether the application filed u/s.29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Time limit for arbitral award – Extension of time – Application u/s.29A(4), for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal – High Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13004/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","M/S AJAY PROTECH PVT. LTD.versusGENERAL MANAGER & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8502024 INSC 889Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate; and whether the application filed u/s.29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the tribunal ought to have been allowed by the High Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Time limit for arbitral award – Extension of time – Application u/s.29A(4), for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal – HighDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13004/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC889,2025-06-13T11:15:26.436841 MUKESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14808/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi) – Indian – Whether the appellant satisfied the conditions enumerated in s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act and the compromise decree in his favor only asserting his pre-existing rights over the subject land required no registration and was not chargeable with stamp duty: Held: s.17(1), 1908 Act specifies the Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14808/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MUKESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12102024 INSC 1026Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in holding that the compromise decree in favor of the appellant needed registration and stamp duty was also required to be paid for mutation of the subject land. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi) – Indian – Whether the appellant satisfied the conditions enumerated in s.17(2)(vi), 1908 Act and the compromise decree in his favor only asserting his pre-existing rights over the subject land required no registration and was not chargeable with stamp duty: Held: s.17(1), 1908 Act specifies theDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14808/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1026,2025-07-15T09:34:25.650745 AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14828/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the refusal of Kerala Public Service Commission to expand vacancies despite the directions of the tribunal. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Expansion of rank lists – Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC invited Junior Health Inspector for 14 districts of Kerala – Rank List published for the notified districts – Appellants sought directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the post on account of overlapping candidates in multiple lists, and several vacancies remained unfilled Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14828/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","AJITH G. DAS & OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1148Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the refusal of Kerala Public Service Commission to expand vacancies despite the directions of the tribunal. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Expansion of rank lists – Kerala Public Service Commission-KPSC invited Junior Health Inspector for 14 districts of Kerala – Rank List published for the notified districts – Appellants sought directions to KPSC to expand the shortlist published for the post on account of overlapping candidates in multiple lists, and several vacancies remained unfilledDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14828/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:40.549081 BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,02-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and convicting them u/ss.302 and 201/34 and ss.302/34 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 respectively and sentencing accordingly; whether the prosecution proved its case whether the appellants were guilty of committing the crime. Headnotes Appeal against acquittal – Interference – When not sustainable: Held: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence – Trial Judge gave sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO and Decision Date : 02-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BALLU @ BALRAM @ BALMUKUND AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 482024 INSC 258Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and convicting them u/ss.302 and 201/34 and ss.302/34 and 201, Penal Code, 1860 respectively and sentencing accordingly; whether the prosecution proved its case whether the appellants were guilty of committing the crime. Headnotes Appeal against acquittal – Interference – When not sustainable: Held: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence – Trial Judge gave sound and cogent reasons for discarding the testimony of the IO andDecision Date :02-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167/2018| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC258,2025-06-13T11:11:12.444999 PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER,19-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5543/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house – Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5543/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","PRAKASH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 11602024 INSC 1020Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in accepting the prosecution case that the act of suicide by the victim was a direct result of the words uttered by the appellants at the mahalokadalat when there was a clear gap of over a month between the incident and the commission of suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Disputes between the victim, and her husband-appellant no.1 and in-laws – Victim tortured mentally and physically over demand of money at her matrimonial house –Decision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5543/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1020,2025-07-15T09:34:21.247661 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSversusASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 23/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for High Court; whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court against officials of the State Government on the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence of Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 23/2024 | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORSversusASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2112024 INSC 4Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court had the power to direct the State Government to notify Rules proposed by the Chief Justice pertaining to post-retiral benefits for High Court; whether the power of criminal contempt could be invoked by the High Court against officials of the State Government on the ground that the application for recall was ‘contemptuous’; and as regards the broad guidelines to guide courts when they direct the presence ofDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 23/2024| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC4,2025-06-13T11:05:50.828142 VIJAYA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,25-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2013,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the Decision Date : 25-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","VIJAYA SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9062024 INSC 905Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants challenging the conviction under Section 302/201 IPC can be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the case. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – evidence reiterated – On facts and circumstances, held that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence, and the conviction of the Appellant upheld: Held: It is a well settled principle of law that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, theDecision Date :25-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122/2013| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC905,2025-06-13T11:15:20.588854 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER,23-09-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 261/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the application filed by applicant seeking his release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence of more Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Presumption and determination of age – As regards incident of 17.01.2002, the applicant convicted by the Special Sessions Judge, however, acquitted by the High Court – Subsequently, this Decision Date : 23-09-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 261/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJI LAL SHARMA & ANOTHER-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4112024 INSC 747Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the application filed by applicant seeking his release from further jail sentence, on the ground of his juvenility on the date of the offence and has already undergone a sentence of more Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.94 – Presumption and determination of age – As regards incident of 17.01.2002, the applicant convicted by the Special Sessions Judge, however, acquitted by the High Court – Subsequently, thisDecision Date :23-09-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 261/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC747,2025-06-13T11:14:30.283609 DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB,04-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 163/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – appellant along with the lady with whom he had illicit relations, administered poison to the appellant’s wife, with the motive to eliminate her and caused her death – Conviction u/s.302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the order of conviction and Decision Date : 04-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 163/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2482024 INSC 19Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the appellant to escape from the clutches of law. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – appellant along with the lady with whom he had illicit relations, administered poison to the appellant’s wife, with the motive to eliminate her and caused her death – Conviction u/s.302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the order of conviction andDecision Date :04-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 163/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC19,2025-06-13T11:05:36.583818 ALAUDDIN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.,03-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1637/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen theory and motive not established. Headnotes Penal Code, Murder and unlawful assembly – Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable u/ ss. 302/149 for committing murder of the victim by the courts below – Correctness – Plea that statements in evidence of prosecution witness full of omissions and contradictions, and Decision Date : 03-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1637/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALAUDDIN & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 202024 INSC 376Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order convicting the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 302/149 IPC when the statements in evidence full of omissions and contradictions and the evidence of last seen theory and motive not established. Headnotes Penal Code, Murder and unlawful assembly – Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable u/ ss. 302/149 for committing murder of the victim by the courts below – Correctness – Plea that statements in evidence of prosecution witness full of omissions and contradictions, andDecision Date :03-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1637/2021| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC376,2025-06-13T11:11:40.588939 BIJAY AGARWALversusM/S MEDILINES,21-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4301/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with the Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4301/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","BIJAY AGARWALversusM/S MEDILINES-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18902024 INSC 918Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the signatory of a cheque authorized by the Company is a drawer and whether such a signatory could be directed to deposit any sum out of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court u/s.148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as a condition for his conviction u/s.138 of the NI Act. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138 and 148 – Appellant is the authorized signatory of the company – The signed cheques were presented in the bank – The cheques were dishonoured and returned with theDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4301/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC918,2025-06-13T11:15:01.880055 SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14742/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether in view of the inconsistency between the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, if any, would the appellant be entitled to a complete refund of court fees per the former, since it is a Central legislation. Headnotes† Court Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.89 – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Court fees – Complete refund of – Entitlement – Civil dispute filed by the appellant which was resolved through mediation u/s.89 CPC Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14742/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SANJEEVKUMAR HARAKCHAND KANKARIYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 866Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether in view of the inconsistency between the Court Fees Act, 1870 and Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, if any, would the appellant be entitled to a complete refund of court fees per the former, since it is a Central legislation. Headnotes† Court Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.89 – Settlement of disputes outside the Court – Court fees – Complete refund of – Entitlement – Civil dispute filed by the appellant which was resolved through mediation u/s.89 CPCDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14742/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:36.374567 RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.versusJAYA WADHWANI,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 35/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration What would be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the commencement mentioned in the policy or it would be the date of the issuance of the deposit receipt or Insurance Policy – Date from which the policy becomes effective – Assured persons committed suicide – Claims filed by respondent, allowed – Revision filed by the appellant was dismissed, NCDRC affirmed the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 35/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.versusJAYA WADHWANI-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 652024 INSC 10Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration What would be the date from which the policy becomes effective; whether it would be the date on which the policy is issued or the date of the commencement mentioned in the policy or it would be the date of the issuance of the deposit receipt or Insurance Policy – Date from which the policy becomes effective – Assured persons committed suicide – Claims filed by respondent, allowed – Revision filed by the appellant was dismissed, NCDRC affirmed the orders passed by the District Forum and the State CommissionDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 35/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC10,2025-06-13T11:05:45.294893 BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.,31-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 523/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11652024 INSC 77 VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing fraudulent had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/ principals, including the Decision Date : 31-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 523/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIAversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11652024 INSC 77Coram : VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for quashing of the FIR registered u/ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against the vendee for the criminal acts, misuse of power of attorney-PoA, misappropriation of property, and executing fraudulent had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA holder vis-à-vis the land-owners/principals. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Power of Attorney-PoA executed by the landowners/ principals, including theDecision Date :31-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 523/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC77,2025-06-13T11:08:57.092459 ASHOK VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,19-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 815/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether concurrent conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 201 and 498A of the IPC for the murder of his wife is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and 498A – Concurrent conviction – Death of the wife of the appellant-convict, Plea of the appellant-convict that her death was suicidal and not homicidal: Held: Trial Court and High Court concurrently weighed the circumstances and gave sturdy reasons to conclude that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and not suicidal – Even after seeing his wife hanged Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 815/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ASHOK VERMAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 743Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether concurrent conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 201 and 498A of the IPC for the murder of his wife is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and 498A – Concurrent conviction – Death of the wife of the appellant-convict, Plea of the appellant-convict that her death was suicidal and not homicidal: Held: Trial Court and High Court concurrently weighed the circumstances and gave sturdy reasons to conclude that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and not suicidal – Even after seeing his wife hangedDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 815/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:39.825760 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJAN KHAN & ORS.,25-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2129/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. Headnotes† Evidence – Dying declaration, allegedly made to a close relative – Reliance upon – When not inter alia relying on the dying declaration allegedly made to the mother of the deceased (PW-8) – Conviction set aside by High Court – Correctness: Held: Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness – Dying Decision Date : 25-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2129/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMJAN KHAN & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18762024 INSC 823Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. Headnotes† Evidence – Dying declaration, allegedly made to a close relative – Reliance upon – When not inter alia relying on the dying declaration allegedly made to the mother of the deceased (PW-8) – Conviction set aside by High Court – Correctness: Held: Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness – DyingDecision Date :25-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2129/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC823,2025-06-13T11:14:45.385811 SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,17-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5412/2024,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, ARAVIND KUMAR, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of conviction and death sentence to the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO, for committing murder and brutal sexual assault of the 4 year old ss.302, 364, 377 – Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 – ss.4, 5, 6, 29 – Murder, kidnapping and sexual assault – Case of brutal sexual assault and murder of four year old boy – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to death for Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5412/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Direction Issue : Special Leave Petition dismissed. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SAMBHUBHAI RAISANGBHAI PADHIYARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1072Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, ARAVIND KUMAR, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of conviction and death sentence to the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO, for committing murder and brutal sexual assault of the 4 year old ss.302, 364, 377 – Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 – ss.4, 5, 6, 29 – Murder, kidnapping and sexual assault – Case of brutal sexual assault and murder of four year old boy – Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to death forDecision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5412/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Direction Issue :Special Leave Petition dismissed.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:45.079774 "AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusSHANMUGAVELU",02-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 235/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (i)Whether, the underlying principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest- money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules can be only to the extent of loss or damages incurred by the Bank; (ii) Whether, the forfeiture of the entire amount towards the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Rules amounts to unjust enrichment. In other words, whether the Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AUTHORISED OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusSHANMUGAVELU-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 122024 INSC 80Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (i)Whether, the underlying principle of Section(s) 73 & 74 respectively of the Contract Act, 1872 Act is applicable to forfeiture of earnest- money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules. In other words, whether earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules can be only to the extent of loss or damages incurred by the Bank; (ii) Whether, the forfeiture of the entire amount towards the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Rules amounts to unjust enrichment. In other words, whether theDecision Date :02-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 235/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC80,2025-06-13T11:06:05.373144 C. SELVARANIversusTHE SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS,26-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13086/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate, indicating that she belongs to Valluvan caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes in the S.C. Order, 1964. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – Appellant was selected for the post of Upper Division Clerk under the Scheduled Caste category – Respondent Authorities directed her to produce the original latest community, residence and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar – Decision Date : 26-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13086/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","C. SELVARANIversusTHE SPECIAL SECRETARY-CUM-DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 15042024 INSC 900Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to the Scheduled Caste community certificate, indicating that she belongs to Valluvan caste, which is recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes in the S.C. Order, 1964. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – Appellant was selected for the post of Upper Division Clerk under the Scheduled Caste category – Respondent Authorities directed her to produce the original latest community, residence and nativity certificates issued by the Tahsildar –Decision Date :26-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13086/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC900,2025-06-13T11:15:16.685135 R. SHAMA NAIKversusG. SRINIVASIAH,28-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 13933/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"R. SHAMA NAIK versus G. SRINIVASIAH - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13252024 INSC 927 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether plaintiff failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Petitioner-original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific performance – However, the High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready Decision Date : 28-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 13933/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","R. SHAMA NAIKversusG. SRINIVASIAH-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13252024 INSC 927Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether plaintiff failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Petitioner-original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific performance – However, the High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always readyDecision Date :28-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 13933/2021| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC927,2025-06-13T11:15:12.556548 SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER,01-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2357/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/ Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of chargesheets for taking cognizance, summoning of the Magistrate; chargesheets and criminal proceedings against the appellants, if to be quashed. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Nature and standard of evidence in chargesheet – Chargesheet when Decision Date : 01-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2357/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 862024 INSC 363Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Nature of chargesheets filed in some jurisdictions by the State/ Police, without stating sufficient details of the facts constituting the offense or putting the relevant evidence on record; significance of chargesheets for taking cognizance, summoning of the Magistrate; chargesheets and criminal proceedings against the appellants, if to be quashed. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – Report of police officer on completion of investigation – Nature and standard of evidence in chargesheet – Chargesheet whenDecision Date :01-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2357/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC363,2025-06-13T11:12:01.587742 SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,24-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1902/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (a) Whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (b) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (c) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (d) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (e) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. Decision Date : 24-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1902/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12332024 INSC 907Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (a) Whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (b) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (c) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (d) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (e) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.Decision Date :24-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1902/2013| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC907,2025-06-13T11:15:21.370282 GURMEET KAURversusDEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER,26-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4825/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH 1602 : 2024 INSC 967 Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4825-4826 of 2024) 26 November 2024 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant while discharging her duty as a public servant on the Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Appellant-District Town Planner (Enforcement) and 12 others forcibly entered the college of the respondent-chairman, created chaos and took away the college telephone forcibly – Complaint filed but Decision Date : 26-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4825/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","GURMEET KAURversusDEVENDER GUPTA & ANOTHER-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 16022024 INSC 967Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH1602 : 2024 INSC 967 Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another (Criminal Appeal No(s). 4825-4826 of 2024) 26 November 2024 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant while discharging her duty as a public servant on the Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Appellant-District Town Planner (Enforcement) and 12 others forcibly entered the college of the respondent-chairman, created chaos and took away the college telephone forcibly – Complaint filed butDecision Date :26-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4825/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC967,2025-06-13T11:15:15.171702 C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERSversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS,15-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2582/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of suing the accused for a civil wrong, in relation to the benami transactions, as a corollary, allowing criminal prosecution of the accused in relation to the same cause of action. Headnotes† Act 1988 – s. 4 – Benami transaction – Initiation of civil suit/criminal proceedings by the real owner of the benami property – Permissibility – Complainant-government teacher, previously doing real estate business, fraudulently allured and induced by the Decision Date : 15-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2582/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.C. SUBBIAH @ KADAMBUR JAYARAJ AND OTHERSversusTHE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8132024 INSC 416Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of suing the accused for a civil wrong, in relation to the benami transactions, as a corollary, allowing criminal prosecution of the accused in relation to the same cause of action. Headnotes† Act 1988 – s. 4 – Benami transaction – Initiation of civil suit/criminal proceedings by the real owner of the benami property – Permissibility – Complainant-government teacher, previously doing real estate business, fraudulently allured and induced by theDecision Date :15-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2582/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC416,2025-06-13T11:12:35.591812 GEETA DUBEY & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.,18-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14668/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the cryptic order passed by the High Court setting aside the award passed by the MACT holding that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated in Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeals – Motor accident – Prosecution case that the respondent no. 2, who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car in which the victim was travelling – Victim sustained serious injuries, was treated in the hospital and Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14668/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","GEETA DUBEY & ORS.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 652Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the cryptic order passed by the High Court setting aside the award passed by the MACT holding that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated in Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeals – Motor accident – Prosecution case that the respondent no. 2, who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car in which the victim was travelling – Victim sustained serious injuries, was treated in the hospital andDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14668/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:42.573065 XversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.,27-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13378/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. X versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 9412024 INSC 909 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards accused being enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 - Grant of bail to person enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when only one witness was examined and the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the victim is yet to be examined and her mother who, is an eye-witness Decision Date : 27-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13378/2024 | Direction Issue : Special Leave Petition disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - HindiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.XversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9412024 INSC 909Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards accused being enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 - Grant of bail to person enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when only one witness was examined and the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined – Propriety: Held: In the instant case, the victim is yet to be examined and her mother who, is an eye-witnessDecision Date :27-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13378/2024| Direction Issue :Special Leave Petition disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC909,2025-06-13T11:15:13.081947 PARTHA CHATTERJEEversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,13-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5266/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PARTHA CHATTERJEE versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 627 SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to the appellant-former State Education Minister and MLA, in the ED case for his involvement in various investigations, owing to the racket of illegal appointment of teachers. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Teachers Recruitment Scam – FIR registered by CBI under the PC Act, as well as IPC, against certain functionaries of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, and one who was allegedly engaged in an unholy nexus with varied authorities, so as to facilitate appointments of primary Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5266/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","PARTHA CHATTERJEEversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 627Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to the appellant-former State Education Minister and MLA, in the ED case for his involvement in various investigations, owing to the racket of illegal appointment of teachers. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Teachers Recruitment Scam – FIR registered by CBI under the PC Act, as well as IPC, against certain functionaries of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, and one who was allegedly engaged in an unholy nexus with varied authorities, so as to facilitate appointments of primaryDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5266/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:49.962753 THANGAM AND ANOTHERversusNAVAMANI AMMAL,04-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8935/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Genuineness of the Will, a registered document, executed by testator (husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2) in favour of respondent-plaintiff (daughter of his brother). Headnotes Will – Genuineness of – When not surrounded by suspicious bequeathed a part of his property in favour of the respondent-daughter of his brother – Names of his widow-appellant no.1 and minor daughter- appellant no.2 were not mentioned in the Will – Suit filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction was decreed, Will was held to Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8935/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.THANGAM AND ANOTHERversusNAVAMANI AMMAL-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1462024 INSC 164Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Genuineness of the Will, a registered document, executed by testator (husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant no.2) in favour of respondent-plaintiff (daughter of his brother). Headnotes Will – Genuineness of – When not surrounded by suspicious bequeathed a part of his property in favour of the respondent-daughter of his brother – Names of his widow-appellant no.1 and minor daughter- appellant no.2 were not mentioned in the Will – Suit filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction was decreed, Will was held toDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8935/2011| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC164,2025-06-13T11:09:36.735899 SUHAS CHAKMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,23-10-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1082/2020,Directions issued,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Access to free and timely legal aid for prison inmates. Headnotes† Free Legal Aid – Constitutional and Statutory Framework – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 39-A – Equal justice and free legal aid – Legal Services Authorities Act, by NALSA for making legal services available, creating awareness about convict’s right of appeal, availability of free legal services – Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) by NALSA on Access to Legal Aid Services to Prisoners and Functioning of the Prison Legal Aid Clinics 2022 Decision Date : 23-10-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1082/2020 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","SUHAS CHAKMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17692024 INSC 813Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Access to free and timely legal aid for prison inmates. Headnotes† Free Legal Aid – Constitutional and Statutory Framework – Constitution of India – Articles 21, 39-A – Equal justice and free legal aid – Legal Services Authorities Act, by NALSA for making legal services available, creating awareness about convict’s right of appeal, availability of free legal services – Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) by NALSA on Access to Legal Aid Services to Prisoners and Functioning of the Prison Legal Aid Clinics 2022Decision Date :23-10-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1082/2020| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC813,2025-06-13T11:14:56.774080 ATHAR PARWEZversusUNION OF INDIA,17-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5387/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Appellant alleged to be an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna in 2022. Chargesheet filed against the appellant under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A & 18, 18A, 18B & 20, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Charges not framed yet. Appellant has undergone long incarceration, no likelihood of trial being completed in near future. High Court whether justified in denying bail. Headnotes† Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5387/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ATHAR PARWEZversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1093Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Appellant alleged to be an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna in 2022. Chargesheet filed against the appellant under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A & 18, 18A, 18B & 20, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Charges not framed yet. Appellant has undergone long incarceration, no likelihood of trial being completed in near future. High Court whether justified in denying bail. Headnotes† Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967Decision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5387/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:46.590447 GOVERNMENT OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARYversusMARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS.,31-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 722/2016,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY versus MARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11902024 INSC 88 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, while allowing first appeal against judgment of trial court that dismissed the suit filed by respondent for declaration of title and injunction, had wrongly shifted the burden of proof on to the than requiring the plaintiff to prove its title. Headnotes Suit – Suit for declaration of title and injunction – Standard of proof – While inquiring into whether a fact is proved, sufficiency of evidence to be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is by Decision Date : 31-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 722/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARYversusMARIA JULIETA D’SOUZA (D) & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11902024 INSC 88Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court, while allowing first appeal against judgment of trial court that dismissed the suit filed by respondent for declaration of title and injunction, had wrongly shifted the burden of proof on to the than requiring the plaintiff to prove its title. Headnotes Suit – Suit for declaration of title and injunction – Standard of proof – While inquiring into whether a fact is proved, sufficiency of evidence to be seen in the context of standard of proof, which in civil cases is byDecision Date :31-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 722/2016| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC88,2025-06-13T11:08:24.914190 RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 37/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the Second Appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the respondents and decreeing the suit. Headnotes Suit – Suit for by the High Court – Sustainability of, when on perverse findings and ignoring relevant material findings – Suit by the respondent seeking declaration that the sale deed executed was null and void; that suit property belonged to the respondents and for relief of an injunction against Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 37/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJENDHIRANversusMUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 812024 INSC 12Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the Second Appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the respondents and decreeing the suit. Headnotes Suit – Suit for by the High Court – Sustainability of, when on perverse findings and ignoring relevant material findings – Suit by the respondent seeking declaration that the sale deed executed was null and void; that suit property belonged to the respondents and for relief of an injunction againstDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 37/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC12,2025-06-13T11:05:47.353323 UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDR. ASKET SINGH & ORS.,01-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1636/2016,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the relief of solatium and interest on the compensation amount granted by the High Court. Headnotes Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – s. 8(1)(a) – Compensation – Delay in payment of – by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: Right to hold immovable property is no longer a fundamental right but is a right u/Art. 300A – On facts, land owned by the first respondent stood vested in the Central Government in the year 1964 – Offer for payment of compensation was Decision Date : 01-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1636/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDR. ASKET SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2272024 INSC 409Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the challenge to the relief of solatium and interest on the compensation amount granted by the High Court. Headnotes Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – s. 8(1)(a) – Compensation – Delay in payment of – by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: Right to hold immovable property is no longer a fundamental right but is a right u/Art. 300A – On facts, land owned by the first respondent stood vested in the Central Government in the year 1964 – Offer for payment of compensation wasDecision Date :01-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1636/2016| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC409,2025-06-13T11:11:59.015101 ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,04-01-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 643/2015,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). Headnotes Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations by Second National Judicial Pay various allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers – 21 allowances considered by SNJPC in its report: Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the purchase of a ready built house from Decision Date : 04-01-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 643/2015 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3272024 INSC 26Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Allowances granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC). Headnotes Judiciary – District Judiciary – Recommendations by Second National Judicial Pay various allowances for judicial officers and retired judicial officers – 21 allowances considered by SNJPC in its report: Held: As regards House Building Advance (HBA), recommendation of SNJPC that HBA be available to judicial officers also for the purchase of a ready built house fromDecision Date :04-01-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 643/2015| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC26,2025-06-13T11:05:39.518066 NISAR AHMAD & ORS.versusSAMI ULLAH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.,24-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9739/2011,Unknown,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the shares of the parties in the disputed land. High Court whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision and holding that the appellants had 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged to the respondents. Consolidation authorities whether erred in alloting 1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.9(2), 11(1) – High Decision Date : 24-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9739/2011 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeals dismissed. Contempt Petition closed. | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","NISAR AHMAD & ORS.versusSAMI ULLAH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18552024 INSC 820Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue as regards the shares of the parties in the disputed land. High Court whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision and holding that the appellants had 1/12 share jointly in the plots comprised in Khata Nos. plot Nos. 35, 37, 111 and 112 which exclusively belonged to the respondents. Consolidation authorities whether erred in alloting 1/2 share to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.9(2), 11(1) – HighDecision Date :24-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9739/2011| Direction Issue :Civil Appeals dismissed. Contempt Petition closed.| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC820,2025-06-13T11:14:51.582717 K. NIRMALA & ORS.versusCANARA BANK & ANR.,28-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9916/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government’s after the caste/ tribe was de-scheduled. Headnotes† Service Law – Appellants were employed by respondent No.1-bank in the Scheduled Castes Category based on Caste Certificates obtained following due process of law, certifying that they belonged to the ‘Kotegara’ Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9916/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K. NIRMALA & ORS.versusCANARA BANK & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8682024 INSC 634Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether a person who joined the services of a Nationalized Bank/Government of India undertaking based on a certificate that identified him/her as belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State of Karnataka, pursuant to the State Government’s after the caste/ tribe was de-scheduled. Headnotes† Service Law – Appellants were employed by respondent No.1-bank in the Scheduled Castes Category based on Caste Certificates obtained following due process of law, certifying that they belonged to the ‘Kotegara’Decision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9916/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC634,2025-06-13T11:13:50.379950 SONU AGNIHOTRIversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.,22-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 388/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The appellant-Judicial Officer has preferred these appeals for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 by the Delhi High Court. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Expunging of adverse Officer passed some strict orders against police officials – He pointed out flaws in the investigation and failure of the police officials – Writ petition – The High Court directed all the remarks made against the IO & SHO expunged and recorded findings/remarks Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 388/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SONU AGNIHOTRIversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8612024 INSC 888Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The appellant-Judicial Officer has preferred these appeals for expunging adverse findings/remarks recorded against him in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 by the Delhi High Court. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Expunging of adverse Officer passed some strict orders against police officials – He pointed out flaws in the investigation and failure of the police officials – Writ petition – The High Court directed all the remarks made against the IO & SHO expunged and recorded findings/remarksDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 388/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC888,2025-06-13T11:15:23.241485 UMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,22-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 757/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA 1757 : 2024 INSC 809 Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015) 22 October 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation s.4A – Appellants acquitted by Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held, High Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed: Decision Date : 22-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 757/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","UMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17572024 INSC 809Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA1757 : 2024 INSC 809 Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015) 22 October 2024 [Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation s.4A – Appellants acquitted by Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held, High Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed:Decision Date :22-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 757/2015| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC809,2025-06-13T11:14:58.792137 "COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.",18-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1766/2009,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as ‘Edible oil’ under Heading 1513, titled ‘Coconut (Copra) oil, etc.’, in Section oil’ under Heading 3305, titled ‘Preparations for use on the hair’, in Section VI-Chapter 33, of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Headnotes† Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – First Schedule, Chapter 15, Section III, Heading 1513, Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1766/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 893Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether pure coconut oil, packaged and sold in small quantities ranging from 5 ml to 2 litres, would be classifiable as ‘Edible oil’ under Heading 1513, titled ‘Coconut (Copra) oil, etc.’, in Section oil’ under Heading 3305, titled ‘Preparations for use on the hair’, in Section VI-Chapter 33, of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Headnotes† Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – First Schedule, Chapter 15, Section III, Heading 1513,Decision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1766/2009| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:43.819261 OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.,13-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5267/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed by said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Incident of indiscriminate firing by eight persons including main accused at Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5267/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","OM PRAKASH YADAVversusNIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 777Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether in the absence of the grant of sanction for prosecution u/s.197 CrPC, the CJM, Firozabad could have taken cognizance of the charge sheets against the respondents; and whether the offence or the act alleged to have been committed by said to have been done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants – Incident of indiscriminate firing by eight persons including main accused atDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5267/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:48.933424 RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 20/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Three appellants herein were appointed as Assistant Teachers at the Junior High School on 25.06.1999. From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped. Whether the State was justified in abruptly stopping their salary. Headnotes Service Law Stoppage of salary – The District Basic Education Officer case was that by order dated 26.12.1997, only two additional posts of Assistant Teacher were created by the Joint Director of Education – It was averred that manipulation was made by the management in collusion with the Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 20/2024 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RADHEY SHYAM YADAV & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 212024 INSC 7Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Three appellants herein were appointed as Assistant Teachers at the Junior High School on 25.06.1999. From October, 2005, abruptly their salaries were stopped. Whether the State was justified in abruptly stopping their salary. Headnotes Service Law Stoppage of salary – The District Basic Education Officer case was that by order dated 26.12.1997, only two additional posts of Assistant Teacher were created by the Joint Director of Education – It was averred that manipulation was made by the management in collusion with theDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 20/2024| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC7,2025-06-13T11:05:43.977446 DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPOREversusRUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9133/2019,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Whether s.30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest; whether the amendments made in the substantive portion of Explanation 2 will be applicable when the first appeal was heard by NCLAT. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.30(2)(b)(ii) – Interpretation: Held: s.30(2)(b)(ii) forfends the dissenting financial creditor from settling for a lower amount payable under the Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9133/2019 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DBS BANK LIMITED SINGAPOREversusRUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1142024 INSC 14Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Whether s.30(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended in 2019, entitles the dissenting financial creditor to be paid the minimum value of its security interest; whether the amendments made in the substantive portion of Explanation 2 will be applicable when the first appeal was heard by NCLAT. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.30(2)(b)(ii) – Interpretation: Held: s.30(2)(b)(ii) forfends the dissenting financial creditor from settling for a lower amount payable under theDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9133/2019| Disposal Nature :Matter referred to larger bench| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC14,2025-06-13T11:05:49.427232 GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.,23-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant, who was not a party to the settlement between the second respondent-BCCI (Operational Creditor) and the Corporate Debtor, has locus in the proceedings before this Court; whether the NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent of the NCLAT Rules 2016 in the presence of a prescribed procedure for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and settlement of claims between parties; and without prejudice to the above, whether the NCLAT adequately addressed the objections raised by the appellant, while Decision Date : 23-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil appeal and special leave petition disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","GLAS TRUST COMPANY LLCversusBYJU RAVEENDRAN & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18022024 INSC 811Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant, who was not a party to the settlement between the second respondent-BCCI (Operational Creditor) and the Corporate Debtor, has locus in the proceedings before this Court; whether the NCLAT erred in invoking its inherent of the NCLAT Rules 2016 in the presence of a prescribed procedure for withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and settlement of claims between parties; and without prejudice to the above, whether the NCLAT adequately addressed the objections raised by the appellant, whileDecision Date :23-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024| Direction Issue :Civil appeal and special leave petition disposed of.| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC811,2025-06-13T11:14:55.894153 FULESHWAR GOPEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,23-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3923/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation of statutory timelines and the requirement of of mind, are necessary aspects of procedure; whether the appellant’s involvement were actually independent of the ones in which A-6 and other members were arrayed as accused; and whether the statutory exemption u/s.22 A of the UAPA applies to the appellant who claims to be unaware of Decision Date : 23-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3923/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.FULESHWAR GOPEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 3152024 INSC 718Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation of statutory timelines and the requirement of of mind, are necessary aspects of procedure; whether the appellant’s involvement were actually independent of the ones in which A-6 and other members were arrayed as accused; and whether the statutory exemption u/s.22 A of the UAPA applies to the appellant who claims to be unaware ofDecision Date :23-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3923/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC718,2025-06-13T11:14:24.267294 NAVIN KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.,28-08-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20768/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NAVIN KUMAR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 8102024 INSC 656 SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court which quashed the appointment of the primary school teachers with B.Ed qualification. Headnotes† Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Appointment to the post of School – Eligibility of B.Ed candidates – On facts, issuance of appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates by the State of Chhattisgarh, which was after the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case wherein it was held that the candidates having B.Ed qualification were Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20768/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NAVIN KUMAR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8102024 INSC 656Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court which quashed the appointment of the primary school teachers with B.Ed qualification. Headnotes† Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – Appointment to the post of School – Eligibility of B.Ed candidates – On facts, issuance of appointment orders in favour of the B.Ed candidates by the State of Chhattisgarh, which was after the judgment in Devesh Sharma’s case wherein it was held that the candidates having B.Ed qualification wereDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20768/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC656,2025-06-13T11:13:56.232869 JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR.versusS. HARISH & ORS.,23-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2161/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA 154 : 2024 INSC 716 Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161-2162 of 2024) 23 September 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala,* J.] Issue for Consideration What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children child pornographic material is punishable under the POCSO; what is the true scope of Section 67B of the IT Act; what is the scope of Section 30 of the POCSO; what are the foundational facts necessary for invoking the statutory presumption of culpable mental state in respect of Section 15 of the Decision Date : 23-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2161/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR.versusS. HARISH & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1542024 INSC 716Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA154 : 2024 INSC 716 Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161-2162 of 2024) 23 September 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala,* J.] Issue for Consideration What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children child pornographic material is punishable under the POCSO; what is the true scope of Section 67B of the IT Act; what is the scope of Section 30 of the POCSO; what are the foundational facts necessary for invoking the statutory presumption of culpable mental state in respect of Section 15 of theDecision Date :23-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2161/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC716,2025-06-13T11:14:33.507090 SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER,18-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5438/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant- accused was not produced before the Court either physically or virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court. Headnotes† Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, on account of non-production of the appellant- accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five years – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentence Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5438/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SIDDHANT @ SIDHARTH BALU TAKTODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 837Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration In six years, out of 102 dates, on most of the dates the appellant- accused was not produced before the Court either physically or virtually. Prolonged incarceration. Bail rejected by High Court. Headnotes† Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, on account of non-production of the appellant- accused – Appellant incarcerated for approximately five years – If entitled to bail: Held: Yes – Prolonged incarceration without the accused being made to face the trial would result in forcing him to face the sentenceDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5438/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:43.254103 K.S. MURALIDHARversusR. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.,22-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12993/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering for a motor accident victim having suffered 100% disability. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Compensation – Enhancement of – Victim aged company vehicle which collided with container lorry driven rashly and negligently – Victim suffered 90% permanent disability – Tribunal taking the functional disability as 100%, awarded compensation of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as future medical Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12993/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","K.S. MURALIDHARversusR. SUBBULAKSHMI & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8352024 INSC 886Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enhancement of compensation towards pain and suffering for a motor accident victim having suffered 100% disability. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor accident – Compensation – Enhancement of – Victim aged company vehicle which collided with container lorry driven rashly and negligently – Victim suffered 90% permanent disability – Tribunal taking the functional disability as 100%, awarded compensation of Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as future medicalDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12993/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC886,2025-06-13T11:15:27.747632 "SONAL GUPTA & ORS.versusREGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.",24-10-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 708/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether there is any arbitrary variation in marks obtained by candidates in the language examination for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which may affect the integrity of the overall results of Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified for main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ petitions under Article 32 for quashing of results of main examination and re-evaluation by expert committee Decision Date : 24-10-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 708/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - HindiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SONAL GUPTA & ORS.versusREGISTRAR GENERAL, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 22402024 INSC 830Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether there is any arbitrary variation in marks obtained by candidates in the language examination for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 which may affect the integrity of the overall results of Services Rules, 2010 – Petitioners qualified for main examination of the Rajasthan Civil Judge Cadre 2024 – Did not meet the cut-off marks for the interview – Writ petitions under Article 32 for quashing of results of main examination and re-evaluation by expert committeeDecision Date :24-10-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 708/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC830,2025-06-13T11:14:53.543198 ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.,26-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10169/2008,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ROHIT KOCHHAR versus VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 12892024 INSC 920 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect to the suit property can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants warranting the application of the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to s.16 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit property situated in Gurugram, filed in the Delhi High Court – Single Judge held that the suit was maintainable in view of proviso to s.16 Decision Date : 26-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10169/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ROHIT KOCHHARversusVIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12892024 INSC 920Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect to the suit property can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants warranting the application of the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to s.16 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit property situated in Gurugram, filed in the Delhi High Court – Single Judge held that the suit was maintainable in view of proviso to s.16Decision Date :26-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10169/2008| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC920,2025-06-13T11:15:17.306025 SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA,04-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019,Reference answered,7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case granting immunity from prosecution to a member of allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as the case may be, and of members and committees – Member of Parliament or the Decision Date : 04-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SITA SORENversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4622024 INSC 161Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, SANJAY KUMAR, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Instant Reference pertains to reconsideration of the correctness of the view of the majority judgment in *PV Narasimha Rao’s case granting immunity from prosecution to a member of allegedly engaged in bribery for speaking or casting a vote. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts. 105 and 196 – Powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of Parliament or Legislature, as the case may be, and of members and committees – Member of Parliament or theDecision Date :04-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 451/2019| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC161,2025-06-13T11:09:38.670926 SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR.versusPUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.,24-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10804/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed executed in their favour. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.4 and Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule I – s.17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A – Appellants instituted a suit seeking declaration and injunction – Defendant No.46 took out an application u/ss. 33, 34 & 37 of the 1958 Act r/w. s.17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreements Decision Date : 24-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10804/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR.versusPUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8812024 INSC 730Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed executed in their favour. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.4 and Explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule I – s.17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.53A – Appellants instituted a suit seeking declaration and injunction – Defendant No.46 took out an application u/ss. 33, 34 & 37 of the 1958 Act r/w. s.17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreementsDecision Date :24-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10804/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC730,2025-06-13T11:14:18.884386 NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE,22-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 27824/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS. versus BHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13182024 INSC 902 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of 4½ Years for filing of written statement. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file written Held: The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the advocate was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 27824/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS.versusBHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13182024 INSC 902Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of 4½ Years for filing of written statement. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file written Held: The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the advocate was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long andDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 27824/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC902,2025-06-13T11:15:24.794458 RAJESH KUMARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,17-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14615/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"RAJESH KUMAR versus NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent- insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal allowed the complaint in full. However, the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with an Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14615/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAJESH KUMARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1108Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The appellant here is the consumer who sought that the respondent- insurer release the entire insurance amount in his favour. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had allowed the complaint partly, whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal allowed the complaint in full. However, the National Commission reduced the insurance amount. Whether the National Commission has transgressed its jurisdiction by interefering with the State Commission’s order. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Appellant met with anDecision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14615/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:45.805437 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDR. HEMANT MANDOVRA,13-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13940/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration An allotment of land to the Respondent was canceled by the Appellant for not paying the full amount as per the scheme. In a writ petition filed by the Respondent, High Court directed the respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days and directed the possession of the plot to the respondent. Respondent did not deposit the full amount and instead preferred a complaint against the Appellant in the District Forum, which dismissed Respondent’s complaint. In the appeal filed by the Respondent before the State Commission, respondent Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13940/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDR. HEMANT MANDOVRA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1038Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration An allotment of land to the Respondent was canceled by the Appellant for not paying the full amount as per the scheme. In a writ petition filed by the Respondent, High Court directed the respondent to pay the balance outstanding amount within 30 days and directed the possession of the plot to the respondent. Respondent did not deposit the full amount and instead preferred a complaint against the Appellant in the District Forum, which dismissed Respondent’s complaint. In the appeal filed by the Respondent before the State Commission, respondentDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13940/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:50.721781 "CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR & ANR.versusMONIKA & ORS.",29-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10800/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DIPANKAR DATTA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in treating the first respondent as qualified for consideration and consequent appointment; and whether the of the Advertisement, was eligible to be awarded half a mark (0.5) under the category of ‘experience’ vis-à-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for the concerned time period, in light of the Rules and Circulars of the State as adopted by the University. Headnotes† Decision Date : 29-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10800/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HISAR & ANR.versusMONIKA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9542024 INSC 911Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court in treating the first respondent as qualified for consideration and consequent appointment; and whether the of the Advertisement, was eligible to be awarded half a mark (0.5) under the category of ‘experience’ vis-à-vis her engagement as outsourced manpower for the concerned time period, in light of the Rules and Circulars of the State as adopted by the University. Headnotes†Decision Date :29-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10800/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC911,2025-06-13T11:15:11.374111 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY,29-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 48636/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 12802024 INSC 932 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding that the delay was not explained satisfactorily. Headnotes† Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5 by the appellant-State – Not condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged: Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filing Decision Date : 29-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 48636/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusRAMKUMAR CHOUDHARY-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12802024 INSC 932Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Appellant-State challenged the High Court judgment dismissing the second appeal filed with an inordinate delay of 5 years holding that the delay was not explained satisfactorily. Headnotes† Delay – Refusal to condone – When justified – Delay of 5 by the appellant-State – Not condoned by High Court, appeal dismissed – Challenged: Held: High Court rightly refused to condone the delay – Enormous delay occurred at every stage, from the date of receipt of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court till the date of filingDecision Date :29-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 48636/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC932,2025-06-13T11:15:10.766065 THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusDAVINDER SINGH & ORS.,01-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2317/2011,Reference answered,7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH*, BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL*, MANOJ MISRA*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The Supreme Court was required to adjudicate upon whether the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of providing affirmative action, including reservation is the following issues arose for consideration: Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution; Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping; Whether Article 341 of the Constitution creates a Decision Date : 01-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2317/2011 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 PUNJAB & ORS.versusDAVINDER SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 13212024 INSC 562Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH*, BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL*, MANOJ MISRA*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The Supreme Court was required to adjudicate upon whether the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for the purpose of providing affirmative action, including reservation is the following issues arose for consideration: Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution; Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping; Whether Article 341 of the Constitution creates aDecision Date :01-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2317/2011| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC562,2025-06-13T11:13:15.914664 COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND TAXESversusFEMC PRATIBHA JOINT VENTURE,01-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3940/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issues for Consideration (1) Whether the timeline for refund prescribed under s. 38(3) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 must be mandatorily followed while recovering dues under the Act; and (2) Whether the Tax Assessing Officer could pass an Respondent’s claim for refund against default notices issued subsequently. Headnotes† Tax-VAT – Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004. – ss. 38(3) and 42 – Respondent claimed refund of excess tax credit along with interest for 4th quarter of 2015-2016 and 1st quarter of Decision Date : 01-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3940/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2024INSC364,2025-06-13T11:11:52.274192 AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2643/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration The appellant-wife herein is challenging the grant of divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Cruelty and desertion – The High Court found that the respondent- husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty the appellant’s false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony to the respondent, amounting to cruelty – Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted desertion – Thus, the High Court Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2643/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","AMUTHAversusA.R. SUBRAMANIAN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 755Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration The appellant-wife herein is challenging the grant of divorce. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia) and (ib) – Cruelty and desertion – The High Court found that the respondent- husband had sufficiently established the grounds of cruelty the appellant’s false criminal complaint and her indifference to reconciliation efforts caused significant mental agony to the respondent, amounting to cruelty – Additionally, her prolonged separation without reasonable cause constituted desertion – Thus, the High CourtDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2643/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:37.260918 MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.,21-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4307/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4307/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","MAFABHAI MOTIBHAI SAGARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14482024 INSC 806Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriateDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4307/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC806,2025-06-13T11:15:01.232654 ANIL KISHORE PANDITversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS,02-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1566/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ANIL KISHORE PANDIT versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 11962024 INSC 188 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to permissibility of an employer to change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing selection process. Headnotes Service law – Appointment to the post – Change in the qualifications prescribed during the course of the ongoing selection process – Permissibility: Held: Employer cannot change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing selection process – Any such action would be arbitrary as it would tantamount to denial Decision Date : 02-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1566/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANIL KISHORE PANDITversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 11962024 INSC 188Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to permissibility of an employer to change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing selection process. Headnotes Service law – Appointment to the post – Change in the qualifications prescribed during the course of the ongoing selection process – Permissibility: Held: Employer cannot change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream, during the course of the ongoing selection process – Any such action would be arbitrary as it would tantamount to denialDecision Date :02-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1566/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC188,2025-06-13T11:06:02.351805 ARVIND KEJRIWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,10-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ARVIND KEJRIWAL versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 3462024 INSC 400 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellant is entitled to grant of interim bail/release during the pendency of the Appeal challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement, on account of an intervening factor i.e. 18th Lok Sabha General Elections. Headnotes† Bail – Interim Court to consider peculiarities associated with person in question and surrounding circumstances – Appellant has not been convicted, no criminal antecedents – Question of legality and validity of arrest sub judice – Interim bail granted. Held: Appellant arrested on 21.03.2024 by Decision Date : 10-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024 | Direction Issue : Interim Bail granted | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ARVIND KEJRIWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3462024 INSC 400Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Whether the Appellant is entitled to grant of interim bail/release during the pendency of the Appeal challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement, on account of an intervening factor i.e. 18th Lok Sabha General Elections. Headnotes† Bail – Interim Court to consider peculiarities associated with person in question and surrounding circumstances – Appellant has not been convicted, no criminal antecedents – Question of legality and validity of arrest sub judice – Interim bail granted. Held: Appellant arrested on 21.03.2024 byDecision Date :10-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024| Direction Issue :Interim Bail granted| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC400,2025-06-13T11:12:57.344302 MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS.versusSALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4211/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Under Mohammedan law, whether an owner of property can, in his lifetime, transfer said property to his heirs by way of partition; whether, in the facts of this case, the requisites of a valid gift were met and also whether nomenclature employed in Mutation Entry can be of intentions. Headnotes† Mohammedan law – Partition under, during the lifetime of the owner – If permissible: Held: No – Under Mohammedan Law, partition while a person is alive between him and his heirs is impermissible – Under the Mohammedan Law, the right of Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4211/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS.versusSALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 923Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Under Mohammedan law, whether an owner of property can, in his lifetime, transfer said property to his heirs by way of partition; whether, in the facts of this case, the requisites of a valid gift were met and also whether nomenclature employed in Mutation Entry can be of intentions. Headnotes† Mohammedan law – Partition under, during the lifetime of the owner – If permissible: Held: No – Under Mohammedan Law, partition while a person is alive between him and his heirs is impermissible – Under the Mohammedan Law, the right ofDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4211/2009| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:37.917095 MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,26-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4882/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society which would require further investigation and does not warrant interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376, 420, 504 and 506 – Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had cheated on her by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent in his house and in the rented rooms from 2008 Decision Date : 26-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4882/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MAHESH DAMU KHAREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8862024 INSC 897Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the petition filed u/s.482 of CrPC for quashing FIR registered u/ss.376, 420, 504 and 506 IPC holding, inter alia, that the offence under Section 376 of IPC is an offence against the society which would require further investigation and does not warrant interference. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376, 420, 504 and 506 – Complainant filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had cheated on her by forcibly engaging in sexual intercourse without her consent in his house and in the rented rooms from 2008Decision Date :26-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4882/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC897,2025-06-13T11:15:17.946615 INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED,24-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12097/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting stay on the execution of the award conditional on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Arbitral award – Stay on enforcement – Dispute between parties – Invocation of arbitration agreement – Arbitral award passed directing the respondent to pay the appellant certain sum with 9% interest which would be increased to 12% p.a. if not paid within three months Decision Date : 24-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12097/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PVT LTDversusKAMARAJAR PORT LIMITED-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 15032024 INSC 827Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting stay on the execution of the award conditional on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Arbitral award – Stay on enforcement – Dispute between parties – Invocation of arbitration agreement – Arbitral award passed directing the respondent to pay the appellant certain sum with 9% interest which would be increased to 12% p.a. if not paid within three monthsDecision Date :24-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12097/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC827,2025-06-13T11:14:47.653702 AYUB KHANversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN,17-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5388/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Adverse observations were made against the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service by the Rajasthan High Court. High Court observed that while rejecting the bail application, the appellant did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of form in terms of the directions issued to the Trial Courts by the High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan. Granting bail to the accused by the impugned order, High Court observed that non- compliance of the directions by the appellant, not only amounted to indiscipline Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5388/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","AYUB KHANversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 680Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Adverse observations were made against the appellant, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service by the Rajasthan High Court. High Court observed that while rejecting the bail application, the appellant did not incorporate the details of the antecedents of form in terms of the directions issued to the Trial Courts by the High Court in the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan. Granting bail to the accused by the impugned order, High Court observed that non- compliance of the directions by the appellant, not only amounted to indisciplineDecision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5388/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T11:15:47.875710 BHIKCHAND S/O DHONDIRAM MUTHA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusSHAMABAI DHANRAJ GUGALE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.,14-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5026/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the present is a fit and suitable case for exercising power under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing restitution in favour of the appellant-judgment debtor by placing the parties in would have occupied before the execution. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.144 – Application for restitution – Decree passed by the Trial Court was varied by the appeal court by reducing the decretal amount of Rs.27694/- to Rs.17120/- –However, in the Decision Date : 14-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5026/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHIKCHAND S/O DHONDIRAM MUTHA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.versusSHAMABAI DHANRAJ GUGALE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 6242024 INSC 411Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the present is a fit and suitable case for exercising power under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directing restitution in favour of the appellant-judgment debtor by placing the parties in would have occupied before the execution. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.144 – Application for restitution – Decree passed by the Trial Court was varied by the appeal court by reducing the decretal amount of Rs.27694/- to Rs.17120/- –However, in theDecision Date :14-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5026/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC411,2025-06-13T11:12:37.148184 RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,22-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 – Abduction and Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that accused persons abducted the victim, thereafter murdered him and the next day the torso with other body parts of the deceased were recovered from the canal – Conviction of the appellants-accused along with others u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RANDEEP SINGH @ RANA & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14252024 INSC 887Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 – Abduction and Criminal conspiracy – Prosecution case that accused persons abducted the victim, thereafter murdered him and the next day the torso with other body parts of the deceased were recovered from the canal – Conviction of the appellants-accused along with others u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201Decision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC887,2025-06-13T11:15:27.077189 "THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BARSUA IRON ORE MINESversusTHE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.",02-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4686/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Respondent initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948. Later, in descriptive roll, he changed his initially recorded date of birth i.e. 27.12.1948 to 12.03.1955. Based on his declaration at the time of Authority of the appellant determined the date of birth of the respondent no.3 as 27.12.1948. The respondent no.3 superannuated from service based on his initially recorded date of birth [27.12.1948]. Whether the respondent no.3 is held to have been rightly retired in terms of his date of Decision Date : 02-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4686/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 GENERAL MANAGER, M/S BARSUA IRON ORE MINESversusTHE VICE PRESIDENT UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 632024 INSC 264Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Respondent initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948. Later, in descriptive roll, he changed his initially recorded date of birth i.e. 27.12.1948 to 12.03.1955. Based on his declaration at the time of Authority of the appellant determined the date of birth of the respondent no.3 as 27.12.1948. The respondent no.3 superannuated from service based on his initially recorded date of birth [27.12.1948]. Whether the respondent no.3 is held to have been rightly retired in terms of his date ofDecision Date :02-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4686/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC264,2025-06-13T11:10:59.593750 PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.,02-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4633/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration A suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Application for execution was filed before the Tehsildar (settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. The application was rejected on 29.01.2005. The Tehsildar observed that plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not. Headnotes Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14 – J&K Limitation Act – Art.182 – The High Court dismissed the Decision Date : 02-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4633/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PURNI DEVI & ANR.versusBABU RAM & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 372024 INSC 259Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration A suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff. Application for execution was filed before the Tehsildar (settlement), Hiranagar on 18.12.2000. The application was rejected on 29.01.2005. The Tehsildar observed that plaintiff had not applied before the Court with appropriate (18.12.2000 to 29.01.2005) diligently pursuing execution petition before the Tehsildar, would be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of limitation or not. Headnotes Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 14 – J&K Limitation Act – Art.182 – The High Court dismissed theDecision Date :02-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4633/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC259,2025-06-13T11:11:30.293551 IN RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONSversus,14-05-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 406/2013,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. IN RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS versus - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 10382024 INSC 461 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Status reports filed by various States/UTs furnishing information on the action proposed to be taken within fixed timeline as regards various facilities lacking in jails and the recommendations made by the Committee(s) constituted by the Supreme Court. Headnotes† the Committee(s) constituted by Supreme Court – Overcrowding in jails; capacity enhancement; welfare of women prisoners and children in prisons etc. – Status reports filed by the States of Bihar, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha and Kerala in terms of directions Decision Date : 14-05-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 406/2013 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE-INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONSversus-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 10382024 INSC 461Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Status reports filed by various States/UTs furnishing information on the action proposed to be taken within fixed timeline as regards various facilities lacking in jails and the recommendations made by the Committee(s) constituted by the Supreme Court. Headnotes† the Committee(s) constituted by Supreme Court – Overcrowding in jails; capacity enhancement; welfare of women prisoners and children in prisons etc. – Status reports filed by the States of Bihar, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Odisha and Kerala in terms of directionsDecision Date :14-05-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 406/2013| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC461,2025-06-13T11:12:38.729342 YOGARANIversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,23-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KUMAR*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. Headnotes† Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5 Decision Date : 23-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.YOGARANIversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6252024 INSC 721Coram : SANJAY KUMAR*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose, if the court can convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. Headnotes† Passports Act, 1967 – ss.12(1)(b) and 12(2) – Offences and penalties – Prosecution of second passport in favour of accused no.1 – Other accused persons connived with the appellant in procuring second passport to accused no.1 – Appellant and accused no.1 convicted for offences punishable u/s.420 IPC and s.12(1)(b) and s.12(2) of the 1967 Act, accused no.5Decision Date :23-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC721,2025-06-13T11:14:22.080397 AJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS.versusPRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT,29-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8129/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Respondent approached the High Court of Delhi for challenging an order of the DIG (CR&VIG), whereby he was removed from service. The High Court set aside the impugned order; imposed a minor penalty on him; reinstated him without back wages; directed back to 1995 (when the original order of dismissal was made) for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotions; and also directed the Order to be implemented within 8 weeks. When he was not reinstated within time prescribed and was denied Decision Date : 29-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8129/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AJAY KUMAR BHALLA & ORS.versusPRAKASH KUMAR DIXIT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10442024 INSC 575Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Respondent approached the High Court of Delhi for challenging an order of the DIG (CR&VIG), whereby he was removed from service. The High Court set aside the impugned order; imposed a minor penalty on him; reinstated him without back wages; directed back to 1995 (when the original order of dismissal was made) for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotions; and also directed the Order to be implemented within 8 weeks. When he was not reinstated within time prescribed and was deniedDecision Date :29-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8129/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC575,2025-06-13T11:13:31.865135 THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA,26-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2646/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent-government servant from the complainant for encashment of Decision Date : 26-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2646/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14722024 INSC 928Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the respondent-government servant u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding of illegal gratification and its Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Presumption u/s. 20, if attracted – Prosecution case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent-government servant from the complainant for encashment ofDecision Date :26-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2646/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC928,2025-06-13T11:15:15.971590 NATIONAL HOUSING BANKversusBHERUDAN DUGAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ORS. ETC.,01-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3176/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration On a complaint filed u/s. 200 CrPC, wherein the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint for the offence u/s. 29A (i) read with s. 50 and punishable u/s. 49 (2A) of the 1987 Act against the first respondent-company, second accused-Managing accused as directors, whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint in its entirety, holding that the requirements of sub-Section (1) of s. 50 of the 1987 Act are similar to the requirements incorporated in s. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were not Decision Date : 01-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3176/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NATIONAL HOUSING BANKversusBHERUDAN DUGAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 566Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration On a complaint filed u/s. 200 CrPC, wherein the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint for the offence u/s. 29A (i) read with s. 50 and punishable u/s. 49 (2A) of the 1987 Act against the first respondent-company, second accused-Managing accused as directors, whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint in its entirety, holding that the requirements of sub-Section (1) of s. 50 of the 1987 Act are similar to the requirements incorporated in s. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were notDecision Date :01-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3176/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC566,2025-06-13T11:13:11.642501 SHOOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,20-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 249/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the parents-in-laws and the husband of the victim-daughter-in-law of the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – – Victim-daughter-in-law died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home within one year of marriage – FIR by the father that his daughter was harassed by the appellants-parent- in-laws and husband soon before her death in connection with dowry demand – Order of conviction and Decision Date : 20-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 249/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHOOR SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8182024 INSC 713Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the parents-in-laws and the husband of the victim-daughter-in-law of the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304-B and 498-A – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113-B – – Victim-daughter-in-law died of burn injuries at her matrimonial home within one year of marriage – FIR by the father that his daughter was harassed by the appellants-parent- in-laws and husband soon before her death in connection with dowry demand – Order of conviction andDecision Date :20-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 249/2013| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC713,2025-06-13T17:11:01.314230 "AMANATULLAH KHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.",07-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2349/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the names of the Appellant’s minor children and his wife against whom there is no adverse material should be included in the History Sheet of the Appellant. Headnotes† Punjab Police Rules 1934 (As applicable rule 23.8 and rule 23.9 – Format of history sheet – Need to revisit archaic rules – Amended Standing Order issued on 21.03.2024 – In column on ‘relations and connections’ only those persons who can provide shelter to history sheeter to be reflected – Decision Date : 07-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2349/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed with directions. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AMANATULLAH KHANversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 9272024 INSC 383Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the names of the Appellant’s minor children and his wife against whom there is no adverse material should be included in the History Sheet of the Appellant. Headnotes† Punjab Police Rules 1934 (As applicable rule 23.8 and rule 23.9 – Format of history sheet – Need to revisit archaic rules – Amended Standing Order issued on 21.03.2024 – In column on ‘relations and connections’ only those persons who can provide shelter to history sheeter to be reflected –Decision Date :07-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2349/2024| Direction Issue :Appeal partly allowed with directions.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC383,2025-06-13T17:10:38.453068 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI,08-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6135/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, is ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and of compulsory retirement from service could have been imposed upon the respondent (a Head Constable in CRPF) by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules; whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed suffers from any procedural infirmity and / or is shockingly Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6135/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishবাংলা - Bengaliଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusSANTOSH KUMAR TIWARI-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4292024 INSC 392Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 to the extent it provides for punishments other than those specified in Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, is ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such inoperable and of compulsory retirement from service could have been imposed upon the respondent (a Head Constable in CRPF) by relying upon the provisions of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules; whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed suffers from any procedural infirmity and / or is shockinglyDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6135/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC392,2025-06-13T17:10:08.394058 K.P. KHEMKA & ANR.versusHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.,08-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6144/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and rejected the contention of the appellants herein that if a debt is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, the same cannot be recovered Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 read with the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Headnotes Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Limitation Act, 1963 – The appellants herein had relied upon the judgment Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6144/2024 | Direction Issue : Matter referred to CJI to constitute 3 Judges Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K.P. KHEMKA & ANR.versusHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2342024 INSC 396Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and rejected the contention of the appellants herein that if a debt is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1963, the same cannot be recovered Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 read with the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Headnotes Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Limitation Act, 1963 – The appellants herein had relied upon the judgmentDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6144/2024| Direction Issue :Matter referred to CJI to constitute 3 Judges Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC396,2025-06-13T17:10:36.758403 DUSHYANT JANBANDHUversusM/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.,11-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14299/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed an arbitrator. Whether the disputes relating to non- payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination Headnotes† Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – ss.15(2), 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(A) – Disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order, if arbitrable: Held: No – Disputes related to non-payment of Decision Date : 11-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14299/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DUSHYANT JANBANDHUversusM/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4922024 INSC 966Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed an arbitrator. Whether the disputes relating to non- payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination Headnotes† Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – ss.15(2), 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(A) – Disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order, if arbitrable: Held: No – Disputes related to non-payment ofDecision Date :11-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14299/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC966,2025-06-13T17:11:34.369436 URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.,13-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14473/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust. Headnotes† Rajasthan Urban Improvement s.60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Condonation of delay in filing writ petition – The appellant challenges the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent, whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case: Held: The Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14473/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusSMT. VIDHYA DEVI AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 993Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The present appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the High Court dated 29.10.2009, whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeals and thereby quashed the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the appellant Trust. Headnotes† Rajasthan Urban Improvement s.60A – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Condonation of delay in filing writ petition – The appellant challenges the inordinate delay of 21 years in filing writ petition by the respondent, whether the same needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case: Held: TheDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14473/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:23.920609 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.,13-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14506/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration By way of the impugned order, whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in framing points for determination by the Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 with respect inquiry proceedings for eviction against the respondents; whether the order was passed by the Principal Judge as a persona designata, so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the same was passed in the capacity of a judicial authority to Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14506/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERSversusVIVEK V. GAWDE ETC. ETC.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 843Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration By way of the impugned order, whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in framing points for determination by the Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 with respect inquiry proceedings for eviction against the respondents; whether the order was passed by the Principal Judge as a persona designata, so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the same was passed in the capacity of a judicial authority toDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14506/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:23.005855 KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVIversusTHE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.,19-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10682/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether all aspirants whose names find place in the revised select list, pursuant to the course correction process, would secure appointment against the notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, irrespective of whether they were litigating Appointment/recruitment – Recruitment process for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers – Written examination held and interviews were pending, meanwhile local daily published the result of the selection process when official results were yet to be declared – Enquiry Committee Decision Date : 19-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10682/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KHUNJAMAYUM BIMOTI DEVIversusTHE STATE OF MANIPUR & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 182024 INSC 733Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether all aspirants whose names find place in the revised select list, pursuant to the course correction process, would secure appointment against the notified 1423 posts of Primary Teachers, irrespective of whether they were litigating Appointment/recruitment – Recruitment process for 1423 posts of Primary Teachers – Written examination held and interviews were pending, meanwhile local daily published the result of the selection process when official results were yet to be declared – Enquiry CommitteeDecision Date :19-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10682/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC733,2025-06-13T17:11:09.000563 SHAILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND),26-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 684/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration What is the goal of investigation and what is the role of investigating officer; Are s.172 CrPC and ss. 145 & 161 of the Evidence Act to be read in consonance with each other; Can a General Diary entry precede the registration of FIR. Headnotes Code of Goal of investigation and the role of investigating officer: Held: An investigation of a crime is a lawful search of men and materials relevant in reconstructing and recreating the circumstances of an offence said to have been committed – With the evidence in possession, an Decision Date : 26-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 684/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHAILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND)-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 7762024 INSC 143Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration What is the goal of investigation and what is the role of investigating officer; Are s.172 CrPC and ss. 145 & 161 of the Evidence Act to be read in consonance with each other; Can a General Diary entry precede the registration of FIR. Headnotes Code of Goal of investigation and the role of investigating officer: Held: An investigation of a crime is a lawful search of men and materials relevant in reconstructing and recreating the circumstances of an offence said to have been committed – With the evidence in possession, anDecision Date :26-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 684/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC143,2025-06-13T17:09:24.639725 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusROHIT NANDAN,13-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14394/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards entitlement of respondent-employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, when the respondent appointed on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate, the ‘Tanti’ caste was deleted from the list of OBCs and Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.341 – Scheduled Castes list – Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in the list of Scheduled Castes – Entitlement of employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14394/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusROHIT NANDAN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 6172024 INSC 984Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards entitlement of respondent-employee’s claim to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, when the respondent appointed on the basis of his ‘Tanti’ Caste Certificate, the ‘Tanti’ caste was deleted from the list of OBCs and Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.341 – Scheduled Castes list – Merging of caste “Tanti” with the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ in the list of Scheduled Castes – Entitlement of employee’s claim to the benefit of ScheduledDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14394/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC984,2025-06-13T17:11:24.766917 CDR SEEMA CHAUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,26-02-2024,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1036/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLI Issue for Consideration Issues pertains to the grant of Permanent Commission to Women Short Service Commission Officers in the Indian Navy. Headnotes Armed Forces – Indian Navy – Women Short Service Commissioned Officers – Grant – Petitioner commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch of the Indian Navy – Petitioner was considered for permanent commission but denied on the ground that there were no vacancies – Petitioner moved Decision Date : 26-02-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1036/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CDR SEEMA CHAUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 8202024 INSC 147Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HIMA KOHLIIssue for Consideration Issues pertains to the grant of Permanent Commission to Women Short Service Commission Officers in the Indian Navy. Headnotes Armed Forces – Indian Navy – Women Short Service Commissioned Officers – Grant – Petitioner commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Branch of the Indian Navy – Petitioner was considered for permanent commission but denied on the ground that there were no vacancies – Petitioner movedDecision Date :26-02-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1036/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC147,2025-06-13T17:09:22.857737 KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS,13-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9702/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in declining to grant relief to the writ petitioners-appellants herein on the ground of delay and laches; whether the appeals filed by the respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation would call for any be passed. Headnotes† Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126(1)(b) – Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in plans – Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulations 33; 34 r/w Para 6 of Appendix-VII Decision Date : 13-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9702/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and those of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation are dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8302024 INSC 692Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in declining to grant relief to the writ petitioners-appellants herein on the ground of delay and laches; whether the appeals filed by the respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation would call for any be passed. Headnotes† Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126(1)(b) – Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in plans – Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulations 33; 34 r/w Para 6 of Appendix-VIIDecision Date :13-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9702/2024| Direction Issue :Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed and those of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation are dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC692,2025-06-13T17:11:15.865597 MRS. BHUMIKABEN N. MODI & ORS.versusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,08-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 270/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the issuance of Acceptance-cum-First Premium Receipt gave rise to a presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer; whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the appellants’ complaint and reversing the concurrent orders of the of its revisional jurisdiction, wherein directions were issued for payment of benefits in terms of the subject life insurance policy and for grant of compensation. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional power – Insurance – Life Insurance Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 270/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MRS. BHUMIKABEN N. MODI & ORS.versusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 4522024 INSC 395Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, C.T. RAVIKUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the issuance of Acceptance-cum-First Premium Receipt gave rise to a presumption of acceptance of the policy by the insurer; whether the NCDRC was justified in dismissing the appellants’ complaint and reversing the concurrent orders of the of its revisional jurisdiction, wherein directions were issued for payment of benefits in terms of the subject life insurance policy and for grant of compensation. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.21(b) – Revisional power – Insurance – Life InsuranceDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 270/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC395,2025-06-13T17:10:33.791501 SUSHMAversusNITIN GANAPATI RANGOLE & ORS.,19-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10648/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The core issue involved in these appeals centres around the deduction of 50% compensation awardable to the appellant- claimants, who have assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the aspect of contributory negligence whereby, the driver of the car, who also was held jointly responsible for causing the collision. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – A car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck which was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights – The Decision Date : 19-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10648/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUSHMAversusNITIN GANAPATI RANGOLE & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 4252024 INSC 706Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The core issue involved in these appeals centres around the deduction of 50% compensation awardable to the appellant- claimants, who have assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below on the aspect of contributory negligence whereby, the driver of the car, who also was held jointly responsible for causing the collision. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – A car collided with a 14-wheeler trailer truck which was left abandoned in the middle of the highway without any warning signs in the form of indicators or parking lights – TheDecision Date :19-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10648/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC706,2025-06-13T17:11:06.648669 KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.,13-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10549/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the Court can dismiss an election petition at the very threshold on an application u/Ord. VII r. 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 83, 86 – Trial of election petition – Appellant elected in the General Elections to the State Legislative Assembly – Election petition by the respondent-contestant from the same seat, challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant did not disclose her assets Decision Date : 13-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10549/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KIMNEO HAOKIP HANGSHINGversusKENN RAIKHAN & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 3542024 INSC 689Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the Court can dismiss an election petition at the very threshold on an application u/Ord. VII r. 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 83, 86 – Trial of election petition – Appellant elected in the General Elections to the State Legislative Assembly – Election petition by the respondent-contestant from the same seat, challenging the election of the appellant alleging that the appellant did not disclose her assetsDecision Date :13-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10549/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC689,2025-06-13T17:11:14.024584 BABY SAKSHI GREOLAversusMANZOOR AHMAD SIMON AND ANOTHER,11-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14290/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellant (a minor at the time of the accident) sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability and moderate mental retardation. MACT awarded compensation of Rs.5,90,750/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. High Court granted of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization. Appellant sought further enhancement of the compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident – Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident when she was 7 years old and suffered Decision Date : 11-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14290/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","BABY SAKSHI GREOLAversusMANZOOR AHMAD SIMON AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 958Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellant (a minor at the time of the accident) sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability and moderate mental retardation. MACT awarded compensation of Rs.5,90,750/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. High Court granted of Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing till realization. Appellant sought further enhancement of the compensation. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident – Appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident when she was 7 years old and sufferedDecision Date :11-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14290/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:33.160746 COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGHversusSUGANDHI AGGARWAL,08-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6137/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the guardianship of two minor children till they attain the age of majority. Headnotes Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – ss. 7, 9 and 25 – Custody of two minor children – Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to the visitation rights to the mother – However, the High Court set aside the order and granted the parties shared custody of the minor children – Challenge to: Held: Principal consideration whilst deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in exercise of its parens patriae Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6137/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGHversusSUGANDHI AGGARWAL-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2592024 INSC 397Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the guardianship of two minor children till they attain the age of majority. Headnotes Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – ss. 7, 9 and 25 – Custody of two minor children – Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to the visitation rights to the mother – However, the High Court set aside the order and granted the parties shared custody of the minor children – Challenge to: Held: Principal consideration whilst deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in exercise of its parens patriaeDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6137/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC397,2025-06-13T17:10:32.266175 ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS,11-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5204/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellant was detained under s.3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 to prevent in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Headnotes† Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Decision Date : 11-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5204/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ARJUN S/O RATAN GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 637Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellant was detained under s.3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 to prevent in the activities of bootlegging thereby preventing the maintenance of peace. High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Headnotes† Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, SandDecision Date :11-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5204/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:37.134679 M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETCversusTHE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS,26-02-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2045/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Whether registry has the power to dismiss a curative ground that no averment has been made to the effect that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. Headnotes Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII r.2 (1) – Curative petition – Registry’s power to dismiss – Dismissal of review petition in open court after Decision Date : 26-02-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2045/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETCversusTHE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 7582024 INSC 145Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Whether registry has the power to dismiss a curative ground that no averment has been made to the effect that the review petition was dismissed by circulation. Headnotes Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII r.2 (1) – Curative petition – Registry’s power to dismiss – Dismissal of review petition in open court afterDecision Date :26-02-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2045/2022| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC145,2025-06-13T17:09:40.604758 NAVRATAN LAL SHARMAversusRADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.,12-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14328/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of a party to get the first appeal restored if compromise decree specifically does not give such liberty. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.23 r.3 – Compromise of suit – Suit for declaration and Dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal – During pendency, compromise reached between parties and in terms thereof, the High Court disposed the first appeal – However, failure of the respondent to comply with compromise terms – Application to restore the Decision Date : 12-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14328/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NAVRATAN LAL SHARMAversusRADHA MOHAN SHARMA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4532024 INSC 970Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of a party to get the first appeal restored if compromise decree specifically does not give such liberty. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord.23 r.3 – Compromise of suit – Suit for declaration and Dismissed by trial court – Appellant filed first appeal – During pendency, compromise reached between parties and in terms thereof, the High Court disposed the first appeal – However, failure of the respondent to comply with compromise terms – Application to restore theDecision Date :12-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14328/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC970,2025-06-13T17:11:27.490554 MAHENDRA KAUR ARORAversusHDFC BANK LTD,08-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6096/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MAHENDRA KAUR ARORA versus HDFC BANK LTD - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 2802024 INSC 432 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration In a petition u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Single Judge upheld the order passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal by which the decree passed in favour of the appellant-landlady by the Rent Tribunal was set aside and counter claim filed by the respondent- Bank was allowed. Appellant filed intra court appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable. Headnotes Lease Agreement – Respondent-Bank terminated the lease agreement by issuing three months’ notice in terms of clause 6 thereof – However, did Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6096/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHENDRA KAUR ARORAversusHDFC BANK LTD-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 2802024 INSC 432Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration In a petition u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Single Judge upheld the order passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal by which the decree passed in favour of the appellant-landlady by the Rent Tribunal was set aside and counter claim filed by the respondent- Bank was allowed. Appellant filed intra court appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court as not maintainable. Headnotes Lease Agreement – Respondent-Bank terminated the lease agreement by issuing three months’ notice in terms of clause 6 thereof – However, didDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6096/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC432,2025-06-13T17:10:04.784100 MEERA DEVI (D) THR. LR.versusDINESH CHANDRA JOSHI (D) THR. LRS.,19-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5577/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration When the case falls in the category where the respondent-tenant has failed to comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court directing payment of rent. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Eviction by the appellant-landlady on the ground of non-payment of rent: Held: A perusal of the paperbook shows that notice was issued on 02.01.2014 in the Special Leave Petition – Vide order dated 02.05.2014, leave was granted and a perusal of the same order shows that during the pendency of the Decision Date : 19-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5577/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MEERA DEVI (D) THR. LR.versusDINESH CHANDRA JOSHI (D) THR. LRS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6772024 INSC 725Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration When the case falls in the category where the respondent-tenant has failed to comply with the order passed by the Supreme Court directing payment of rent. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Eviction by the appellant-landlady on the ground of non-payment of rent: Held: A perusal of the paperbook shows that notice was issued on 02.01.2014 in the Special Leave Petition – Vide order dated 02.05.2014, leave was granted and a perusal of the same order shows that during the pendency of theDecision Date :19-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5577/2014| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC725,2025-06-13T17:11:07.964080 "HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.",29-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3589/2023,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, ABHAY S. OKA*, J.B. PARDIWALA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration What is the object behind passing interim orders; Whether the High Courts are empowered to vacate or modify interim relief; Whether an interim order can come to an end automatically only due to What is the scope of exercise of powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution; Position of the High Courts and its power of superintendence; Whether the Court should deal with an issue not arising for consideration; Effect of directions issued by the Constitutional Courts to decide pending cases in a Decision Date : 29-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3589/2023 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 9462024 INSC 150Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, ABHAY S. OKA*, J.B. PARDIWALA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration What is the object behind passing interim orders; Whether the High Courts are empowered to vacate or modify interim relief; Whether an interim order can come to an end automatically only due to What is the scope of exercise of powers u/Art. 142 of the Constitution; Position of the High Courts and its power of superintendence; Whether the Court should deal with an issue not arising for consideration; Effect of directions issued by the Constitutional Courts to decide pending cases in aDecision Date :29-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3589/2023| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC150,2025-06-13T17:08:08.602554 BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS,29-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2886/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in allowing the amendment application, changing the nature of suit from partition to declaration. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. VI r. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – When allowed – On facts, suit for partition reached the stage of arguments, application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, seeking relief of declaration of the earlier compromise decree being null and void, pleading oversight and mistake, on the part of the respondents No. 1 and 2 – Trial court dismissed Decision Date : 29-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2886/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BASAVARAJversusINDIRA AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 9352024 INSC 151Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in allowing the amendment application, changing the nature of suit from partition to declaration. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. VI r. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – When allowed – On facts, suit for partition reached the stage of arguments, application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, seeking relief of declaration of the earlier compromise decree being null and void, pleading oversight and mistake, on the part of the respondents No. 1 and 2 – Trial court dismissedDecision Date :29-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2886/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC151,2025-06-13T17:07:53.930154 THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSINGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,22-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 250/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(1)(b) acquittal – Interference by High Court – Scope – Prosecution’s case that the accused persons took the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced for offence Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 250/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSINGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 11782024 INSC 198Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(1)(b) acquittal – Interference by High Court – Scope – Prosecution’s case that the accused persons took the jeep of the victim-deceased on hire and thereafter they murdered the victim and looted the jeep – Appellants-accused were convicted and sentenced for offenceDecision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 250/2016| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC198,2025-06-13T17:09:43.501990 SHEIKH NOORUL HASSANversusNAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.,08-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1389/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of filing of subsequent pleading- replication as envisaged in Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, during the course of the proceeding of an election petition under the 1951 Act, and in what circumstances leave to pleading may be granted by an election tribunal/court. Headnotes Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – s. 87(1) – Procedure before the High Court – Filing of replication by the election petitioner to the written statement filed by the returned candidate – Grant of leave Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1389/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHEIKH NOORUL HASSANversusNAHAKPAM INDRAJIT SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 532024 INSC 391Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the permissibility of filing of subsequent pleading- replication as envisaged in Ord. VIII r. 9 CPC, during the course of the proceeding of an election petition under the 1951 Act, and in what circumstances leave to pleading may be granted by an election tribunal/court. Headnotes Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – s. 87(1) – Procedure before the High Court – Filing of replication by the election petitioner to the written statement filed by the returned candidate – Grant of leaveDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1389/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC391,2025-06-13T17:10:30.859758 RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR.versusKARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.,20-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3593/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants-children of the original tenant had also became tenants upon the death of their father, by virtue of s.2(h) of the old Act-West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; and whether the 1997 Act would cover such tenants who 1956 Act. Headnotes† West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.2(h) – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.2(g) – Death of the original tenant in the year 1970, before the commencement of 1997 Act-prior to July 10, 2001 – Devolution of tenancy on the Decision Date : 20-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3593/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJESH MITRA @ RAJESH KUMAR MITRA & ANR.versusKARNANI PROPERTIES LTD.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6442024 INSC 719Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants-children of the original tenant had also became tenants upon the death of their father, by virtue of s.2(h) of the old Act-West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956; and whether the 1997 Act would cover such tenants who 1956 Act. Headnotes† West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.2(h) – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – s.2(g) – Death of the original tenant in the year 1970, before the commencement of 1997 Act-prior to July 10, 2001 – Devolution of tenancy on theDecision Date :20-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3593/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC719,2025-06-13T17:10:59.558699 "BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED (NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED)versusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 57, KOLKATA AND ANOTHER",28-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7257/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration The liability to deduct tax at source u/s.194-H, Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount which, as per the Revenue, is a commission payable to an agent by the assessees-cellular mobile telephone franchise/distributorship agreement between the assessees and the franchisees/distributors. Headnotes Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.194-H – When not attracted – Assessees entered into franchise or distribution agreements and sold start-up kits, recharge vouchers at a discounted Decision Date : 28-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7257/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED (NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED)versusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 57, KOLKATA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10012024 INSC 148Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration The liability to deduct tax at source u/s.194-H, Income Tax Act, 1961 on the amount which, as per the Revenue, is a commission payable to an agent by the assessees-cellular mobile telephone franchise/distributorship agreement between the assessees and the franchisees/distributors. Headnotes Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.194-H – When not attracted – Assessees entered into franchise or distribution agreements and sold start-up kits, recharge vouchers at a discountedDecision Date :28-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7257/2011| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC148,2025-06-13T17:09:14.883830 SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS.versusSMT. CHAMELI & ORS.,11-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8244/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the resumption of onerous gift to heirs of donor when conditions of gift are not fulfilled by heirs of the donee. Headnotes† Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by donor to donee, duly executed and later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees stopped rendering these services, and original donees have Decision Date : 11-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8244/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS.versusSMT. CHAMELI & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 693Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the resumption of onerous gift to heirs of donor when conditions of gift are not fulfilled by heirs of the donee. Headnotes† Gift – Oral Gift – Resumption of onerous gift – Land gifted by donor to donee, duly executed and later, the plaintiffs-donor's heirs, filed suit for resumption of property claiming that gift was made in lieu of services to be rendered by donees and their heirs, to donors and their heirs lifelong, and since the defendants-donees stopped rendering these services, and original donees haveDecision Date :11-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8244/2009| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:36.416732 ARVIND KEJRIWALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,13-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3816/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYAN* Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to his arrest being illegal as well as his application for the grant of regular bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – The High Court upheld the arrest of the appellant by the CBI and congruously denied him regular bail – Propriety: Held: [Per Surya Kant, J.]: CBI complied with Section 41A CrPC, in its true letter Decision Date : 13-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3816/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ARVIND KEJRIWALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6832024 INSC 687Coram : SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYAN*Issue for Consideration The instant appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by the High Court, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to his arrest being illegal as well as his application for the grant of regular bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Penal Code, 1860 – s.477A – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.7 – The High Court upheld the arrest of the appellant by the CBI and congruously denied him regular bail – Propriety: Held: [Per Surya Kant, J.]: CBI complied with Section 41A CrPC, in its true letterDecision Date :13-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3816/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC687,2025-06-13T17:11:12.151055 BANWARI AND OTHERSversusHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) AND ANOTHER,10-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13348/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent relying on Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s case and setting aside the order holding that the application u/s.28-A can only be filed within a period of three months from any judgment of the Reference Court u/s.18, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date of judgment of this Court or the High Court. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13348/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BANWARI AND OTHERSversusHARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4632024 INSC 951Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent relying on Ramsingbhai (Ramsangbhai) Jerambhai’s case and setting aside the order holding that the application u/s.28-A can only be filed within a period of three months from any judgment of the Reference Court u/s.18, arising from the same acquisition but not from the date of judgment of this Court or the High Court. Headnotes† Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4,Decision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13348/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC951,2025-06-13T17:11:42.767746 JYOTI LIMITEDversusBSE LIMITED & ANR,10-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4707/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"JYOTI LIMITED versus BSE LIMITED & ANR - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1117 PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) rejected the application of the appellant for the listing of certain equity shares to the BSE holding that the appellant had not taken in principle approval from the Stock Exchange and it also did not take the approval of the shareholders for the Private Limited (RARE). Order upheld and confirmed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 – s.9(1) – Companies Act, 2013 – s.62(1)(c) – SEBI (Listing Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4707/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","JYOTI LIMITEDversusBSE LIMITED & ANR-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1117Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) rejected the application of the appellant for the listing of certain equity shares to the BSE holding that the appellant had not taken in principle approval from the Stock Exchange and it also did not take the approval of the shareholders for the Private Limited (RARE). Order upheld and confirmed by the Securities Appellate Tribunal. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 – s.9(1) – Companies Act, 2013 – s.62(1)(c) – SEBI (ListingDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4707/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:40.916376 SELVAMANIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,08-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act by the trial court. Whether in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the conviction when prosecutrix and witnesses turned hostile at the cross examination stage. Headnotes Conviction upheld even when prosecutrix and other witnesses turned hostile – Correctness of: Held: In the present case, the Decision Date : 08-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SELVAMANIversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 6532024 INSC 393Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act by the trial court. Whether in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant against the conviction when prosecutrix and witnesses turned hostile at the cross examination stage. Headnotes Conviction upheld even when prosecutrix and other witnesses turned hostile – Correctness of: Held: In the present case, theDecision Date :08-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 906/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC393,2025-06-13T17:10:35.467957 KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,01-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1427/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 that appellant was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim to marry him when she was returning home after dropping children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house – Decision Date : 01-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1427/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3292024 INSC 156Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 that appellant was earlier residing in the house of the victim-deceased X as a tenant – It was alleged that appellant threatened victim to marry him when she was returning home after dropping children of her sister at school – Thereafter, she consumed poison in the house –Decision Date :01-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1427/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC156,2025-06-13T17:07:51.063969 GEORGEversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS,13-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5279/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1 Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5279/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","GEORGEversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 769Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-original accused no.1, when on the basis of the very same evidence of PW-1, a benefit of doubt was granted to accused Nos.2 and 3. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.294(b), 341, the informant’s son was caught by the two accused persons when he was trying to escape their attack, the appellant hacked the knife forcibly on the left side of his neck – The informant’s son was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead – Hence, the FIR by PW-1Decision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5279/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:22.368779 AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.versusJYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.,20-09-2024,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 19/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration What is the scope of jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Whether in the instant case, on a prima facie view, the SRG Group being a non-signatory to the (FAA), can be referred to arbitration. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of arbitrators – Scope of jurisdiction of the referral Court: Held: SBP & Co. case expanded the scope of the Court’s power under Section 11 while Decision Date : 20-09-2024 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 19/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AJAY MADHUSUDAN PATEL & ORS.versusJYOTRINDRA S. PATEL & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8942024 INSC 710Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration What is the scope of jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Whether in the instant case, on a prima facie view, the SRG Group being a non-signatory to the (FAA), can be referred to arbitration. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of arbitrators – Scope of jurisdiction of the referral Court: Held: SBP & Co. case expanded the scope of the Court’s power under Section 11 whileDecision Date :20-09-2024| Case No :ARBITRATION PETITION No. 19/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC710,2025-06-13T17:10:57.474664 SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,19-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2030/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below – Decision Date : 19-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2030/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SANTOSH @ RAJESH @ GOPALversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6092024 INSC 723Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below –Decision Date :19-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2030/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC723,2025-06-13T17:11:10.716645 CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC.versusMANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.,10-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14151/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The respondents-allottees had failed to clear the outstanding dues of the allotted booth site, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear the said outstanding dues. Whether the High restoring the allotment and directing them to pay the outstanding amount. Headnotes† Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – Appellants sold the Booth site to the respondents – The Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14151/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATOR & ORS. & ETC. ETC.versusMANJIT KUMAR GULATI & ORS. & ETC. ETC.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 947Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The respondents-allottees had failed to clear the outstanding dues of the allotted booth site, despite sufficient opportunities of hearing given to the allottees to clear the said outstanding dues. Whether the High restoring the allotment and directing them to pay the outstanding amount. Headnotes† Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 – Appellants sold the Booth site to the respondents – TheDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14151/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:42.156684 JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.,10-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14138/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus SAHNULAL & ANR. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 719 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court in second appeal u/s.100 CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Suit for specific the respondents-plaintiffs against the original defendant-owner of the property alleging defendant’s unwillingness to perform his part of contract – Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the respondent – Appeal thereagainst, partly allowed – Respondents then filed Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14138/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 719Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court in second appeal u/s.100 CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal – Framing of substantial question of law – Suit for specific the respondents-plaintiffs against the original defendant-owner of the property alleging defendant’s unwillingness to perform his part of contract – Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the respondent – Appeal thereagainst, partly allowed – Respondents then filedDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14138/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:41.409639 VEDANTA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS,29-02-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10159/2020,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VEDANTA LIMITED versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 11212024 INSC 175 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Impugned orders passed by the High Court directing closure of the copper smelter operated by the petitioner at the industrial complex in Tamil Nadu for violations of numerous environmental norms, Environmental pollution and degradation – Copper smelter operated by the petitioner at the industrial complex in Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu – Closure of, for violations of numerous environmental norms by the High Court – Interference with: Held: Industrial establishment was Decision Date : 29-02-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10159/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Environmental pollution; Copper smelter; Environmental norms; Industrial establishment; Environmental violations; Judicial review; Statutory authorities and bodies; Principles of sustainable development; Polluter pays principle; Public trust doctrine; Balancing economic interests; Public welfare concerns; Economic growth; Health and welfare; Human rights; International treaties and agreements; Economic growth; Sustainable progress; Pollution Control Board; Environmental law; Environmental degradation; Natural resources; Intergenerational equity; Environmental heritage. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VEDANTA LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 11212024 INSC 175Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Impugned orders passed by the High Court directing closure of the copper smelter operated by the petitioner at the industrial complex in Tamil Nadu for violations of numerous environmental norms, Environmental pollution and degradation – Copper smelter operated by the petitioner at the industrial complex in Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu – Closure of, for violations of numerous environmental norms by the High Court – Interference with: Held: Industrial establishment wasDecision Date :29-02-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 10159/2020| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Direction Issue :Environmental pollution; Copper smelter; Environmental norms; Industrial establishment; Environmental violations; Judicial review; Statutory authorities and bodies; Principles of sustainable development; Polluter pays principle; Public trust doctrine; Balancing economic interests; Public welfare concerns; Economic growth; Health and welfare; Human rights; International treaties and agreements; Economic growth; Sustainable progress; Pollution Control Board; Environmental law; Environmental degradation; Natural resources; Intergenerational equity; Environmental heritage.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC175,2025-06-13T17:07:55.999069 PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,12-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5193/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the allotment of the plot in favour of Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (MRHS) was proper or violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria. Headnotes† Allotment of land – Co-operative Housing Society Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land by the Respondent-State to MRHS: Held: The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to MRCHS shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was not even Decision Date : 12-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5193/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","PROPOSED VAIBHAV COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 732Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the allotment of the plot in favour of Medinova Regal Co-operative Housing Society (MRHS) was proper or violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria. Headnotes† Allotment of land – Co-operative Housing Society Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to interfere in the allotment of land by the Respondent-State to MRHS: Held: The entire history of how the plot came to be allotted to MRCHS shows nepotism and favouritism for a society which was not evenDecision Date :12-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5193/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T17:11:26.877539 JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT,10-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5175/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the appellants-accused from offences punishable u/s.306, 498A and 114 of IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge of accused – girl’s father against the appellants-husband and in-laws for offences u/ss.306, 498A, 114 IPC alleging that the girl committed suicide after 12 years of marriage due to the physical and mental harassment meted out by the husband which included the husband selling her ornaments, given to her Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5175/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAYEDEEPSINH PRAVINSINH CHAVDA & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4392024 INSC 960Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the appellants-accused from offences punishable u/s.306, 498A and 114 of IPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge of accused – girl’s father against the appellants-husband and in-laws for offences u/ss.306, 498A, 114 IPC alleging that the girl committed suicide after 12 years of marriage due to the physical and mental harassment meted out by the husband which included the husband selling her ornaments, given to herDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5175/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC960,2025-06-13T17:11:37.725145 RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT,09-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2481/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 6982024 INSC 413 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Respondents herein were convicted by the Sessions Court for offence punishable u/s. 325 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years. However, the High Court reduced the sentence of five years to four years and further held that if an amount of of the two respondents, then the respondents need not undergo even the four years of sentence. The question falls for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the High Court could be said to be in accordance with law. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 357 – Decision Date : 09-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2481/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJENDRA BHAGWANJI UMRANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 6982024 INSC 413Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Respondents herein were convicted by the Sessions Court for offence punishable u/s. 325 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years. However, the High Court reduced the sentence of five years to four years and further held that if an amount of of the two respondents, then the respondents need not undergo even the four years of sentence. The question falls for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the High Court could be said to be in accordance with law. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 357 –Decision Date :09-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2481/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC413,2025-06-13T17:09:53.865258 BHAGWAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.,20-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3883/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the accused son and nephew of Ex-Minister and M.P. Mr. D.P. Yadav were various false proceedings in the name of the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority in the High Court and Supreme Court with the assistance of a battery of advocates and many other unknown persons. Present SLP was filed against Respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner against Decision Date : 20-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3883/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHAGWAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 7742024 INSC 708Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Respondent Nos.3 and 4, son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner respectively, made attempts to falsely implicate the Respondent No.2-a star witness in the Nitish Katara case on whose evidence the accused son and nephew of Ex-Minister and M.P. Mr. D.P. Yadav were various false proceedings in the name of the petitioner without his knowledge, consent or authority in the High Court and Supreme Court with the assistance of a battery of advocates and many other unknown persons. Present SLP was filed against Respondent No.2 in the name of the petitioner againstDecision Date :20-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3883/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Direction Issue :In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC708,2025-06-13T17:11:04.680321 OPG POWER GENERATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusENEXIO POWER COOLING SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.,20-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3981/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCite(47),"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India, or/and is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award; whether the been subjected to arbitration and made jointly and severally liable along with the project beneficiary-appellant for the award; whether respondent’s claim for the outstanding principal amount barred by limitation; whether the counter claim, in respect of cost of repair/replacement of Decision Date : 20-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3981/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Appeals to be listed for final hearing and disposal. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCite(47)","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.OPG POWER GENERATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusENEXIO POWER COOLING SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 4902024 INSC 711Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India, or/and is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award; whether the been subjected to arbitration and made jointly and severally liable along with the project beneficiary-appellant for the award; whether respondent’s claim for the outstanding principal amount barred by limitation; whether the counter claim, in respect of cost of repair/replacement ofDecision Date :20-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3981/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Direction Issue :Appeals to be listed for final hearing and disposal.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCite(47)",2024INSC711,2025-06-13T17:11:02.504956 MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA,01-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1610/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in the Decision Date : 01-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1610/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 232024 INSC 158Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in theDecision Date :01-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1610/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC158,2025-06-13T17:07:48.557905 JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER,03-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2787/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 9922024 INSC 645 J.B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When not justified – Constitution of India – Applicability of, irrespective of the seriousness of crime – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.489B, 489C, 120B, 34 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.19 – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from the Decision Date : 03-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2787/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9922024 INSC 645Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When not justified – Constitution of India – Applicability of, irrespective of the seriousness of crime – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.489B, 489C, 120B, 34 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.19 – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from theDecision Date :03-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2787/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC645,2025-06-13T22:51:23.449900 ANUN DHAWAN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,22-02-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1103/2019,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration In the instant writ petition, Petitioners claiming to be social activists sought directions against the States and Union Territories to formulate a scheme to implement the concept of Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation and the The Petitioners also sought direction against National Legal Services Authority to formulate a scheme in order to further the provisions of Art.50(1)A of the Constitution, as also against the Central Government to create a National Food Grid beyond the scope of the Public Distribution Scheme. Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1103/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANUN DHAWAN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 8122024 INSC 136Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration In the instant writ petition, Petitioners claiming to be social activists sought directions against the States and Union Territories to formulate a scheme to implement the concept of Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation and the The Petitioners also sought direction against National Legal Services Authority to formulate a scheme in order to further the provisions of Art.50(1)A of the Constitution, as also against the Central Government to create a National Food Grid beyond the scope of the Public Distribution Scheme.Decision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1103/2019| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC136,2025-06-13T22:42:19.957906 "ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATIONversusTHE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS",07-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7780/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA 906 : 2024 INSC 389 All India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7780 of 2014) With (Civil Appeal No. 18459 of 2017) (Civil Appeal No. 18460 of 2017) (Civil Appeal No. 18462 of 2017) (Civil Appeal No. 18463 of 2017) Issue for Consideration I. Does Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and/ or Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 lead to a delegation of the ‘essential legislative function’ to the Central Board of Direct Taxes? II. Is Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 Decision Date : 07-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7780/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATIONversusTHE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 9062024 INSC 389Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA906 : 2024 INSC 389 All India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7780 of 2014) With (Civil Appeal No. 18459 of 2017) (Civil Appeal No. 18460 of 2017) (Civil Appeal No. 18462 of 2017) (Civil Appeal No. 18463 of 2017) Issue for Consideration I. Does Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and/ or Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 lead to a delegation of the ‘essential legislative function’ to the Central Board of Direct Taxes? II. Is Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962Decision Date :07-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7780/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC389,2025-06-13T22:41:32.306322 SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI),03-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 597/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under ss. 302 and 307 IPC . Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307, s. 300 exception 1 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting Prosecution case that the appellant- police guard committed murder of the deceased inside the police station while he was on duty – Deceased was having illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife – Deceased and the appellant last seen together in conversation with each other Decision Date : 03-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 597/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SURENDER SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI)-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1632024 INSC 462Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Correctness of the order of the High Court upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under ss. 302 and 307 IPC . Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 307, s. 300 exception 1 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting Prosecution case that the appellant- police guard committed murder of the deceased inside the police station while he was on duty – Deceased was having illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife – Deceased and the appellant last seen together in conversation with each otherDecision Date :03-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 597/2012| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC462,2025-06-13T22:51:19.203657 RAMAYAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,19-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2168/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Discretion to grant bail ought not to be used arbitrarily, Appeal allowed – High Court ought not to have been granted bail on account of (i) seriousness of the crime; (ii) conduct of accused persons; and (iii) overall impact of crime on the society. Held: Accused persons charged under s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120-B, Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2168/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAMAYAN SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6862024 INSC 323Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC while granting bail to the accused persons. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 439 – Discretion to grant bail ought not to be used arbitrarily, Appeal allowed – High Court ought not to have been granted bail on account of (i) seriousness of the crime; (ii) conduct of accused persons; and (iii) overall impact of crime on the society. Held: Accused persons charged under s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120-B,Decision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2168/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC323,2025-06-13T22:43:37.245711 ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,10-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2877/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s. 306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her name Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2877/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10312024 INSC 519Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s. 306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her nameDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2877/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC519,2025-06-13T22:49:19.493049 IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955versus,17-10-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 274/2009,Reference answered,5 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SURYA KANT*, M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an Art. 14; does s.6A suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights provided to ‘indigenous’ communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A cause Decision Date : 17-10-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 274/2009 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955versus-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9612024 INSC 789Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SURYA KANT*, M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an Art. 14; does s.6A suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights provided to ‘indigenous’ communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A causeDecision Date :17-10-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 274/2009| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :5 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC789,2025-06-13T22:49:04.952486 SHINGARA SINGHversusDALJIT SINGH & ANR,14-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5919/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser. – s.52 – Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens – Plaintiff filed a suit on 24.12.1992 seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in respect of the suit land – During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant/defendant no. 2 was impleaded Decision Date : 14-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5919/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHINGARA SINGHversusDALJIT SINGH & ANR-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9012024 INSC 770Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser. – s.52 – Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens – Plaintiff filed a suit on 24.12.1992 seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in respect of the suit land – During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant/defendant no. 2 was impleadedDecision Date :14-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5919/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC770,2025-06-13T22:49:28.622999 MANILALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.,10-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10440/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Teacher Grade-III for TSP Area. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with minimum 45% – However, candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination – Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in his Decision Date : 10-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10440/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANILALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 2182024 INSC 675Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Teacher Grade-III for TSP Area. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with minimum 45% – However, candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination – Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in hisDecision Date :10-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10440/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC675,2025-06-13T22:44:00.831065 ANJUM KADARI & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,05-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8541/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – Constitutional validity – Madarsa Act established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, qualifications for teachers, and conduct of examinations in Madarsas in the State of Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8541/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANJUM KADARI & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 3652024 INSC 831Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – Constitutional validity – Madarsa Act established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, qualifications for teachers, and conduct of examinations in Madarsas in the State ofDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8541/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC831,2025-06-13T22:48:28.668800 JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusSUDHIR KHANNA & ORS.,19-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1591/2020,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in finding without any evidence that the amount alleged to have been paid as the value of share in Joint Hindu Family property is not so but for some other purpose. Headnotes Partition Suit – Predecessors - the elder (“RKK”) and younger (“ACK”) brother respectively – two properties purchased by RKK – (i) Kamla Nagar property in the name of his father (ii) Malcha Marg property in the name of ACK’s wife and constructed house out of Joint Hindu Family Decision Date : 19-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1591/2020 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal No.1591 of 2020 allowed and Civil Appeal No.1592 of 2020 dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusSUDHIR KHANNA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8382024 INSC 224Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in finding without any evidence that the amount alleged to have been paid as the value of share in Joint Hindu Family property is not so but for some other purpose. Headnotes Partition Suit – Predecessors - the elder (“RKK”) and younger (“ACK”) brother respectively – two properties purchased by RKK – (i) Kamla Nagar property in the name of his father (ii) Malcha Marg property in the name of ACK’s wife and constructed house out of Joint Hindu FamilyDecision Date :19-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1591/2020| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal No.1591 of 2020 allowed and Civil Appeal No.1592 of 2020 dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC224,2025-06-13T22:49:12.829980 THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA,10-07-2024,ORIGINAL SUIT No. 4/2021,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Instant suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking declaration that registration of cases by the defendant-UOI after withdrawal of Notification u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the plaintiff-State is unconstitutional and non-est; seeking any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State, as also sought quashing of such cases; and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate cases Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : ORIGINAL SUIT No. 4/2021 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : List the suit for framing of issues. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 WEST BENGALversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6762024 INSC 502Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Instant suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking declaration that registration of cases by the defendant-UOI after withdrawal of Notification u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the plaintiff-State is unconstitutional and non-est; seeking any case and/or investigating a case in connection with offences committed within the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State, as also sought quashing of such cases; and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate casesDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :ORIGINAL SUIT No. 4/2021| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Direction Issue :List the suit for framing of issues.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC502,2025-06-13T22:49:04.213580 SATYANAND SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1666/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration before this Hon’ble Court was a challenge to a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a reference of his diagnosis of AIDS, to a fresh Medical Board. The matter arose out of the Army under Rule 13(3), Item III (iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was suffering from AIDS. The Appellant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the Order of discharge from service. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Appellant’s writ petition, Decision Date : 20-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1666/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SATYANAND SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8652024 INSC 236Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration The issue for consideration before this Hon’ble Court was a challenge to a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a reference of his diagnosis of AIDS, to a fresh Medical Board. The matter arose out of the Army under Rule 13(3), Item III (iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was suffering from AIDS. The Appellant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the Order of discharge from service. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Appellant’s writ petition,Decision Date :20-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1666/2015| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC236,2025-06-13T22:48:52.436263 LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJRAT,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3524/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, if justified. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved the Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3524/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJRAT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 412024 INSC 475Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, if justified. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved theDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3524/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC475,2025-06-13T22:50:36.069647 VASHIST NARAYAN KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.,02-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether an error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same. Headnotes Service Law – Recruitment – form – Final result reflected failed – Appellant applied for the post of Police Constable – He cleared the written exam and the Physical Eligibility Test – However, the final result reflected him as failed – The only reason was that the application form Decision Date : 02-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishঅসমীয়া - Assameseहिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VASHIST NARAYAN KUMARversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 2Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether an error committed in the application form, which was uploaded is a material error or a trivial error and was the State justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same. Headnotes Service Law – Recruitment – form – Final result reflected failed – Appellant applied for the post of Police Constable – He cleared the written exam and the Physical Eligibility Test – However, the final result reflected him as failed – The only reason was that the application formDecision Date :02-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC2,2025-06-13T22:48:33.205672 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusSHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7933/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Appellants, if justified in terminating the services of the respondent on the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF after conducting a departmental inquiry against him on receiving information that he had deliberately failed to reveal in his Verification Roll that two criminal him. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Verification of disclosures made by a candidate to the employer – On facts, suppression of material information, submission of false information in the Verification Roll by the respondent at the time of his appointment to the Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7933/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERSversusSHISHU PAL @ SHIV PAL-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9102024 INSC 550Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Appellants, if justified in terminating the services of the respondent on the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF after conducting a departmental inquiry against him on receiving information that he had deliberately failed to reveal in his Verification Roll that two criminal him. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Verification of disclosures made by a candidate to the employer – On facts, suppression of material information, submission of false information in the Verification Roll by the respondent at the time of his appointment to theDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7933/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC550,2025-06-13T22:47:56.132510 VANSHIKA YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,02-08-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 335/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the sanctity of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) was compromised in the year 2024 and whether the process should be scrapped and a fresh test should be convened. Headnotes† Education – Medical Education – MBBS – Entrance Test – National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question paper – Systemic deficiencies – Separation of tainted and untainted candidates: Held: It is settled law that the cancellation of an examination, either for the Decision Date : 02-08-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 335/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Appeals dismissed, Transfer Cases allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VANSHIKA YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 452024 INSC 568Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the sanctity of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) was compromised in the year 2024 and whether the process should be scrapped and a fresh test should be convened. Headnotes† Education – Medical Education – MBBS – Entrance Test – National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question paper – Systemic deficiencies – Separation of tainted and untainted candidates: Held: It is settled law that the cancellation of an examination, either for theDecision Date :02-08-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 335/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Direction Issue :Appeals dismissed, Transfer Cases allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC568,2025-06-13T22:47:37.283658 M/S NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING CO. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1024/2014,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration (i) Whether there is a liability to pay customs duty when the confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether, the liability to pay such duty will include the liability to pay interest on delayed 28AB of the Act; (iii) What is the true and correct ratio of the decision in Jagdish Cancer case. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – s.125 – Whether there is a liability to pay customs duty when the confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine under Section 125 of the Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1024/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING CO. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11832024 INSC 547Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration (i) Whether there is a liability to pay customs duty when the confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether, the liability to pay such duty will include the liability to pay interest on delayed 28AB of the Act; (iii) What is the true and correct ratio of the decision in Jagdish Cancer case. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – s.125 – Whether there is a liability to pay customs duty when the confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine under Section 125 of theDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1024/2014| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC547,2025-06-13T22:48:11.967718 STEVE KANIKAversusNEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) & ANR.,27-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9815/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH*, UJJAL BHUYAN* Issue for Consideration The appellant’s father had applied for allotment of a plot under the Respondent No.1/New Okhla Industrial and Development Authority (NOIDA) in the year 2006. The father of the appellant had passed away on 08.11.2007. After an open lottery held of the appellant was allotted a plot on 26.10.2009. However, NOIDA on 21.09.2011 cancelled the allotment on the ground that it was made in favour of a dead person on the day such draw of lots was held. Headnotes† Allotment – Allotment of plot/land – Appellant submitted that Decision Date : 27-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9815/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STEVE KANIKAversusNEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8052024 INSC 653Coram : AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH*, UJJAL BHUYAN*Issue for Consideration The appellant’s father had applied for allotment of a plot under the Respondent No.1/New Okhla Industrial and Development Authority (NOIDA) in the year 2006. The father of the appellant had passed away on 08.11.2007. After an open lottery held of the appellant was allotted a plot on 26.10.2009. However, NOIDA on 21.09.2011 cancelled the allotment on the ground that it was made in favour of a dead person on the day such draw of lots was held. Headnotes† Allotment – Allotment of plot/land – Appellant submitted thatDecision Date :27-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9815/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC653,2025-06-13T22:45:09.309443 RAM SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P.,21-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 206/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration As per PW-1-informant (son of the deceased), on the fateful evening when he and his brother were sitting in the open space in front of the entrance door of his house, his mother was sitting close by on a cot and some neighbours were also sitting on another cot, the instigation he fired on PW-1 but he slipped below the cot and the bullet hit his mother who died immediately. While the co-accused was acquitted on the same set of evidence, whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.301 r/w 302, u/s.307 IPC and his sentence were justified when there was no Decision Date : 21-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 206/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAM SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6682024 INSC 128Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration As per PW-1-informant (son of the deceased), on the fateful evening when he and his brother were sitting in the open space in front of the entrance door of his house, his mother was sitting close by on a cot and some neighbours were also sitting on another cot, the instigation he fired on PW-1 but he slipped below the cot and the bullet hit his mother who died immediately. While the co-accused was acquitted on the same set of evidence, whether the conviction of the appellant u/s.301 r/w 302, u/s.307 IPC and his sentence were justified when there was noDecision Date :21-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 206/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC128,2025-06-13T22:42:33.962318 IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,24-01-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 7042024 INSC 59 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to criteria issued for the identification of private ‘forest’ land in the State of Goa. Headnotes Environmental laws – Forests – Criteria issued by the State of Goa for the identification of the State of Goa – Challenge to, by the appellant seeking change in the criteria: Held: Existing criteria for identification of private forests in the State of Goa are adequate and valid, thus, requires no alteration – Criteria of the canopy density of 0.4 and minimum area of 5 ha if Decision Date : 24-01-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 7042024 INSC 59Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to criteria issued for the identification of private ‘forest’ land in the State of Goa. Headnotes Environmental laws – Forests – Criteria issued by the State of Goa for the identification of the State of Goa – Challenge to, by the appellant seeking change in the criteria: Held: Existing criteria for identification of private forests in the State of Goa are adequate and valid, thus, requires no alteration – Criteria of the canopy density of 0.4 and minimum area of 5 ha ifDecision Date :24-01-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC59,2025-06-13T22:47:17.974531 RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERSversusM. SENGODAN AND OTHERS,19-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 600/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS versus M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4132024 INSC 47 M.M. SUNDRESH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration A civil suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, appellants were impleaded. The Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that appellant no.2 and respondent no.2 were not of parties, and consequently, the status of the children through the extended family as coparceners was rejected. The issue for consideration is as to entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriage. Headnotes Partition – Partition and separate possession of plaint Decision Date : 19-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 600/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERSversusM. SENGODAN AND OTHERS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4132024 INSC 47Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration A civil suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, appellants were impleaded. The Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that appellant no.2 and respondent no.2 were not of parties, and consequently, the status of the children through the extended family as coparceners was rejected. The issue for consideration is as to entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriage. Headnotes Partition – Partition and separate possession of plaintDecision Date :19-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 600/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC47,2025-06-13T22:47:41.187759 DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL,19-04-2024,TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2043/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DOLLY RANI versus MANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 5102024 INSC 355 B.V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration When the marriage ceremony had not been performed in accordance with section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whether registration of such a marriage under section 8 of the 1955 Act would confer any legitimacy to it. Headnotes Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss. 7 and 8 transfer petition, parties decided to resolve the dispute by filing a joint application u/Art.142 of the Constitution inter- alia seeking declaration that the marriage between the parties was not valid, consequently, the certificate issued by the Vadik Jankalyan Samiti and the marriage certificate Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2043/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DOLLY RANIversusMANISH KUMAR CHANCHAL-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5102024 INSC 355Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration When the marriage ceremony had not been performed in accordance with section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, whether registration of such a marriage under section 8 of the 1955 Act would confer any legitimacy to it. Headnotes Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss. 7 and 8 transfer petition, parties decided to resolve the dispute by filing a joint application u/Art.142 of the Constitution inter- alia seeking declaration that the marriage between the parties was not valid, consequently, the certificate issued by the Vadik Jankalyan Samiti and the marriage certificateDecision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2043/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC355,2025-06-13T22:43:36.251114 NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.,16-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 279/2024,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 5492024 INSC 41 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case. Headnotes Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.17A inserted by (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 – Operation – Allegations against the appellant for commission of offences u/ss.166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209 and 109 r/w ss.120-B, 34, 37, IPC and ss.12, 13(2) r/w ss.13(1) (c) and (d), 1988 Act allegedly committed between 2015 and 2019 Decision Date : 16-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 279/2024 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 5492024 INSC 41Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case. Headnotes Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.17A inserted by (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 – Operation – Allegations against the appellant for commission of offences u/ss.166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209 and 109 r/w ss.120-B, 34, 37, IPC and ss.12, 13(2) r/w ss.13(1) (c) and (d), 1988 Act allegedly committed between 2015 and 2019Decision Date :16-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 279/2024| Disposal Nature :Matter referred to larger bench| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC41,2025-06-13T22:47:48.490978 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusG ATHIPATHI AND OTHERS,09-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14100/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager in the appellant-authority; and whether the respondent has to be treated as a fresh entrant with the benefit of his past service on deputation or he has to be treated as from the date he was selected. Headnotes† Service law – Promotion – Counting of deputation service period for promotion – Respondent repatriated to parent department after his deputation in appellant-authority for 6 years – Respondent re-joined the appellant on Decision Date : 09-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14100/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusG ATHIPATHI AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5202024 INSC 943Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager in the appellant-authority; and whether the respondent has to be treated as a fresh entrant with the benefit of his past service on deputation or he has to be treated as from the date he was selected. Headnotes† Service law – Promotion – Counting of deputation service period for promotion – Respondent repatriated to parent department after his deputation in appellant-authority for 6 years – Respondent re-joined the appellant onDecision Date :09-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14100/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC943,2025-06-13T22:47:18.611412 MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIMversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.,11-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7332/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration The Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari declared the appellant to be a foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Headnotes† Foreigners Act, 1946 – s.9 – Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 – Act, 1982 – The case against the appellant was initiated in the year 2004 alleging that the appellant illegally migrated to India after 25.03.1971 from Village Dorijahangirpur, Police Station – Torail, District Mymansingh, Bangladesh and was living in Village Kasimpur, Police Decision Date : 11-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7332/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MD. RAHIM ALI @ ABDUR RAHIMversusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 23292024 INSC 511Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration The Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari declared the appellant to be a foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Headnotes† Foreigners Act, 1946 – s.9 – Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 – Act, 1982 – The case against the appellant was initiated in the year 2004 alleging that the appellant illegally migrated to India after 25.03.1971 from Village Dorijahangirpur, Police Station – Torail, District Mymansingh, Bangladesh and was living in Village Kasimpur, PoliceDecision Date :11-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7332/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC511,2025-06-13T22:49:02.910792 KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHODversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7930/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHOD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 11242024 INSC 579 SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002 are insusceptible to powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitutional law – Limitations on judicial scrutiny on electoral matters under and scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over exercise of power under the Delimitation Act: Held: Although Article 329 of the Constitution of India undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of any law relating to delimitation of Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7930/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KISHORCHANDRA CHHANGANLAL RATHODversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11242024 INSC 579Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether exercise of statutory powers under the Delimitation Act, 2002 are insusceptible to powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitutional law – Limitations on judicial scrutiny on electoral matters under and scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over exercise of power under the Delimitation Act: Held: Although Article 329 of the Constitution of India undeniably restricts the scope of judicial scrutiny regarding the validity of any law relating to delimitation ofDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7930/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC579,2025-06-13T22:47:59.501811 A.M. MOHANversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY SHO AND ANOTHER,20-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1716/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration FIR registered against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 (appellant) for offences punishable u/s.420 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant u/s.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 420, IPC, appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients – s.420 when not attracted: Held: For attracting the provision of s.420, IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of s.415, IPC are made out – It must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses the Decision Date : 20-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1716/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.A.M. MOHANversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY SHO AND ANOTHER-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7222024 INSC 233Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration FIR registered against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 (appellant) for offences punishable u/s.420 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant u/s.482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 420, IPC, appellant. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.420 – Ingredients – s.420 when not attracted: Held: For attracting the provision of s.420, IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of s.415, IPC are made out – It must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses theDecision Date :20-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1716/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC233,2025-06-13T22:49:08.413055 RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS,03-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2623/2014,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms – ss.302, 307, read with s.34 – Murder of an MLA and his bodyguard – Respondents convicted by Trial Court – Conviction reversed by High Court – Challenge to: Held: In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 read Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2623/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13132024 INSC 755Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms – ss.302, 307, read with s.34 – Murder of an MLA and his bodyguard – Respondents convicted by Trial Court – Conviction reversed by High Court – Challenge to: Held: In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 readDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2623/2014| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC755,2025-06-13T22:49:40.526008 BINA BASAK & ORS.versusSRI BIPUL KANTI BASAK & ORS.,21-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5525/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in disallowing the right to title and possession of the family members in the suit property that was allotted by the government as part of rehabilitation programme to the displaced/migrant family as a unit during partition Scheme – Object of, Explained Held: The rehabilitation programmes are introduced by the Government with the sole aim of re-establishment of the displaced/ migrant families and not for the benefit of any individual – As a part of such welfare policies, the property is recorded Decision Date : 21-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5525/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BINA BASAK & ORS.versusSRI BIPUL KANTI BASAK & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12812024 INSC 279Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in disallowing the right to title and possession of the family members in the suit property that was allotted by the government as part of rehabilitation programme to the displaced/migrant family as a unit during partition Scheme – Object of, Explained Held: The rehabilitation programmes are introduced by the Government with the sole aim of re-establishment of the displaced/ migrant families and not for the benefit of any individual – As a part of such welfare policies, the property is recordedDecision Date :21-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5525/2016| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC279,2025-06-13T22:48:46.614106 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPURversusJINDAL DRUGS LTD.,30-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1121/2016,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration is whether an activity of re-labelling of goods i.e. cocoa butter and cocoa powder, by affixing additional labels on both the sides of the packs containing goods, amounts to “manufacture” in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Act, 1985, for availing the CENVAT Credit and rebate on the duty paid while exporting the said goods. Headnotes Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Note 3 to Chapter 18 – Cocoa and Cocoa preparations – Whether re-labelling amounts to ‘manufacture’ as per Section 2(f) of Decision Date : 30-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1121/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 BELAPURversusJINDAL DRUGS LTD.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 2712024 INSC 354Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The issue for consideration is whether an activity of re-labelling of goods i.e. cocoa butter and cocoa powder, by affixing additional labels on both the sides of the packs containing goods, amounts to “manufacture” in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Act, 1985, for availing the CENVAT Credit and rebate on the duty paid while exporting the said goods. Headnotes Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Note 3 to Chapter 18 – Cocoa and Cocoa preparations – Whether re-labelling amounts to ‘manufacture’ as per Section 2(f) ofDecision Date :30-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1121/2016| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC354,2025-06-13T22:42:09.637818 PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETYversusUCO BANK AND OTHERS,10-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4845/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the High Courts entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Cases related to recovery of dues of sale – Exercise of power u/Art 226 by filing writ petition, in spite of availability of an alternative remedy – Maintainability of the writ petition: Held: Ordinarily the High Court would not entertain a petition u/Art. 226 if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4845/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETYversusUCO BANK AND OTHERS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5412024 INSC 297Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the High Courts entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act in spite of availability of an effective alternative remedy. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Cases related to recovery of dues of sale – Exercise of power u/Art 226 by filing writ petition, in spite of availability of an alternative remedy – Maintainability of the writ petition: Held: Ordinarily the High Court would not entertain a petition u/Art. 226 if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved personDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4845/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC297,2025-06-13T22:44:45.169082 M/S AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7254/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the legality, validity and propriety of the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar of the subject property, originally owned by the respondent No. 1; whether the provisions of Order XXI r. 90 CPC would apply to the writ proceedings u/Art. and whether the Additional Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to decide the two appeals filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively u/s. 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Headnotes† Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – ss. 194, 195, 212 – Auction Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7254/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 AL-CAN EXPORT PVT. LTD.versusPRESTIGE H.M. POLYCONTAINERS LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 4742024 INSC 500Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the legality, validity and propriety of the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar of the subject property, originally owned by the respondent No. 1; whether the provisions of Order XXI r. 90 CPC would apply to the writ proceedings u/Art. and whether the Additional Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to decide the two appeals filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively u/s. 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Headnotes† Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – ss. 194, 195, 212 – AuctionDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7254/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC500,2025-06-13T22:50:09.593707 APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.,19-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1694/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration Whether the use of expletives and profane language in the titles and content of the episodes of the web-series ‘College Romance’ constitutes an offence of publication and transmission of obscene and sexually explicit content u/ss.67 Information Technology Act, 2000. Headnotes Information Technology Act, 2000 – ss.67, 67A – Penal Code, 1860 – s.292 – “obscenity” – Test for – Complaint filed that Season 1, Episode 5 of the web-series ‘College Romance’, titled Decision Date : 19-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1694/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 11472024 INSC 223Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration Whether the use of expletives and profane language in the titles and content of the episodes of the web-series ‘College Romance’ constitutes an offence of publication and transmission of obscene and sexually explicit content u/ss.67 Information Technology Act, 2000. Headnotes Information Technology Act, 2000 – ss.67, 67A – Penal Code, 1860 – s.292 – “obscenity” – Test for – Complaint filed that Season 1, Episode 5 of the web-series ‘College Romance’, titledDecision Date :19-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1694/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC223,2025-06-13T22:49:35.762959 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORSversusE CONSORTIUM OF MR MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR FLORIAN FRITSCH AND ANR,18-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3736/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS versus E CONSORTIUM OF MR MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR FLORIAN FRITSCH AND ANR - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 10452024 INSC 51 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Consortium of lenders represented by the State Bank of India filed affidavit stating that the lenders were agreeable that if Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) satisfied infusing Rs. 350 Crores by 31.08.2023, adhering to the resolution plan terms, and meeting employee payment obligations in accordance with the NCLAT order, they would abstain from challenging extension of time issues. However, the inability to meet these conditions would necessitate directing Decision Date : 18-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3736/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORSversusE CONSORTIUM OF MR MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR FLORIAN FRITSCH AND ANR-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 10452024 INSC 51Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Consortium of lenders represented by the State Bank of India filed affidavit stating that the lenders were agreeable that if Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) satisfied infusing Rs. 350 Crores by 31.08.2023, adhering to the resolution plan terms, and meeting employee payment obligations in accordance with the NCLAT order, they would abstain from challenging extension of time issues. However, the inability to meet these conditions would necessitate directingDecision Date :18-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3736/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC51,2025-06-13T22:47:42.705900 DOLI RANI SAHAversusUNION OF INDIA,09-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8605/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DOLI RANI SAHA versus UNION OF INDIA - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 3912024 INSC 603 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the victim was a bona fide passenger of the train in question on the date of incident, and was entitled to compensation. Headnotes† Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – s. 16 – Railways Act, 1989 – s. 124A – Railway accident Victim, if a bona fide passenger – Burden of proof – Discharge of – Victim travelling on the train and his death caused by a fall during course of his travel – Compensation claim by the victim’s sister, dismissed by the courts below – Correctness: Held: In Decision Date : 09-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8605/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DOLI RANI SAHAversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 3912024 INSC 603Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the victim was a bona fide passenger of the train in question on the date of incident, and was entitled to compensation. Headnotes† Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – s. 16 – Railways Act, 1989 – s. 124A – Railway accident Victim, if a bona fide passenger – Burden of proof – Discharge of – Victim travelling on the train and his death caused by a fall during course of his travel – Compensation claim by the victim’s sister, dismissed by the courts below – Correctness: Held: InDecision Date :09-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8605/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC603,2025-06-13T22:46:33.768452 M/S HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD.versusM/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,07-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12233/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent could be said to be maintainable more particularly when no liberty to file a fresh application was granted by the High Court at the time first application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996; (ii) whether the fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996 filed by the respondent on 09.12.2022 could be said to be time-barred. If yes, whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In other words, whether Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12233/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 HPCL BIO-FUELS LTD.versusM/S SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1332024 INSC 851Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALAIssue for Consideration (i) Whether a fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent could be said to be maintainable more particularly when no liberty to file a fresh application was granted by the High Court at the time first application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996; (ii) whether the fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Act, 1996 filed by the respondent on 09.12.2022 could be said to be time-barred. If yes, whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In other words, whetherDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12233/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC851,2025-06-13T22:48:07.124002 MUKHTAR ZAIDIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,18-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2134/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.190(1)(b), s.200 – FIR lodged – Police report filed u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. – I.O. found that no evidence could be collected which could substantiate the allegations made Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2134/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MUKHTAR ZAIDIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6552024 INSC 316Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.190(1)(b), s.200 – FIR lodged – Police report filed u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. – I.O. found that no evidence could be collected which could substantiate the allegations madeDecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2134/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC316,2025-06-13T22:44:23.709017 MAITREYEE CHAKRABORTYversusTHE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY & ORS.,22-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9730/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration An offer of appointment was made offering the Appellant the post of Assistant Professor in Law (UR) against lien vacancy. Whether the Respondent-University was justified in resolving on 13.12.2018 at the 32nd Meeting in Agenda No.18/32/2018, that the Appellant was not to the post was to be re-advertised. Headnotes† Service Law – Lien Vacancy – Appointment not confirmed – Appellant was expecting her regularization since there was nothing adverse in her performance – In the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018, Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9730/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAITREYEE CHAKRABORTYversusTHE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8542024 INSC 616Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration An offer of appointment was made offering the Appellant the post of Assistant Professor in Law (UR) against lien vacancy. Whether the Respondent-University was justified in resolving on 13.12.2018 at the 32nd Meeting in Agenda No.18/32/2018, that the Appellant was not to the post was to be re-advertised. Headnotes† Service Law – Lien Vacancy – Appointment not confirmed – Appellant was expecting her regularization since there was nothing adverse in her performance – In the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018,Decision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9730/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC616,2025-06-13T22:45:28.749702 SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMAversusM/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,15-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1577/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing of criminal complaints qua the appellant in connection with the offence punishable u/s. 138 r/w. s.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 r/w. s.142 – complainant-respondent is that in-spite of regular follow-ups and reminders, the company-accused no.1 failed and neglected to clear the respondent’s dues – On repeated demands, the company furnished respondent five cheques – When complainant deposited the cheques, they were Decision Date : 15-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1577/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUSELA PADMAVATHY AMMAversusM/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 6472024 INSC 206Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing of criminal complaints qua the appellant in connection with the offence punishable u/s. 138 r/w. s.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 r/w. s.142 – complainant-respondent is that in-spite of regular follow-ups and reminders, the company-accused no.1 failed and neglected to clear the respondent’s dues – On repeated demands, the company furnished respondent five cheques – When complainant deposited the cheques, they wereDecision Date :15-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1577/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC206,2025-06-13T22:50:52.835049 KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusTHIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS,09-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8616/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether wife, on her remarriage had any title over the property derived from her first husband, which her son from the second husband, claimed through the series of transactions. Headnotes Hindu Widow’s Remarriage s. 2 – Rights of widow in deceased husband’s property to cease on remarriage – Wife contracted a second marriage after the death of the first husband – Son born from the second marriage filed suit for partition claiming the share in the suit property vested in his mother Decision Date : 09-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8616/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS.versusTHIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3832024 INSC 287Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether wife, on her remarriage had any title over the property derived from her first husband, which her son from the second husband, claimed through the series of transactions. Headnotes Hindu Widow’s Remarriage s. 2 – Rights of widow in deceased husband’s property to cease on remarriage – Wife contracted a second marriage after the death of the first husband – Son born from the second marriage filed suit for partition claiming the share in the suit property vested in his motherDecision Date :09-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8616/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC287,2025-06-13T22:45:18.601769 KUSHA DURUKAversusSTATE OF ODISHA,19-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 303/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KUSHA DURUKA versus STATE OF ODISHA - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6042024 INSC 46 VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the prerequisites to be mandatorily mentioned in the application filed for grant of bail; and effect of non-mentioning of details of previous bail applications and order in all bail applications. Headnotes Bail – Bail applications – application filed for grant of bail: Held: Details and copies of orders passed in the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner which have been already decided – Details of any bail application filed by the petitioner, pending in any court, higher or lower court, and if none is Decision Date : 19-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 303/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KUSHA DURUKAversusSTATE OF ODISHA-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 6042024 INSC 46Coram : VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the prerequisites to be mandatorily mentioned in the application filed for grant of bail; and effect of non-mentioning of details of previous bail applications and order in all bail applications. Headnotes Bail – Bail applications – application filed for grant of bail: Held: Details and copies of orders passed in the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner which have been already decided – Details of any bail application filed by the petitioner, pending in any court, higher or lower court, and if none isDecision Date :19-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 303/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC46,2025-06-13T22:47:37.446778 INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIAversusSATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.,19-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3851/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.236, 73(a) and 235A – Trial of offences by Special Court – Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3851/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIAversusSATYANARAYAN BANKATLAL MALU & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 319Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Special Court under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would be as provided u/s. 435 of the Companies Act as it existed at the time when the Code came into effect, or it would be as provided u/s.435 after the 2018 Amendment; and the reference under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013’ in s. 236(1) is ‘legislation by incorporation’ or ‘legislation by reference’. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.236, 73(a) and 235A – Trial of offences by Special Court –Decision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3851/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC319,2025-06-13T22:43:33.940698 CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.versusM/S SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD.,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11723/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and Respondent, a company, entered into a lease agreement for leasing storage space for a period of three years. Clause 16 of the agreement incorporated Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of Respondent from its premises. Respondent invoked arbitration by filing an Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11723/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.versusM/S SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17482024 INSC 805Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and Respondent, a company, entered into a lease agreement for leasing storage space for a period of three years. Clause 16 of the agreement incorporated Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for eviction of Respondent from its premises. Respondent invoked arbitration by filing anDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11723/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC805,2025-06-13T22:48:56.450380 IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,06-03-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; in Corbett Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution. Headnotes Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and protection of – Whether Decision Date : 06-03-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1872024 INSC 178Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration The issues were : (i) Whether Tiger Safaris and Zoos are on the same footing; (ii) Whether establishment of a ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau in Corbett Tiger reserve was legal; in Corbett Tiger reserve and illegal felling of trees for the said purpose; (iv) ‘Public Trust’ Doctrine and (v) Principle of Ecological Restitution. Headnotes Wildlife Protection – ‘Tiger Reserve’ – Management and protection of – WhetherDecision Date :06-03-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC178,2025-06-13T22:40:31.092931 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.,09-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2831/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Effect of delay in executing the death sentence. Headnotes† Sentence – Death sentence – Inordinate, unexplained delay in execution of – Delay in processing, disposal of mercy petitions and issue of warrant of execution of the High Court commuted the death sentence of the convicts to thirty-five years of imprisonment holding that there was an undue and avoidable delay in executing the death sentence – Challenge to: Held: Impugned judgment upheld – An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstances Decision Date : 09-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2831/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusPRADEEP YASHWANT KOKADE & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5742024 INSC 947Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Effect of delay in executing the death sentence. Headnotes† Sentence – Death sentence – Inordinate, unexplained delay in execution of – Delay in processing, disposal of mercy petitions and issue of warrant of execution of the High Court commuted the death sentence of the convicts to thirty-five years of imprisonment holding that there was an undue and avoidable delay in executing the death sentence – Challenge to: Held: Impugned judgment upheld – An inordinate and unexplained delay caused by circumstancesDecision Date :09-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2831/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC947,2025-06-13T22:47:25.980571 "REKHA SHARMAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.",21-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5051/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The High Court while declaring the result of Preliminary Examination for the post of the cadre of Civil Judge, showed the cut off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement, however did not show the cut off marks for the category of Persons Issue arose as to the legality of the action of the High Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 16 (1), (4) – Reservation for the persons with disabilities – Direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge – Appellants, suffering from disabilities Decision Date : 21-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5051/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.REKHA SHARMAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4882024 INSC 615Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The High Court while declaring the result of Preliminary Examination for the post of the cadre of Civil Judge, showed the cut off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement, however did not show the cut off marks for the category of Persons Issue arose as to the legality of the action of the High Court. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 16 (1), (4) – Reservation for the persons with disabilities – Direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge – Appellants, suffering from disabilitiesDecision Date :21-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5051/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC615,2025-06-13T22:45:42.464293 MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.versusKARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6782/2013,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL 396 : 2024 INSC 491 Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6782 of 2013) 09 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol,JJ.] Issue for Consideration Can the contention that the suit agreement was sham and bogus and not intended to be acted upon be purchasers for value without notice of the suit agreement; Whether, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in B. Vijaya Bharathi, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree of specific performance in the absence of any prayer for cancellation of the two subsequent sale deeds; Do the Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6782/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.versusKARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 3962024 INSC 491Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL396 : 2024 INSC 491 Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Karan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6782 of 2013) 09 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Sanjay Karol,JJ.] Issue for Consideration Can the contention that the suit agreement was sham and bogus and not intended to be acted upon be purchasers for value without notice of the suit agreement; Whether, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in B. Vijaya Bharathi, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree of specific performance in the absence of any prayer for cancellation of the two subsequent sale deeds; Do theDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6782/2013| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC491,2025-06-13T22:49:41.394596 BASUDEV DUTTAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.,05-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13919/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the termination order of the appellant-employee after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post. Headnotes† Service law Suitability for employment to the post – Employee-Ophthalmic Assistant with the State Government, terminated from service after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post – Decision Date : 05-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13919/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BASUDEV DUTTAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4182024 INSC 940Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the termination order of the appellant-employee after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post. Headnotes† Service law Suitability for employment to the post – Employee-Ophthalmic Assistant with the State Government, terminated from service after rendering 26 years of service, based on the police verification report that he was considered as ‘unsuitable’ for employment to the post –Decision Date :05-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13919/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC940,2025-06-13T22:47:33.005425 BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,16-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3291/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the treatment to be given to broken period interest, whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed by the Bank, purchaser of the government Securities. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.28 – Interest on Maturity (HTM) government securities – Interest for the broken period, if allowed as a deduction: Held: As the securities were treated as stock-in-trade, the interest on the broken period cannot be considered as capital expenditure and will have to be treated as revenue expenditure, which Decision Date : 16-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3291/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 8602024 INSC 781Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the treatment to be given to broken period interest, whether a deduction of the broken period interest can be claimed by the Bank, purchaser of the government Securities. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.28 – Interest on Maturity (HTM) government securities – Interest for the broken period, if allowed as a deduction: Held: As the securities were treated as stock-in-trade, the interest on the broken period cannot be considered as capital expenditure and will have to be treated as revenue expenditure, whichDecision Date :16-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3291/2009| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC781,2025-06-13T22:49:13.970273 SEETHARAMA SHETTYversusMONAPPA SHETTY,02-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10039/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Scope of Sections 33, 34, 37, 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; whether the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999, with a recital on delivery of possession to the appellant, conforms to the definition of conveyance under Section 2(d) read with Article 20(1) of the Schedule facts and the circumstances of the case, the penalty determined by the trial Court on the instrument instead of sending the instrument to the District Registrar for determination and collection of penalty as may be applicable is legal; whether, the said order of trial court as confirmed by the Decision Date : 02-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10039/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SEETHARAMA SHETTYversusMONAPPA SHETTY-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1662024 INSC 650Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Scope of Sections 33, 34, 37, 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957; whether the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999, with a recital on delivery of possession to the appellant, conforms to the definition of conveyance under Section 2(d) read with Article 20(1) of the Schedule facts and the circumstances of the case, the penalty determined by the trial Court on the instrument instead of sending the instrument to the District Registrar for determination and collection of penalty as may be applicable is legal; whether, the said order of trial court as confirmed by theDecision Date :02-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10039/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC650,2025-06-13T22:45:00.467447 RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH,21-11-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 935/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR. versus VED PRAKASH - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 14662024 INSC 891 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the litigant can be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay in preferring appeal. Headnotes† Delay – Condonation of delay – The petitioners-plaintiffs herein were dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in before the first appellate court by way of an appeal – However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days – First Appellate Court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring appeal on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate Decision Date : 21-11-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 935/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14662024 INSC 891Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the litigant can be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay in preferring appeal. Headnotes† Delay – Condonation of delay – The petitioners-plaintiffs herein were dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in before the first appellate court by way of an appeal – However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days – First Appellate Court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring appeal on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocateDecision Date :21-11-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 935/2021| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC891,2025-06-13T22:47:45.065164 ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.,10-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8185/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ALAGAMMAL AND ORS. versus GANESAN AND ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 3742024 INSC 28 VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the Agreement between the seller and the buyer discloses a fixed time-frame for making payment in full by the buyer that is, in terms of the recitals in the agreement for sale executed by the seller in favour of the buyer. Headnotes Specific Relief Act, 1963 – – Time, if essence of contract – Seller and the buyer entered into registered agreement to sell property on 22.11.1990 for a consideration of Rs.21,000/- - Advance payment of Rs. 3000/- received by the seller and the transaction was to be completed within six months – Decision Date : 10-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8185/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3742024 INSC 28Coram : VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the Agreement between the seller and the buyer discloses a fixed time-frame for making payment in full by the buyer that is, in terms of the recitals in the agreement for sale executed by the seller in favour of the buyer. Headnotes Specific Relief Act, 1963 – – Time, if essence of contract – Seller and the buyer entered into registered agreement to sell property on 22.11.1990 for a consideration of Rs.21,000/- - Advance payment of Rs. 3000/- received by the seller and the transaction was to be completed within six months –Decision Date :10-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8185/2009| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC28,2025-06-13T22:48:01.253157 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMAYA DEVI & ORS.,02-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 15016/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained. Headnotes† Accident resulting in the death of R1 and R2 involved in the accident – Witnesses’ accounts confirmed involvement – Confirmed by Final Report under S. 173, CrPC – Insurance Company could not disprove: Held: Per the MACT award, various witnesses had stated that it was the vehicle described in the complaint that was Decision Date : 02-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 15016/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusMAYA DEVI & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 999Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained. Headnotes† Accident resulting in the death of R1 and R2 involved in the accident – Witnesses’ accounts confirmed involvement – Confirmed by Final Report under S. 173, CrPC – Insurance Company could not disprove: Held: Per the MACT award, various witnesses had stated that it was the vehicle described in the complaint that wasDecision Date :02-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 15016/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T22:44:59.949821 STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERSversusBINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS,18-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1933/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS versus BINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4732024 INSC 44 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual, which dates back to a point of time when the Police Act, 1861, was in force, can be said to be still valid and lawful in the framework of the Assam Police Act, 2007 and the 2007 Rules relating to preparation of ACRs/ APARs of rank of Superintendents of Police . Headnotes Service law – Assam Police Manual – r. 63(iii) – Assam Police Act, 2007 – s. 14(2) – Reporting Authority, entitled to initiate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of Indian Decision Date : 18-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1933/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERSversusBINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4732024 INSC 44Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual, which dates back to a point of time when the Police Act, 1861, was in force, can be said to be still valid and lawful in the framework of the Assam Police Act, 2007 and the 2007 Rules relating to preparation of ACRs/ APARs of rank of Superintendents of Police . Headnotes Service law – Assam Police Manual – r. 63(iii) – Assam Police Act, 2007 – s. 14(2) – Reporting Authority, entitled to initiate Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of IndianDecision Date :18-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1933/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC44,2025-06-13T22:47:45.815546 M. VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU,21-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1078/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Abetment of suicide sustainable – Prosecution case that the appellant and others abducted and wrongful confined the victim for repayment of the balance amount and the inability to withstand the torment, he committed suicide – Conviction of the appellant u/ss. 306, 342 and 365 by the trial court, Decision Date : 21-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1078/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10542024 INSC 177Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 306 – Abetment of suicide sustainable – Prosecution case that the appellant and others abducted and wrongful confined the victim for repayment of the balance amount and the inability to withstand the torment, he committed suicide – Conviction of the appellant u/ss. 306, 342 and 365 by the trial court,Decision Date :21-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1078/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC177,2025-06-13T22:42:26.650719 INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,07-05-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2022,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 6 S.C.R. 3752024 INSC 406 HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration The number of misleading advertisements that are being published/displayed with little/nil accountability on the part of the manufacturers, promoters and advertisers. Headnotes† Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Advertisement – Misleading advertisement – Deceptive advertisement – Responsibility and duty of manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies: Held: Advertisers/advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false and Decision Date : 07-05-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3752024 INSC 406Coram : HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration The number of misleading advertisements that are being published/displayed with little/nil accountability on the part of the manufacturers, promoters and advertisers. Headnotes† Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements of Advertisement – Misleading advertisement – Deceptive advertisement – Responsibility and duty of manufacturers, service providers, advertisers and advertising agencies: Held: Advertisers/advertising agencies and endorsers are equally responsible for issuing false andDecision Date :07-05-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645/2022| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC406,2025-06-13T22:41:27.346776 ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,15-02-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 880/2017,Unknown,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 4202024 INSC 113 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The matter pertains to the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties; as also the constitutional validity of Finance Act 2017 which, among other things, amended the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Income Tax Act 1961; as also whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to s. 182(1) of the Decision Date : 15-02-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 880/2017 | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 4202024 INSC 113Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The matter pertains to the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties; as also the constitutional validity of Finance Act 2017 which, among other things, amended the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, the Representation of the People Act 1951, the Income Tax Act 1961; as also whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties, as envisaged by the amendment to s. 182(1) of theDecision Date :15-02-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 880/2017| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC113,2025-06-13T22:43:24.361171 SATISH P. BHATTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR,03-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the High Court was justified. Headnotes Disregard for – The High Court cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition in an order granting extension of Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SATISH P. BHATTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 2412024 INSC 16Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and the order of suspension of sentence. Whether the High Court was justified. Headnotes Disregard for – The High Court cancelled the order of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the appellant and intervenor (petitioner before the High Court) as they violated the undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition in an order granting extension ofDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 42/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC16,2025-06-13T22:48:18.866366 STATE OF HARYANAversusMOHD. YUNUS & ORS.,12-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1307/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE OF HARYANA versus MOHD. YUNUS & ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4042024 INSC 34 M.M. SUNDRESH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an Evidentiary value, when witness not trustworthy: Held: For trial u/s. 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness – When there is an Decision Date : 12-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1307/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF HARYANAversusMOHD. YUNUS & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4042024 INSC 34Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an Evidentiary value, when witness not trustworthy: Held: For trial u/s. 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness – When there is anDecision Date :12-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1307/2012| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC34,2025-06-13T22:47:52.079092 NBCC (INDIA) LIMITEDversusZILLION INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.,19-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4417/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration When there is a general reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, whether the arbitration clause in the first contract would ipso facto be applicable to the second contract. Headnotes Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 issued an invitation for tender – Respondent submitted its techno bid- vide L.O.I. appellant awarded the contract to Respondent – Respondent approached High Court under Sec. 11(6) – High Court appointed sole arbitrator – Order of the High Court set aside Held: General Decision Date : 19-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4417/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NBCC (INDIA) LIMITEDversusZILLION INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8122024 INSC 218Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration When there is a general reference in the second contract to the terms and conditions of the first contract, whether the arbitration clause in the first contract would ipso facto be applicable to the second contract. Headnotes Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 issued an invitation for tender – Respondent submitted its techno bid- vide L.O.I. appellant awarded the contract to Respondent – Respondent approached High Court under Sec. 11(6) – High Court appointed sole arbitrator – Order of the High Court set aside Held: GeneralDecision Date :19-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4417/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC218,2025-06-13T22:49:19.670883 RAVISHANKAR TANDONversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,10-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3869/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration In a case based on circumstantial evidence wherein the appellants- accused persons were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, ss.120B and 201, s.302 r/w ss.34 and 120B, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that dead body of the deceased from the pond was on the basis of the information given by the appellants in the statement recorded u/s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Prosecution relied on the memorandum of the appellants-accused u/s.27 and the subsequent Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3869/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAVISHANKAR TANDONversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5582024 INSC 299Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration In a case based on circumstantial evidence wherein the appellants- accused persons were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, ss.120B and 201, s.302 r/w ss.34 and 120B, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that dead body of the deceased from the pond was on the basis of the information given by the appellants in the statement recorded u/s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Prosecution relied on the memorandum of the appellants-accused u/s.27 and the subsequentDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3869/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC299,2025-06-13T22:44:59.131603 SMT. NAJMUNISHAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT,09-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2319/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration As per the prosecution, secret information was received by PW-2 (Intelligence Officer/Inspector) as to Accused No. 4 (husband of Accused No.1) carrying contraband from a particular route in an auto rickshaw. Said secret information was recorded by her and reported (Zonal Officer, a Gazetted Officer). The raiding party chased the said auto rickshaw however, Accused No.4 allegedly abandoned it fleeing away from the scene. On conducting the search of the said auto rickshaw, the raiding party inter alia found 1.450 Kgs charas. It eventually searched the Decision Date : 09-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2319/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SMT. NAJMUNISHAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 4422024 INSC 290Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration As per the prosecution, secret information was received by PW-2 (Intelligence Officer/Inspector) as to Accused No. 4 (husband of Accused No.1) carrying contraband from a particular route in an auto rickshaw. Said secret information was recorded by her and reported (Zonal Officer, a Gazetted Officer). The raiding party chased the said auto rickshaw however, Accused No.4 allegedly abandoned it fleeing away from the scene. On conducting the search of the said auto rickshaw, the raiding party inter alia found 1.450 Kgs charas. It eventually searched theDecision Date :09-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2319/2009| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC290,2025-06-13T22:45:36.389404 JASEELA SHAJIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS,12-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3083/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the non-supply of the statement of the person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange to the detenu, has affected the right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5); and whether non-receipt of delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government would affect the right of detenu u/Art.22(5) of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Protection against arrest and detention – Right of the detenu to Decision Date : 12-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3083/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JASEELA SHAJIversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 3132024 INSC 683Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the non-supply of the statement of the person stating about the detenu’s dealing in foreign exchange to the detenu, has affected the right of the detenu to make an effective representation u/Art. 22(5); and whether non-receipt of delay in deciding the representation by the Detaining Authority and the Central Government would affect the right of detenu u/Art.22(5) of the Constitution. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 22(5) – Protection against arrest and detention – Right of the detenu toDecision Date :12-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3083/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC683,2025-06-13T22:43:38.480439 CHATRAPALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,15-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2461/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. CHATRAPAL versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3482024 INSC 115 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly established. Inquiry report was accepted and the appellant was dismissed from service. Whether the dismissal of the appellant was justified and was the High Court justified in upholding Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer – Interference – Scope – Appellant appointed as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship was later transferred and posted as Process Server however, was being paid the salary of Ardly – Aggrieved, appellant made Decision Date : 15-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2461/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHATRAPALversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3482024 INSC 115Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Inquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the appellant were duly established. Inquiry report was accepted and the appellant was dismissed from service. Whether the dismissal of the appellant was justified and was the High Court justified in upholding Findings recorded by Inquiry Officer – Interference – Scope – Appellant appointed as Ardly (a class IV Post) in the Bareilly Judgeship was later transferred and posted as Process Server however, was being paid the salary of Ardly – Aggrieved, appellant madeDecision Date :15-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2461/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC115,2025-06-13T22:44:46.467989 MS. XversusMR. A AND OTHERS,18-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1661/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes Crime Against Women – Sexual intercourse based on promise of marriage – The Appellant-prosecutrix believed that the accused would marry her leading her to consent to establishing a sexual Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1661/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MS. XversusMR. A AND OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 9472024 INSC 216Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes Crime Against Women – Sexual intercourse based on promise of marriage – The Appellant-prosecutrix believed that the accused would marry her leading her to consent to establishing a sexualDecision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1661/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC216,2025-06-13T22:50:15.433455 STATE OF HARYANAversusDR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER,22-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR complainant for defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed by the High Court on basis of a Decision Date : 22-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF HARYANAversusDR. RITU SINGH AND ANOTHER-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10042024 INSC 263Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration FIR against the accused-employee by the complainant, for defrauding the State-employer, if can be quashed on basis of a “compromise” between the complainant and the accused. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR complainant for defrauding the State-employer – Allegations with reference to withdrawal of salary for the period the accused-employee was on unauthorized foreign trips and also withdrawal of salary by producing false medical certificates – FIR quashed by the High Court on basis of aDecision Date :22-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1791/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC263,2025-06-13T22:47:39.083990 R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASADversusSWAMINATHAN & ANR.,08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 910/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Appellant-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and in the alternative prayed for refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- (initial advance sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and additional sum of Rs. 15,00,000/), mesne Trial Court denied specific performance however, directed the defendant no.1 to refund Rs.18,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest. High Court modified the decree and allowed the plaintiff to recover only Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. Whether the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 910/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASADversusSWAMINATHAN & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 222024 INSC 463Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Appellant-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and in the alternative prayed for refund of the advance sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- (initial advance sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and additional sum of Rs. 15,00,000/), mesne Trial Court denied specific performance however, directed the defendant no.1 to refund Rs.18,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest. High Court modified the decree and allowed the plaintiff to recover only Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. Whether the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/-Decision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 910/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC463,2025-06-13T22:50:25.755355 "STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS.versusSAROJ MAURYA & ORS.",21-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3465/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS. versus SAROJ MAURYA & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 7332024 INSC 677 HIMA KOHLI, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the order passed by the Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, without furnishing any reasons therefor. Headnotes† Judgment/order Requirement of – Division Bench of the High Court while upholding the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, concluded with an observation that it is in agreement with the approach and view of the Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor – Decision Date : 21-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3465/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR, UP EDUCATION FOR ALL PROJECT BOARD & ORS.versusSAROJ MAURYA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7332024 INSC 677Coram : HIMA KOHLI, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the order passed by the Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at, without furnishing any reasons therefor. Headnotes† Judgment/order Requirement of – Division Bench of the High Court while upholding the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, concluded with an observation that it is in agreement with the approach and view of the Single Judge without furnishing any reasons therefor –Decision Date :21-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3465/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC677,2025-06-13T22:45:43.843364 BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS,04-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11005/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant, while accepting the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-Company, and declaring it to be successful bidder, though the respondent no. 8 had not requirement of submitting the important documents relating to the qualification criteria as contained in Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender-NIT. Headnotes† Government Contracts – Judicial Intervention – Scope of – Tender for mega project – Respondent no. Decision Date : 04-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11005/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BANSHIDHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.versusBHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED & OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4252024 INSC 757Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondent was justified in rejecting the technical bid of the appellant, while accepting the technical bid of the respondent no. 8-Company, and declaring it to be successful bidder, though the respondent no. 8 had not requirement of submitting the important documents relating to the qualification criteria as contained in Clause 10 of the Notice Inviting Tender-NIT. Headnotes† Government Contracts – Judicial Intervention – Scope of – Tender for mega project – Respondent no.Decision Date :04-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11005/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC757,2025-06-13T22:49:34.852316 ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORSversusMANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS,23-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10846/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORS versus MANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 10622024 INSC 52 VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration i) Whether the Working President could have convened the election meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, it was only the Secretary or in the alternative the President who could have convened the meeting under the bye laws; ii) Whether were entitled to a notice for the meeting of 08.09.2002 in view of their disqualification u/s. 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860; iii) Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002; iv) Whether invalid members had signed the Decision Date : 23-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10846/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ADV BABASAHEB WASADE & ORSversusMANOHAR GANGADHAR MUDDESHWAR & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 10622024 INSC 52Coram : VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration i) Whether the Working President could have convened the election meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, it was only the Secretary or in the alternative the President who could have convened the meeting under the bye laws; ii) Whether were entitled to a notice for the meeting of 08.09.2002 in view of their disqualification u/s. 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860; iii) Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002; iv) Whether invalid members had signed theDecision Date :23-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10846/2018| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC52,2025-06-13T22:47:29.925639 NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,03-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 654/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 14832024 INSC 767 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Victim-deceased was an employee of a company that company wanted some of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office meeting the Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 654/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","NIPUN ANEJA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14832024 INSC 767Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Victim-deceased was an employee of a company that company wanted some of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office meeting theDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 654/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC767,2025-06-13T22:49:39.308905 "M/S MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAMversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM",23-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8580/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English മലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6422024 INSC 53 B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Reopening of a concluded assessment-reassessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, legally sustainable or bad in law. Headnotes Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 147 and 148 – Reopening of u/s. 147 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 – Sustainability: Held: On the basis of the balance sheet submitted by the assessee before the Bank for obtaining credit, the assessing officer upon a comparison of the same with a subsequent balance sheet filed by the assessee Decision Date : 23-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8580/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAMversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 6422024 INSC 53Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Reopening of a concluded assessment-reassessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, legally sustainable or bad in law. Headnotes Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss. 147 and 148 – Reopening of u/s. 147 following issuance of notice u/s. 148 – Sustainability: Held: On the basis of the balance sheet submitted by the assessee before the Bank for obtaining credit, the assessing officer upon a comparison of the same with a subsequent balance sheet filed by the assesseeDecision Date :23-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8580/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC53,2025-06-13T22:47:32.491068 GIRISH GANDHIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,22-08-2024,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 149/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Multiple cases were filed against the petitioner. Though he was granted bail in all of them, he was not able to furnish multiple sureties. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for also. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.441 – Bond of accused and sureties – Constitution of India – Article 21 – 13 FIRs against the petitioner in 6 States – Enlarged on bail with conditions in all of them – Unable to find Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 149/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GIRISH GANDHIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5612024 INSC 617Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Multiple cases were filed against the petitioner. Though he was granted bail in all of them, he was not able to furnish multiple sureties. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for also. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.441 – Bond of accused and sureties – Constitution of India – Article 21 – 13 FIRs against the petitioner in 6 States – Enlarged on bail with conditions in all of them – Unable to findDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 149/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC617,2025-06-13T22:45:40.300145 RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusRAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS,06-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9958/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to foreclosing of the right of the opposite party- appellant to file written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Procedure on admission of complaint – Foreclosing of the right to file written statement – Effect Commission foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement and complainants given six weeks to file affidavit of evidence and the matter directed to be listed after five months – Challenge to: Held: Not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint was Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9958/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusRAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 6382024 INSC 715Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to foreclosing of the right of the opposite party- appellant to file written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Procedure on admission of complaint – Foreclosing of the right to file written statement – Effect Commission foreclosed the right of the appellant to file written statement and complainants given six weeks to file affidavit of evidence and the matter directed to be listed after five months – Challenge to: Held: Not a case where along with the notice, copy of the complaint wasDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9958/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC715,2025-06-13T22:44:41.320681 SUKANYA SHANTHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,03-10-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1404/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 – Prisons in India – Caste-based discrimination – Writ petition seeking directions for repeal of in State Prison Manuals – Petitioner’s case that various State Prison Manuals sanction unconstitutional practices, violative of Arts 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23; that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons with respect to division of manual labour; segregation of Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1404/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : Writ Petition disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUKANYA SHANTHAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4932024 INSC 753Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to caste-based discrimination in the prisons in the country. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 – Prisons in India – Caste-based discrimination – Writ petition seeking directions for repeal of in State Prison Manuals – Petitioner’s case that various State Prison Manuals sanction unconstitutional practices, violative of Arts 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23; that caste-based discrimination continues to persist in the prisons with respect to division of manual labour; segregation ofDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1404/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Direction Issue :Writ Petition disposed of.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC753,2025-06-13T22:49:44.901417 MANIKANDANversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,05-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1609/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the police and its effect on the prosecution case. Headnotes Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses by the police – Effect: Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor witnesses – It amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1609/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANIKANDANversusSTATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2342024 INSC 272Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the tutoring of the material witnesses by the police and its effect on the prosecution case. Headnotes Evidence – Witnesses – Tutoring of the material witnesses by the police – Effect: Held: This is a blatant act by the police to tutor witnesses – It amounts to gross misuse of power by the police machinery – Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness – On facts, the appellants convicted and sentenced u/ss. 302/34 IPC – Day before the evidence of the prosecution witnesses wasDecision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1609/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC272,2025-06-13T22:46:37.505839 MARIAM FASIHUDDIN & ANR.versusSTATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION & ANR.,22-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 335/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MARIAM FASIHUDDIN & ANR. versus STATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6232024 INSC 49 SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions of the appellants prima facie constitute the offence IPC; Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery u/ss. 468 and 471 IPC; Whether there has been a violation of s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; Whether in the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the Decision Date : 22-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 335/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MARIAM FASIHUDDIN & ANR.versusSTATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 6232024 INSC 49Coram : SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration The crux of respondent No. 2’s allegations is that the appellants purportedly forged his signature on the passport application submitted to obtain the minor child’s passport. Whether the actions of the appellants prima facie constitute the offence IPC; Whether there has been a prima facie case made out for forgery u/ss. 468 and 471 IPC; Whether there has been a violation of s.12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967; Whether in the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in theDecision Date :22-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 335/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC49,2025-06-13T22:47:36.204538 GURWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER,07-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 704/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. GURWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1342024 INSC 92 M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order passed by the Special Judge, rejecting the application filed u/s. 439 CrPC by the appellant seeking regular bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 alongwith other charges and the Arms Act. Headnotes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 43D (5), 17, 18, 19 – Rejection of bail – On facts, charges u/ss. 17, 18, 19 of the UAP Act, u/ss. 124A, 153A, 153B, 120-B IPC and u/ss. 25 and 54 of Arms Act against the appellant along with other Decision Date : 07-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 704/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GURWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1342024 INSC 92Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order passed by the Special Judge, rejecting the application filed u/s. 439 CrPC by the appellant seeking regular bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 alongwith other charges and the Arms Act. Headnotes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss. 43D (5), 17, 18, 19 – Rejection of bail – On facts, charges u/ss. 17, 18, 19 of the UAP Act, u/ss. 124A, 153A, 153B, 120-B IPC and u/ss. 25 and 54 of Arms Act against the appellant along with otherDecision Date :07-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 704/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC92,2025-06-13T22:46:08.184409 NITYA NANDversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.,04-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1348/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly and if he actually took part in the crime or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 was convicted for the murder of his Uncle – Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly – Plea of the appellant that both the courts below erred in convicting him as the allegation against him was that he was carrying a country- made pistol, however, neither were there Decision Date : 04-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1348/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NITYA NANDversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 372024 INSC 655Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly and if he actually took part in the crime or not. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 was convicted for the murder of his Uncle – Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly – Plea of the appellant that both the courts below erred in convicting him as the allegation against him was that he was carrying a country- made pistol, however, neither were thereDecision Date :04-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1348/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC655,2025-06-13T22:44:48.091221 RAHUL KUMAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR,25-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 177/2018,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA 501 : 2024 INSC 359 Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018) 25 April 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was challenge to the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 302 and 394 IPC on the ground that may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Courts should be guided by object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance of Decision Date : 25-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 177/2018 | Direction Issue : Interim direction issued. Matter to be relisted. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAHUL KUMAR YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5012024 INSC 359Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA501 : 2024 INSC 359 Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2018) 25 April 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ. ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was challenge to the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 302 and 394 IPC on the ground that may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case – Courts should be guided by object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the matter should be considered prima facie on the touchstone of preponderance ofDecision Date :25-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 177/2018| Direction Issue :Interim direction issued. Matter to be relisted.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC359,2025-06-13T22:43:00.960721 ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMSversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER,26-04-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 434/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA* Issue for Consideration Petitioners sought directions for re-introduction of the paper ballot system; or that the printed slip from the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machine be given to the voter to verify, and put in the ballot box, for should be 100% counting of the VVPAT slips in addition to electronic counting by the control unit. Headnotes Elections – Electoral Process – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) – Decision Date : 26-04-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 434/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMSversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4152024 INSC 341Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA*Issue for Consideration Petitioners sought directions for re-introduction of the paper ballot system; or that the printed slip from the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machine be given to the voter to verify, and put in the ballot box, for should be 100% counting of the VVPAT slips in addition to electronic counting by the control unit. Headnotes Elections – Electoral Process – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – Use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) –Decision Date :26-04-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 434/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC341,2025-06-13T22:42:56.639963 RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.,22-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5902/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration There was a non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate was acquitted) in the verification form of the employment. The State cancelled the selection of the appellant. Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant. Headnotes Service Law Selection – Non-disclosure of a criminal case in verification – Appellant applied for the post of constable – After submitting application, he was embroiled in a criminal case – He cleared exam – In the criminal case, appellant was acquitted – After being Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5902/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 7222024 INSC 131Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration There was a non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate was acquitted) in the verification form of the employment. The State cancelled the selection of the appellant. Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant. Headnotes Service Law Selection – Non-disclosure of a criminal case in verification – Appellant applied for the post of constable – After submitting application, he was embroiled in a criminal case – He cleared exam – In the criminal case, appellant was acquitted – After beingDecision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5902/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC131,2025-06-13T22:42:09.896947 RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,07-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12235/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory seat in the ensuing academic year. Headnotes† Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission seat in the ensuing academic year – Orders by the Director, Medical Education directing appellants-medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the appellant-colleges with a direction that the said seat would not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the academic Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12235/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAMKRISHNA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTREversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7002024 INSC 845Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the appellant-colleges made out a case for a direction to the respondent authorities to create a compensatory seat in the ensuing academic year. Headnotes† Education/Educational institutions – Medical admission seat in the ensuing academic year – Orders by the Director, Medical Education directing appellants-medical colleges to keep one MBBS seat vacant in the appellant-colleges with a direction that the said seat would not be included in the College Level Counseling Round for the academicDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12235/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC845,2025-06-13T22:48:02.320975 KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,07-11-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 715/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether, the Explanation(s) appended to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 respectively arbitrary and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 – Explanation to r.38 – Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 – Explanation to Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 715/2024 | Direction Issue : Matter to be notified to report compliance of directions. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 682024 INSC 848Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether, the Explanation(s) appended to Rule 38 of the Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 and Rule 45 of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 respectively arbitrary and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Headnotes† Mineral (Other than Atomic and Hydrocarbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 – Explanation to r.38 – Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017 – Explanation toDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 715/2024| Direction Issue :Matter to be notified to report compliance of directions.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC848,2025-06-13T22:48:14.105191 VAIBHAV JAINversusHINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.,03-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10192/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether as a mere dealer of M/s Hindustan Motors, the appellant could be considered owner of the vehicle and as such liable, jointly and severally with M/s Hindustan Motors, to pay the compensation as directed by the Tribunal/High Court; whether clauses 3 (b) and 4 of the Motors of its liability to pay compensation as an owner; whether M/s Hindustan Motors, even without preferring an appeal against the award of the Tribunal, could question its liability under the award by relying on the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC. Headnotes† Motor Decision Date : 03-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10192/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VAIBHAV JAINversusHINDUSTAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 162024 INSC 652Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether as a mere dealer of M/s Hindustan Motors, the appellant could be considered owner of the vehicle and as such liable, jointly and severally with M/s Hindustan Motors, to pay the compensation as directed by the Tribunal/High Court; whether clauses 3 (b) and 4 of the Motors of its liability to pay compensation as an owner; whether M/s Hindustan Motors, even without preferring an appeal against the award of the Tribunal, could question its liability under the award by relying on the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the CPC. Headnotes† MotorDecision Date :03-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10192/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC652,2025-06-13T22:44:54.686636 MANJIT SINGH & ANR.versusDARSHANA DEVI & ORS.,21-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13066/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"MANJIT SINGH & ANR. versus DARSHANA DEVI & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 8762024 INSC 895 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration High Court held that the appellants-subsequent purchasers could not be said to be bona fide purchasers in accordance with Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale between defendant (owner of the suit property). Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.19(b) – General Clauses Act – s.3(22) – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.2(11) – “good faith” – Oral agreement for sale of the suit property between Decision Date : 21-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13066/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MANJIT SINGH & ANR.versusDARSHANA DEVI & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8762024 INSC 895Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration High Court held that the appellants-subsequent purchasers could not be said to be bona fide purchasers in accordance with Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting specific performance of oral agreement of sale between defendant (owner of the suit property). Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.19(b) – General Clauses Act – s.3(22) – Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.2(11) – “good faith” – Oral agreement for sale of the suit property betweenDecision Date :21-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13066/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC895,2025-06-13T22:47:46.416347 SRI SUJIES BENEFIT FUNDS LIMITEDversusM. JAGANATHUAN,13-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3369/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration In order to partly discharge the loan amount, a cheque was issued by the respondent-accused for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. However, the cheque was returned with the endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Whether a discrepancy apropos the rate of interest, whether it be sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the appellant-chitfund company. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138 – The respondent- accused, being a subscriber of the appellant-chitfund company, borrowed loan amounts on several dates from appellant totaling Rs. Decision Date : 13-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3369/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SRI SUJIES BENEFIT FUNDS LIMITEDversusM. JAGANATHUAN-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 3222024 INSC 602Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration In order to partly discharge the loan amount, a cheque was issued by the respondent-accused for a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. However, the cheque was returned with the endorsement ‘Account Closed’. Whether a discrepancy apropos the rate of interest, whether it be sufficient to disbelieve the claim of the appellant-chitfund company. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 138 – The respondent- accused, being a subscriber of the appellant-chitfund company, borrowed loan amounts on several dates from appellant totaling Rs.Decision Date :13-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3369/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC602,2025-06-13T22:46:20.943727 THE VVF LTD. EMPLOYEES UNIONversusM/S. VVF INDIA LIMITED & ANR.,09-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2744/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration The two appeals arise out of a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on 25.07.2019 directing, inter alia, wage revisions pertaining to the workmen of employer-VVF Ltd. working in two units at Sewree and Sion. Whether the High beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating facts and in that process substituted the finding of the Tribunal with its own finding on facts. Headnotes Constitution of India – Writ – Scope of jurisdiction of High Court – Wages – Revision – The demands of the Union would Decision Date : 09-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2744/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 VVF LTD. EMPLOYEES UNIONversusM/S. VVF INDIA LIMITED & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5762024 INSC 293Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration The two appeals arise out of a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on 25.07.2019 directing, inter alia, wage revisions pertaining to the workmen of employer-VVF Ltd. working in two units at Sewree and Sion. Whether the High beyond its jurisdiction in appreciating facts and in that process substituted the finding of the Tribunal with its own finding on facts. Headnotes Constitution of India – Writ – Scope of jurisdiction of High Court – Wages – Revision – The demands of the Union wouldDecision Date :09-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2744/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC293,2025-06-13T22:45:30.162757 SUBRATA CHOUDHURY @ SANTOSH CHOUDHURY & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.,05-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4451/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not. Headnotes† Procedure, 1973 – Second respondent- complainant filed second complaint dtd. 20.07.2011, after the dismissal of the protest petition and the acceptance of the negative Final Report in the first complaint dtd. 11.11.2010, on the same set of facts/allegations against the appellants and the Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4451/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUBRATA CHOUDHURY @ SANTOSH CHOUDHURY & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 834Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not. Headnotes† Procedure, 1973 – Second respondent- complainant filed second complaint dtd. 20.07.2011, after the dismissal of the protest petition and the acceptance of the negative Final Report in the first complaint dtd. 11.11.2010, on the same set of facts/allegations against the appellants and theDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4451/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC834,2025-06-13T22:48:38.495960 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusNAVIN KUMAR SINHA,19-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1279/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether the Bank could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee after his superannuation. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Initiation of disciplinary proceeding post superannuation – Employee with the Bank, on completion of 30 years was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003, however, was given extension until 01.10.2010 – In August 2009 employee placed under suspension for irregularities and sanctioning loans in favour of his relatives in violation of banking norms and Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1279/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusNAVIN KUMAR SINHA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7992024 INSC 874Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether the Bank could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee after his superannuation. Headnotes† Service law – Dismissal from service – Initiation of disciplinary proceeding post superannuation – Employee with the Bank, on completion of 30 years was due to superannuate on 26.12.2003, however, was given extension until 01.10.2010 – In August 2009 employee placed under suspension for irregularities and sanctioning loans in favour of his relatives in violation of banking norms andDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1279/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC874,2025-06-13T22:47:50.493395 BIDYUT SARKAR & ANR.versusKANCHILAL PAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.,28-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10509/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BIDYUT SARKAR & ANR. versus KANCHILAL PAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 9842024 INSC 704 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards admissibility of the insufficiently stamped agreement to sell. Headnotes† Stamp Act, 1899 – ss.35, 36, 40 and 42 – Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. – Suit for specific performance of contract based filed by the respondent no. 1 against the defendant no. 1-owner of the property – Trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that the agreement to sell not admissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped – Appeal thereagainst by the respondent no. 1 allowed by the High Court Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10509/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BIDYUT SARKAR & ANR.versusKANCHILAL PAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9842024 INSC 704Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards admissibility of the insufficiently stamped agreement to sell. Headnotes† Stamp Act, 1899 – ss.35, 36, 40 and 42 – Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. – Suit for specific performance of contract based filed by the respondent no. 1 against the defendant no. 1-owner of the property – Trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that the agreement to sell not admissible in evidence being insufficiently stamped – Appeal thereagainst by the respondent no. 1 allowed by the High CourtDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10509/2013| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC704,2025-06-13T22:45:02.222860 THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESHversusKAMAL AGARWAL & ORS. ETC,18-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2136/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR Pradesh for offences u/ss. 420/120B/34 IPC by the complainant against accused persons – Complainant’s case that accused refused to hand over the property despite full payment for the sale of the land/building made by complainant – Said property situated in Rajasthan as also Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2136/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ARUNACHAL PRADESHversusKAMAL AGARWAL & ORS. ETC-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6242024 INSC 317Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR Pradesh for offences u/ss. 420/120B/34 IPC by the complainant against accused persons – Complainant’s case that accused refused to hand over the property despite full payment for the sale of the land/building made by complainant – Said property situated in Rajasthan as alsoDecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2136/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC317,2025-06-13T22:44:10.477174 P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR.versusSASIKALA & ORS.,15-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7792/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a property. Defendant no.1 sent various notices to plaintiffs to execute the sale deed. However, plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter, defendants executed sale deeds in favour of another persons instituted suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7792/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR.versusSASIKALA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 13472024 INSC 533Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a property. Defendant no.1 sent various notices to plaintiffs to execute the sale deed. However, plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter, defendants executed sale deeds in favour of another persons instituted suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of aDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7792/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC533,2025-06-13T22:48:42.538698 SMT. VIDYA K. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.,22-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2899/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether a notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home Science in First Grade College run by State of Karnataka is liable to be quashed for not providing the breakup of the ‘subjects’ within Home Science. Headnotes Karnataka (Department of Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993 – Recruitment – Notification inviting application for the posts of lecturers of Home Science – Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2899/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SMT. VIDYA K. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 7132024 INSC 137Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether a notification for filling up 18 posts of lecturers of Home Science in First Grade College run by State of Karnataka is liable to be quashed for not providing the breakup of the ‘subjects’ within Home Science. Headnotes Karnataka (Department of Collegiate Education) (Recruitment) Rules, 1964, and the Karnataka Education Department Service (Department of Collegiate Education) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1993 – Recruitment – Notification inviting application for the posts of lecturers of Home Science –Decision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2899/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC137,2025-06-13T22:42:21.304244 ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT,08-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2828/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration As per the FIR (Exhibit-79) there were two eyewitnesses to the incident, PW-12-Police Constable and PW-11-the first informant who was deceased’s cousin brother. PW-12 claiming to be an eyewitness to the incident had reported at the police station with the crime any complaint of the incident. FIR was registered on the basis of the oral statement of PW-11. Testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, if was trustworthy and reliable. In view of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidences, whether the conviction of the accused-appellants under Section Decision Date : 08-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2828/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 3452024 INSC 590Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration As per the FIR (Exhibit-79) there were two eyewitnesses to the incident, PW-12-Police Constable and PW-11-the first informant who was deceased’s cousin brother. PW-12 claiming to be an eyewitness to the incident had reported at the police station with the crime any complaint of the incident. FIR was registered on the basis of the oral statement of PW-11. Testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, if was trustworthy and reliable. In view of inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidences, whether the conviction of the accused-appellants under SectionDecision Date :08-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2828/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC590,2025-06-13T22:46:51.668682 S. TIRUPATHI RAOversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.,22-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7920/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration 1. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, exercised the jurisdiction of review in accordance with the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, erroneously entertained contempt Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Power to review, not an inherent power, it has to be specifically conferred by law – Contours and extent of review jurisdiction – Explained: Held: The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherent Decision Date : 22-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7920/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.S. TIRUPATHI RAOversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10772024 INSC 544Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration 1. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, exercised the jurisdiction of review in accordance with the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, erroneously entertained contempt Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Power to review, not an inherent power, it has to be specifically conferred by law – Contours and extent of review jurisdiction – Explained: Held: The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherentDecision Date :22-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7920/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC544,2025-06-13T22:48:22.063405 RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA,12-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3747/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration FIR under Section 23 of the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and a complaint under Section 28(1) was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons. The allegation was of indulging in the illegal activity of sex In the facts of the case, when there was no legal decision by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 30 to search for the appellant’s clinic and the decision to carry out the search was an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon-Chairman of the concerned Decision Date : 12-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3747/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 3972024 INSC 684Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration FIR under Section 23 of the Pre Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and a complaint under Section 28(1) was filed against the appellant and co-accused persons. The allegation was of indulging in the illegal activity of sex In the facts of the case, when there was no legal decision by the Appropriate Authority in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 30 to search for the appellant’s clinic and the decision to carry out the search was an individual decision of the Civil Surgeon-Chairman of the concernedDecision Date :12-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3747/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC684,2025-06-13T22:43:53.661763 KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusM/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,22-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8176/2022,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether a party whose right to file written statement is closed can file written submissions to introduce pleadings to resist the claim against it; and if not, then what is the scope of its participation of in the proceedings once the right to file Lastly, what is the impact of the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Developer filed written submissions – Defiance of earlier order of Supreme Court closing Developer’s right to file a written statement: Decision Date : 22-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8176/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KAUSHIK NARSINHBHAI PATEL & ORS.versusM/S S.J.R. PRIME CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 8232024 INSC 542Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether a party whose right to file written statement is closed can file written submissions to introduce pleadings to resist the claim against it; and if not, then what is the scope of its participation of in the proceedings once the right to file Lastly, what is the impact of the forfeiture of the right to file a written statement. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Developer filed written submissions – Defiance of earlier order of Supreme Court closing Developer’s right to file a written statement:Decision Date :22-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8176/2022| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC542,2025-06-13T22:48:19.849616 VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT,09-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2038/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred by the appellant accused-A1 and altered his conviction as recorded by the trial Court for under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Custodial torture – Death of victim – Acquittal of accused – Prosecution case that the two police officers i.e. A1 and A2, assaulted J in the confines of Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2038/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VINOD JASWANTRAY VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 3652024 INSC 490Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, whereby, the Division Bench partly accepted the appeal preferred by the appellant accused-A1 and altered his conviction as recorded by the trial Court for under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Custodial torture – Death of victim – Acquittal of accused – Prosecution case that the two police officers i.e. A1 and A2, assaulted J in the confines ofDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2038/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC490,2025-06-13T22:50:16.491906 STATE BANK OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS,11-03-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 486/2024,Unknown,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE BANK OF INDIA versus ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND OTHERS - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 6372024 INSC 195 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA 637 : 2024 INSC 195 State Bank of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Others (Miscellaneous Application No 486 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017) WITH (Contempt Petition (Civil) No 138 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No 880 of 2017) & (Contempt Petition (Civil) No This case pertains to a Miscellaneous Application filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking an extension of time until 30 June 2024 - two days before the expiry of the stipulated deadline - for complying with the directions given by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 15 Decision Date : 11-03-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 486/2024 | Direction Issue : Miscellaneous Application by the SBI dismissed. Contempt Petitions disposed of. | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2024INSC195,2025-06-13T22:40:11.486740 PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusSUS ROAD BANER VIKAS MANCH AND OTHERS,12-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 258/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi disposed of the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, respondent No. 1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal Corporation to close the Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) operated Environment Solution Pune LLP, at Baner, Pune and to shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board. Headnotes† Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Decision Date : 12-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 258/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusSUS ROAD BANER VIKAS MANCH AND OTHERS-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 3742024 INSC 682Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi disposed of the OA preferred by the Sus Road Baner Vikas Manch, respondent No. 1 herein, by directing the Pune Municipal Corporation to close the Garbage Processing Plant (GPP) operated Environment Solution Pune LLP, at Baner, Pune and to shift the same to an alternate location in terms of the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board. Headnotes† Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 – Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 –Decision Date :12-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 258/2021| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC682,2025-06-13T22:43:52.636835 M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD.versusM/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.,21-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2032/2011,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the Standing Orders read in conjunction with the terms of the appointment order restrain the transferability of employees. Headnotes Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Validity of transfers of employees – orders as opposed to terms of appointment – Reconcilable – Transfer of employees were valid under the Standing Orders and the terms of appointment. [Para 12-15] Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Interpretation of terms of appointment and standing orders Decision Date : 21-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2032/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD.versusM/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 9592024 INSC 237Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the Standing Orders read in conjunction with the terms of the appointment order restrain the transferability of employees. Headnotes Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Validity of transfers of employees – orders as opposed to terms of appointment – Reconcilable – Transfer of employees were valid under the Standing Orders and the terms of appointment. [Para 12-15] Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Interpretation of terms of appointment and standing ordersDecision Date :21-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2032/2011| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC237,2025-06-13T22:48:21.336686 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR.versusMYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS.,08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2168/2007,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is applicable in respect of the appellant and whether the liquor vendors (contractors) who bought the vending rights from the appellant on auction, can be termed as “buyer” within the meaning 206C of the Income Tax Act or excluded from the said definition of “buyer” as per clause (iii) of Explanation (a) to Section 206C of the said Act. Relatable to the above core issue is the question as to, whether, the High Court was justified in rejecting the challenge to the said Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2168/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 EXCISE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA & ANR.versusMYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2872024 INSC 484Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether provisions of Section 206C of the Income Tax Act is applicable in respect of the appellant and whether the liquor vendors (contractors) who bought the vending rights from the appellant on auction, can be termed as “buyer” within the meaning 206C of the Income Tax Act or excluded from the said definition of “buyer” as per clause (iii) of Explanation (a) to Section 206C of the said Act. Relatable to the above core issue is the question as to, whether, the High Court was justified in rejecting the challenge to the saidDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2168/2007| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC484,2025-06-13T22:51:14.908359 MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE,20-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1056/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 faced trial u/s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act – Acquitted – Appeal against the acquittal u/s. 378 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay – The said application was allowed – Against the said order, the appellant moved Decision Date : 20-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1056/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6382024 INSC 125Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 5 r/w. ss.2 and 3 faced trial u/s. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act – Acquitted – Appeal against the acquittal u/s. 378 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay – The said application was allowed – Against the said order, the appellant movedDecision Date :20-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1056/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC125,2025-06-13T22:43:05.168503 GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,23-07-2024,WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 115/2004,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, SANJAY KAROL* Issue for Consideration Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), a body under the Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, in its 147th meeting held on 18.10.2022, recommended environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), which was accepted by on 25.10.2022. The issues for consideration were: (1) Whether GEAC approval dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 for the environmental release of DMH-11 was in accordance with law; (2) Whether the decision to grant approval for environmental release of DMH-11 violated Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 115/2004 | Direction Issue : Matter placed before HCJI for constituting appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GENE CAMPAIGN & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 18472024 INSC 545Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, SANJAY KAROL*Issue for Consideration Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), a body under the Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, in its 147th meeting held on 18.10.2022, recommended environmental release of transgenic mustard hybrid, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), which was accepted by on 25.10.2022. The issues for consideration were: (1) Whether GEAC approval dated 18.10.2022 and the consequent decision dated 25.10.2022 for the environmental release of DMH-11 was in accordance with law; (2) Whether the decision to grant approval for environmental release of DMH-11 violatedDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :WRIT TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 115/2004| Direction Issue :Matter placed before HCJI for constituting appropriate Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC545,2025-06-13T22:48:02.956485 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.versusRAJPATH CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LTD.,08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7426/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that it was not filed within the period specified under sub-section (3) of s. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 34 – Application for setting aside arbitral awards – Period of limitation for filing petition u/s. 34 – On facts, petition u/s. 34 filed by the appellant challenging the arbitral award – Dismissed by the Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7426/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 WEST BENGAL REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.versusRAJPATH CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS LTD.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 477Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the petition u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, holding that it was not filed within the period specified under sub-section (3) of s. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s. 34 – Application for setting aside arbitral awards – Period of limitation for filing petition u/s. 34 – On facts, petition u/s. 34 filed by the appellant challenging the arbitral award – Dismissed by theDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7426/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC477,2025-06-13T22:50:55.359554 GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,07-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12234/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose, as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant’s application u/s.11 of the Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms the Master Services Agreement executed between the parties. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Scope of inquiry under – Standard of judicial scrutiny – Master Services Agreement between the appellant and the respondent – Dispute Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12234/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GOQII TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSOKRATI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 5302024 INSC 853Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose, as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appellant’s application u/s.11 of the Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes and claims in terms the Master Services Agreement executed between the parties. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11 – Scope of inquiry under – Standard of judicial scrutiny – Master Services Agreement between the appellant and the respondent – DisputeDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12234/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC853,2025-06-13T22:48:09.534197 K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL)versusGYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.,08-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4785/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether there was sufficient cause for delay of fourteen years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX Rule 7 – Application filed after delay of 14 years s. 5 – Condonation of delay is discretionary power of the court – Power to be exercised judiciously – Not in cases of gross negligence on part of litigant – 14 years delay cannot be condoned – ‘Sufficient cause’ not shown – Gross negligence on Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4785/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K.B. LAL (KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL)versusGYANENDRA PRATAP & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6162024 INSC 281Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether there was sufficient cause for delay of fourteen years in filing an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order IX Rule 7 – Application filed after delay of 14 years s. 5 – Condonation of delay is discretionary power of the court – Power to be exercised judiciously – Not in cases of gross negligence on part of litigant – 14 years delay cannot be condoned – ‘Sufficient cause’ not shown – Gross negligence onDecision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4785/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC281,2025-06-13T22:46:15.698033 IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTSversus,20-08-2024,SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3/2023,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration (i) When a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, what are the essentials, which a judgment must contain; (ii) What was the duty of the High Court while ascertaining the offences u/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & act that is an offence punishable under the POSCO Act be described as “a romantic relationship”; (iii) Whether the High Court can exercise the plenary powers to quash the order of conviction on the grounds of settlement or by consent; (iv) Whether the State was under an obligation to Decision Date : 20-08-2024 | Case No : SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Matter listed to consider report submitted by expert committee and for sentencing. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF ADOLESCENTSversus-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5752024 INSC 614Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration (i) When a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, what are the essentials, which a judgment must contain; (ii) What was the duty of the High Court while ascertaining the offences u/s.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & act that is an offence punishable under the POSCO Act be described as “a romantic relationship”; (iii) Whether the High Court can exercise the plenary powers to quash the order of conviction on the grounds of settlement or by consent; (iv) Whether the State was under an obligation toDecision Date :20-08-2024| Case No :SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3/2023| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Direction Issue :Matter listed to consider report submitted by expert committee and for sentencing.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC614,2025-06-13T22:46:02.305769 TAPAS GUHA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,06-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4603/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The Appellants in an Original Application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) contended that there was widespread cutting of shade trees, uprooting of tea bushes and eviction of tea estate workers in the Doloo Tea Estate, the site Airport Project in Assam, without obtaining environmental clearance. It was also contended that this was in violation of the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, which necessitates prior Environmental Clearance and public consultation for Category-A projects in Decision Date : 06-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4603/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TAPAS GUHA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 752024 INSC 399Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The Appellants in an Original Application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) contended that there was widespread cutting of shade trees, uprooting of tea bushes and eviction of tea estate workers in the Doloo Tea Estate, the site Airport Project in Assam, without obtaining environmental clearance. It was also contended that this was in violation of the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, which necessitates prior Environmental Clearance and public consultation for Category-A projects inDecision Date :06-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4603/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC399,2025-06-13T22:41:54.533388 GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,09-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 696/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that on payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret information received by them while patrolling about such offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident made by the grandfather to the Investigating Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 696/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GAURAV MAINIversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 3332024 INSC 488Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that on payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret information received by them while patrolling about such offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident made by the grandfather to the InvestigatingDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 696/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC488,2025-06-13T22:49:52.874923 PRASHANT SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusMEENA & ORS. ETC.,25-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8743/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to any person in respect of a land/property inherited before commencement proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Headnotes U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – officer can grant ownership to a person in respect of a land/property: Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidation Decision Date : 25-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8743/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PRASHANT SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusMEENA & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4922024 INSC 380Coram : SURYA KANT*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration Whether the consolidation officer can grant ownership to any person in respect of a land/property inherited before commencement proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Headnotes U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – s. 49 – officer can grant ownership to a person in respect of a land/property: Held: Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (“1953 Act”) is a provision of transitory suspension of jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court only during the period when consolidationDecision Date :25-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8743/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC380,2025-06-13T22:43:04.427496 VISHAL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS,03-01-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 162/2023,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the Adani-Hindenburg report alleging that the Adani Group manipulated its share price wherein the petitioner is seeking investigation by the Special Investigation Team or by the CBI. Headnotes Constitution of India by an “activist short seller”, Hindenburg Research about the financial transactions of the Adani group alleging that the Adani group manipulated its share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of the regulations Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 162/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VISHAL TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1712024 INSC 3Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the Adani-Hindenburg report alleging that the Adani Group manipulated its share price wherein the petitioner is seeking investigation by the Special Investigation Team or by the CBI. Headnotes Constitution of India by an “activist short seller”, Hindenburg Research about the financial transactions of the Adani group alleging that the Adani group manipulated its share prices and failed to disclose transactions with related parties and other relevant information in violation of the regulationsDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 162/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC3,2025-06-13T22:48:25.360006 VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLASversusTHE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.,20-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4427/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to MBBS admission to a Maharashtra State domicile in Maharashtra despite his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra as a paramilitary personnel. Headnotes Medical admission – Cancellation – Appellant-domicile of Maharashtra and son of Constable in BSF, passed his SSC and HSC exams from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra – Applied for admission to an MBBS course under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer category Decision Date : 20-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4427/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLASversusTHE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7052024 INSC 235Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to MBBS admission to a Maharashtra State domicile in Maharashtra despite his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra as a paramilitary personnel. Headnotes Medical admission – Cancellation – Appellant-domicile of Maharashtra and son of Constable in BSF, passed his SSC and HSC exams from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra – Applied for admission to an MBBS course under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer categoryDecision Date :20-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4427/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC235,2025-06-13T22:49:02.055167 RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,22-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9721/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, can claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Headnotes† Service Law – Revised – Article 12, 14, 16 – “authority” under Article 12 – Claim for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC, by the appellants- Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) employees appointed as Junior Accountant, Accountant, UDC, LDC on running pay scales to manage the Compulsory SSD Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9721/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJKARAN SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5162024 INSC 621Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants despite being classified as temporary employees of a scheme managed by contributory pooling of funds, can claim entitlement to pensionary benefits in accordance with the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). Headnotes† Service Law – Revised – Article 12, 14, 16 – “authority” under Article 12 – Claim for pensionary benefits under the 6th CPC, by the appellants- Saving Scheme Deposits (SSD) employees appointed as Junior Accountant, Accountant, UDC, LDC on running pay scales to manage the Compulsory SSDDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9721/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC621,2025-06-13T22:45:29.883005 PUNEET SABHARWALversusCBI,19-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1682/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The charges were framed against the appellants. While the charge against the appellant-P was u/s. 109 IPC r/w. s.13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant-R was u/s. 13(1)(e) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption appellant-R owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant-P son of R has abetted him in the commission of the said offence. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitions for quashing criminal proceedings. The question that arises for consideration is Decision Date : 19-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1682/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PUNEET SABHARWALversusCBI-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 6792024 INSC 221Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The charges were framed against the appellants. While the charge against the appellant-P was u/s. 109 IPC r/w. s.13(1) (e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the charge against appellant-R was u/s. 13(1)(e) r/w. s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption appellant-R owned assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the appellant-P son of R has abetted him in the commission of the said offence. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitions for quashing criminal proceedings. The question that arises for consideration isDecision Date :19-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1682/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC221,2025-06-13T22:49:23.018359 RANJEET MITTALversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. ETC.,03-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3680/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RANJEET MITTAL versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. ETC. - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 8112024 INSC 766 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 306, 34, 302, 201 – Victim died after allegedly falling off from terrace – Trial court framed charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 for abetment to commit suicide – Charges if rightly quashed by High Court: Held: No – High Court erred Decision Date : 03-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3680/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RANJEET MITTALversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. ETC.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 8112024 INSC 766Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 306, 34, 302, 201 – Victim died after allegedly falling off from terrace – Trial court framed charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 for abetment to commit suicide – Charges if rightly quashed by High Court: Held: No – High Court erredDecision Date :03-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3680/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Direction Issue :In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC766,2025-06-13T22:44:50.460804 BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusPANKAJ SRIVASTAVA,30-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6837/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 13052024 INSC 538 J.K. MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether there is relevant material on record that could be construed as contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee which would prima facie result in award of major penalty, and thereby bar the Respondent’s claim for – No relevant material to contemplate that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings would lead to prima facie award of major penalty prior to the death of the deceased employee: Held: 1. Upon reviewing Clause 10(iv) of the Scheme prevalent for for grant of compassionate appointment Decision Date : 30-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6837/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusPANKAJ SRIVASTAVA-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 13052024 INSC 538Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether there is relevant material on record that could be construed as contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee which would prima facie result in award of major penalty, and thereby bar the Respondent’s claim for – No relevant material to contemplate that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings would lead to prima facie award of major penalty prior to the death of the deceased employee: Held: 1. Upon reviewing Clause 10(iv) of the Scheme prevalent for for grant of compassionate appointmentDecision Date :30-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6837/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC538,2025-06-13T22:42:10.927475 SATENDER KUMAR ANTILversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.,13-02-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2034/2022,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 10722024 INSC 134 M.M. SUNDRESH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration The Amicus submitted report dated 10.02.2024 indicating the directions that have been complied with by the parties in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil**. On basis of the said are issued for due compliance by the States/Union Territories/CBI and High Courts. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41, 41A, 438, 440, 88, 170, 204, 209, 436A – Supreme Court Directions – Compliance of directions by the States, Union Territories and CBI Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2034/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SATENDER KUMAR ANTILversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10722024 INSC 134Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration The Amicus submitted report dated 10.02.2024 indicating the directions that have been complied with by the parties in terms of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil**. On basis of the said are issued for due compliance by the States/Union Territories/CBI and High Courts. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 41, 41A, 438, 440, 88, 170, 204, 209, 436A – Supreme Court Directions – Compliance of directions by the States, Union Territories and CBIDecision Date :13-02-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2034/2022| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC134,2025-06-13T22:44:59.327672 KIRPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB,18-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052/2009,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed. Headnotes Penal – Prosecution case was that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she was sleeping – She Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KIRPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 7072024 INSC 312Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed. Headnotes Penal – Prosecution case was that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she was sleeping – SheDecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1052/2009| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC312,2025-06-13T22:44:03.783379 SHADAKSHARIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.,17-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 256/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SHADAKSHARI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4292024 INSC 42 ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority has declined to grant held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised. Decision Date : 17-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 256/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHADAKSHARIversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4292024 INSC 42Coram : ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant. The competent authority has declined to grant held that in the absence of such sanction, respondent No. 2 cannot be prosecuted and consequently has quashed the complaint as well as the chargesheet, giving liberty to the appellant to assail denial of sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 in an appropriate proceeding, if so advised.Decision Date :17-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 256/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC42,2025-06-13T22:47:47.027621 BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.,07-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1358/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVI versus THE STATE OF A.P. & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 16872024 INSC 1055 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and discharging the accused-respondents in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 149, 120B r/w s.34 – Matters of custodial death – High Court solely relying on the reports of the investigating agencies (CID and CBI) held that the occurrence took place in the exercise Decision Date : 07-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1358/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","BASAMSETTI RAMA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF A.P. & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 16872024 INSC 1055Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and discharging the accused-respondents in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 149, 120B r/w s.34 – Matters of custodial death – High Court solely relying on the reports of the investigating agencies (CID and CBI) held that the occurrence took place in the exerciseDecision Date :07-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1358/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1055,2025-06-13T22:47:29.640995 MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.,25-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999,Reference answered,9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The questions which arose for determination are as to what is the true nature of royalty of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; whether royalty is in the nature of tax; what is the scope of Entry 50 List II Seventh Schedule; what is the ambit of the limitations imposable by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 54 List I; does Decision Date : 25-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 15492024 INSC 554Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, ABHAY S. OKA, B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The questions which arose for determination are as to what is the true nature of royalty of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957; whether royalty is in the nature of tax; what is the scope of Entry 50 List II Seventh Schedule; what is the ambit of the limitations imposable by Parliament in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 54 List I; doesDecision Date :25-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC554,2025-06-13T22:47:49.578310 SHIV PRATAP SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR u/s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC on 06.09.2018 against the appellant. The charges u/s. 376(2) (n) and s.506 of IPC were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge filed by the appellant was rejected. Headnotes† and s.506 – Prosecution case that appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage and threatening to make public her photographs – Trial Court framed charges u/s.376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC – A criminal revision filed against the said order Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHIV PRATAP SINGH RANAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 82024 INSC 481Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR u/s. 376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC on 06.09.2018 against the appellant. The charges u/s. 376(2) (n) and s.506 of IPC were framed against the appellant and the application for discharge filed by the appellant was rejected. Headnotes† and s.506 – Prosecution case that appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage and threatening to make public her photographs – Trial Court framed charges u/s.376(2)(n) and s.506 of IPC – A criminal revision filed against the said orderDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1552/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC481,2025-06-13T22:50:57.436648 ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHIversusSUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC.,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7256/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it. In other words, whether a service dispute realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution; b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction, Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7256/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY NEW DELHIversusSUNIL KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. ETC.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 21762024 INSC 501Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration a. Whether the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against it. In other words, whether a service dispute realm involving a private educational institution and its employees can be adjudicated upon in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution; b. Even if it is assumed that the appellant Army Welfare Education Society is a body performing public duty amenable to writ jurisdiction,Decision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7256/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC501,2025-06-13T22:50:14.715466 SHAJAN SKARIAversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.,23-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2622/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act; when can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint in question disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(u) of the 1989 Act; whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act. Headnotes† Scheduled Decision Date : 23-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2622/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHAJAN SKARIAversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 10862024 INSC 625Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act; when can it be said that a prima facie case is made out in a given FIR/complaint in question disclose commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(u) of the 1989 Act; whether mere knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act. Headnotes† ScheduledDecision Date :23-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2622/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC625,2025-06-13T22:45:17.089361 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMSversusM/S CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,07-11-2024,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 400/2021,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether there was an “error apparent on the face of the record” for the purpose of entertaining the review petition; whether law laid down in Canon India’s case as regards the power of show cause notices could be said to be the correct statement of law; whether officers of DRI are the proper officers for the purposes of s.28 of the Customs Act, 1962; whether the introduction of s.28(11) vide the Validation Act of 2011 which retrospectively validates the show cause notices Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 400/2021 | Direction Issue : Review petitions disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 CUSTOMSversusM/S CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2022024 INSC 854Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether there was an “error apparent on the face of the record” for the purpose of entertaining the review petition; whether law laid down in Canon India’s case as regards the power of show cause notices could be said to be the correct statement of law; whether officers of DRI are the proper officers for the purposes of s.28 of the Customs Act, 1962; whether the introduction of s.28(11) vide the Validation Act of 2011 which retrospectively validates the show cause noticesDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 400/2021| Direction Issue :Review petitions disposed of.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC854,2025-06-13T22:48:11.305197 NAJRUL SEIKHversusDR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.,22-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2877/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NAJRUL SEIKH versus DR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 10652024 INSC 184 VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the State Commission and the National Commission were justified in exonerating the respondents-doctors of all the charges of misconduct/medical negligence in performing the cataract surgery of complainant’s son leading to complete loss of vision in his Act, 1986 – s. 12 – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – Complainant’s 13 year old son lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery by the respondents-doctors – District forum allowed the claim for Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2877/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NAJRUL SEIKHversusDR. SUMIT BANERJEE & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10652024 INSC 184Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the State Commission and the National Commission were justified in exonerating the respondents-doctors of all the charges of misconduct/medical negligence in performing the cataract surgery of complainant’s son leading to complete loss of vision in his Act, 1986 – s. 12 – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – Complainant’s 13 year old son lost complete vision in his right eye following an allegedly negligent cataract surgery by the respondents-doctors – District forum allowed the claim forDecision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2877/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC184,2025-06-13T22:41:38.677200 R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS.versusT.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.,21-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3015/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the buyer. High Court allowed the appeal thereagainst and granted decree for specific performance. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court warrants any interdiction in exercise of Whether an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself takes away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed. Headnotes† Specific Decision Date : 21-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3015/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","R. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS.versusT.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10992024 INSC 884Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the buyer. High Court allowed the appeal thereagainst and granted decree for specific performance. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court warrants any interdiction in exercise of Whether an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself takes away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed. Headnotes† SpecificDecision Date :21-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3015/2013| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC884,2025-06-13T22:47:46.061277 OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE & ANR.versusG. VIJAYANATHAKURUP AND ORS.,03-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13708/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the dispute as regards administration and management of Oachira Parabrahma temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and Committee. Headnotes† Trust and charities – Oachira Parabrahma Temple – Administration and management of temple – Serious disputes in administering and managing the temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the alleged Decision Date : 03-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13708/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeals disposed of. Contempt petition closed. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE & ANR.versusG. VIJAYANATHAKURUP AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3582024 INSC 922Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the dispute as regards administration and management of Oachira Parabrahma temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and Committee. Headnotes† Trust and charities – Oachira Parabrahma Temple – Administration and management of temple – Serious disputes in administering and managing the temple and its institutions by the Administrative Head appointed by the High Court and the allegedDecision Date :03-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13708/2024| Direction Issue :Appeals disposed of. Contempt petition closed.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC922,2025-06-13T22:47:34.997285 THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.,19-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12551/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants that they had become owners by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove their ownership to the land. In Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12551/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.versusAMIN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12572024 INSC 875Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of the suit property against the Appellants/Defendants, i.e. State of Haryana and Public Works Department. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents and held that defendants that they had become owners by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the defendants filed an appeal before the District Judge, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove their ownership to the land. InDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12551/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC875,2025-06-13T22:47:48.922954 PARTEEK BANSALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS,19-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2167/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not quashing FIR under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the second FIR was on the same set Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Abuse of process of law – Subsequent FIR in Udaipur, Rajasthan on the same set of allegations by the complainant after two weeks of lodging the first FIR under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC in Hisar, Haryana was an abuse of process of law. Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2167/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PARTEEK BANSALversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 742024 INSC 324Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in not quashing FIR under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B), Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the ground that the second FIR was on the same set Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Abuse of process of law – Subsequent FIR in Udaipur, Rajasthan on the same set of allegations by the complainant after two weeks of lodging the first FIR under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC in Hisar, Haryana was an abuse of process of law.Decision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2167/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC324,2025-06-13T22:43:53.297189 M.R. AJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.,20-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Locus standi of private individual – De novo trial – Permissibility – High Court, if could order de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings – Locus Decision Date : 20-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4887 of 2024 allowed. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7896 of 2023 dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","M.R. AJAYANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14482024 INSC 881Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and whether the High Court could have ordered de novo steps to Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Locus standi of private individual – De novo trial – Permissibility – High Court, if could order de novo steps to be taken against the accused on the allegations made out in the quashed proceedings – LocusDecision Date :20-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4675/2024| Direction Issue :Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4887 of 2024 allowed. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7896 of 2023 dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC881,2025-06-13T22:47:48.126753 JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.,18-03-2024,DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 21994/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration When can a litigant apply for modification of a judgment or an order in a matter which stands finally concluded; and can a party file an application after disposal of the statutory appeal powers of the Supreme Court. Headnotes SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Scope thereof, explained – Filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal: Held: Impermissible – A post disposal application for modification and clarification of an order Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 21994/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusADANI POWER RAJASTHAN LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10232024 INSC 213Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration When can a litigant apply for modification of a judgment or an order in a matter which stands finally concluded; and can a party file an application after disposal of the statutory appeal powers of the Supreme Court. Headnotes SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 - Order XII, Rule 3 – Scope thereof, explained – Filing of applications after disposal of the statutory appeal: Held: Impermissible – A post disposal application for modification and clarification of an orderDecision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 21994/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC213,2025-06-13T22:50:23.267382 LALU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,16-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4222/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committed Decision Date : 16-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4222/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LALU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 6392024 INSC 782Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committedDecision Date :16-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4222/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC782,2025-06-13T22:49:12.076384 ABDUL JABBARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,05-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 748/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ABDUL JABBAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1622024 INSC 99 VIKRAM NATH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC and imposition of three months imprisonment, as also conviction u/s. 325/34 IPC and imposition of one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine which was modified to three months imprisonment the High Court. Headnotes Sentence/Sentencing – Reduction of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 and u/s. 325/34 – Imposition of three months imprisonment and one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine respectively – High Court modified Decision Date : 05-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 748/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ABDUL JABBARversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1622024 INSC 99Coram : VIKRAM NATHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC and imposition of three months imprisonment, as also conviction u/s. 325/34 IPC and imposition of one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine which was modified to three months imprisonment the High Court. Headnotes Sentence/Sentencing – Reduction of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 323/34 and u/s. 325/34 – Imposition of three months imprisonment and one year imprisonment with Rs 500/- fine respectively – High Court modifiedDecision Date :05-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 748/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC99,2025-06-13T22:46:30.665200 TAPAS KUMAR DASversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.,19-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4420/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide which the writ petition of the Appellant was allowed and the Respondent was directed to proceed with his candidature for for LPG distributorships was cancelled by Respondent on the ground that the land offered by him for the showroom, was beyond the advertised location. Appellant challenged the Cancellation Letter by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge allowed the writ petition and Decision Date : 19-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4420/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TAPAS KUMAR DASversusHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8242024 INSC 225Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide which the writ petition of the Appellant was allowed and the Respondent was directed to proceed with his candidature for for LPG distributorships was cancelled by Respondent on the ground that the land offered by him for the showroom, was beyond the advertised location. Appellant challenged the Cancellation Letter by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge allowed the writ petition andDecision Date :19-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4420/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC225,2025-06-13T22:49:17.218311 STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICEversusB. RAMU,12-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 801/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE versus B. RAMU - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3572024 INSC 114 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI Issue for Consideration In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance (232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so recovered, High Court whether justified in granting anticipatory bail in registered for the offences punishable u/ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Quantity of narcotic substance Decision Date : 12-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 801/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICEversusB. RAMU-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3572024 INSC 114Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAIIssue for Consideration In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance (232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so recovered, High Court whether justified in granting anticipatory bail in registered for the offences punishable u/ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Quantity of narcotic substanceDecision Date :12-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 801/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC114,2025-06-13T22:45:30.609032 STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 43/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. Headnotes Unlawful Activities Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of s.20(4) Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 43/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF NCT OF DELHIversusRAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET @LOVELY-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 732024 INSC 11Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent. Headnotes Unlawful Activities Penal Code, 1860 – ss.201/120-B – Arms Act, 1959 – ss. 13/18/20 – The High Court had relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of s.20(4)Decision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 43/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC11,2025-06-13T22:48:24.227392 OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS.versusPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS.,24-01-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 11258/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS. versus PRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 12192024 INSC 93 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of revision petition (in a suit for declaration) and accompanying application for condonation of delay. Headnotes Suit – Suit for declaration dismissed for default – Application for restoration dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Revision petition dismissed by High Court – Application for restoration of the revision petition and condonation of delay dismissed by High Court – SLP thereagainst. Held: The facts Decision Date : 24-01-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 11258/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.OMDEO BALIRAM MUSALE & ORS.versusPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA MAMIDWAR & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12192024 INSC 93Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of revision petition (in a suit for declaration) and accompanying application for condonation of delay. Headnotes Suit – Suit for declaration dismissed for default – Application for restoration dismissed – Appeal dismissed – Revision petition dismissed by High Court – Application for restoration of the revision petition and condonation of delay dismissed by High Court – SLP thereagainst. Held: The factsDecision Date :24-01-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)... No. 11258/2015| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC93,2025-06-13T22:47:27.166803 NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITHversusGOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR.,02-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13958/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the liability of the appellant-private college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee. Headnotes† Service law – Ret i ra l benef i ts – L iabi l i ty college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee – Respondent dismissed from service on account of misconduct – Challenge to – Respondent directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was found Decision Date : 02-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13958/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITHversusGOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AND ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3662024 INSC 935Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the liability of the appellant-private college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee. Headnotes† Service law – Ret i ra l benef i ts – L iabi l i ty college covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government, to pay retiral benefits to the respondent-employee – Respondent dismissed from service on account of misconduct – Challenge to – Respondent directed to be reinstated as the dismissal was foundDecision Date :02-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13958/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC935,2025-06-13T22:47:38.566707 PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.,05-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1397/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Act, 1989. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated and Decision Date : 05-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1397/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA @ PRABHAT MISHRAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1572024 INSC 172Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused appellant u/s. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceeding of the criminal case registered against him u/s. 306 IPC and s. 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Act, 1989. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – Allegations set out in the suicide note, if constitutes necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide – Suicide note by the victim-posted as Senior Clerk, that he was frustrated andDecision Date :05-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1397/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC172,2025-06-13T22:41:27.861757 RAM PRAKASH CHADHAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,15-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2395/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings of the trial Court on the ground to proceed against on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2395/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAM PRAKASH CHADHAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11552024 INSC 522Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings of the trial Court on the ground to proceed against on suppositions and suspicions, having no foundational support from the materials produced by the prosecution. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – Discharge – In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218,Decision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2395/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC522,2025-06-13T22:48:50.792406 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA,09-09-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 551/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 1942024 INSC 674 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Court under Article 32 can issue a writ to the Union Government to cancel existing licences and halt the issuance of new licences for the export of arms and military equipments to Israel. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. seeks directions to the Union Government to cancel existing licences/permissions and to halt the grant of new licences to companies in India for the export of arms and military equipment to Israel during the ongoing conflict in Gaza: Held: First, the conduct of an independent sovereign Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 551/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1942024 INSC 674Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Court under Article 32 can issue a writ to the Union Government to cancel existing licences and halt the issuance of new licences for the export of arms and military equipments to Israel. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. seeks directions to the Union Government to cancel existing licences/permissions and to halt the grant of new licences to companies in India for the export of arms and military equipment to Israel during the ongoing conflict in Gaza: Held: First, the conduct of an independent sovereignDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 551/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC674,2025-06-13T22:44:33.397740 UNION OF INDIAversusBAHAREH BAKSHI,22-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4887/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. UNION OF INDIA versus BAHAREH BAKSHI - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 8202024 INSC 646 HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to the presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process an application by the wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India for overseas Citizen of India Card, u/s.7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Headnotes† Citizenship Act,1955 – Citizen of India Cardholder – Application for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card by wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India – Presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process the application u/s.7A: Held: Presence of the spouse of the applicant either physically or Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4887/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIAversusBAHAREH BAKSHI-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8202024 INSC 646Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to the presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process an application by the wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India for overseas Citizen of India Card, u/s.7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Headnotes† Citizenship Act,1955 – Citizen of India Cardholder – Application for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card by wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India – Presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process the application u/s.7A: Held: Presence of the spouse of the applicant either physically orDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4887/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC646,2025-06-13T22:45:41.406414 THE STATE OF ODISHAversusNIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.,26-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2270/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents in an FIR filed alleging a widespread conspiracy involving forgery of documents to facilitate the illegal transfer of valuable government land to private entities. SDJM, Bhubaneshwar passed an order of cognizance and 34 IPC and issue of process against the Respondents. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order taking cognizance against the Respondents. Headnotes Quashing- Decision of High Court to quash the proceedings at preliminary stage, when the case is linked Decision Date : 26-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2270/2024 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ODISHAversusNIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 562024 INSC 346Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents in an FIR filed alleging a widespread conspiracy involving forgery of documents to facilitate the illegal transfer of valuable government land to private entities. SDJM, Bhubaneshwar passed an order of cognizance and 34 IPC and issue of process against the Respondents. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order taking cognizance against the Respondents. Headnotes Quashing- Decision of High Court to quash the proceedings at preliminary stage, when the case is linkedDecision Date :26-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2270/2024| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC346,2025-06-13T22:42:51.254924 UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.versusINDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7308/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would be maintainable or barred under Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if a prior suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and the handover of vacant possession, especially after the the right in the first suit to pursue claims regarding arrears of rent and damages separately and was granted leave to file a separate suit. Headnotes† Leave and Licence Agreement – Entered between the Appellant and Respondent – Superseded by another licence agreement whereby Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7308/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNIWORLD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.versusINDEV LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10712024 INSC 515Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether a second suit for arrears of rent and damages would be maintainable or barred under Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) if a prior suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and the handover of vacant possession, especially after the the right in the first suit to pursue claims regarding arrears of rent and damages separately and was granted leave to file a separate suit. Headnotes† Leave and Licence Agreement – Entered between the Appellant and Respondent – Superseded by another licence agreement wherebyDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7308/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC515,2025-06-13T22:49:22.307646 MANDAKINI DIWAN AND ANR.versusTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.,06-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3738/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to investigation as regards the suspicious death of the wife of senior judicial officer. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 136 – Investigation by independent agency – Death of the wife of senior judicial officer appellants-mother and the brother of the deceased that the death was suspicious and was not a case of simple suicide, and apprehended that the husband being a senior judicial officer had managed the post mortem in which the cause of death was shown to be suicide by hanging – Several Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3738/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANDAKINI DIWAN AND ANR.versusTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 862024 INSC 666Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to investigation as regards the suspicious death of the wife of senior judicial officer. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 136 – Investigation by independent agency – Death of the wife of senior judicial officer appellants-mother and the brother of the deceased that the death was suspicious and was not a case of simple suicide, and apprehended that the husband being a senior judicial officer had managed the post mortem in which the cause of death was shown to be suicide by hanging – SeveralDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3738/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC666,2025-06-13T22:44:39.758338 GANAPATI BHIKARAO NAIKversusNUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,13-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6591/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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: Decision Date : 13-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6591/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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:Decision Date :13-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6591/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC871,2025-06-13T22:47:53.707227 SAJEENA IKHBAL & ORS.versusMINI BABU GEORGE & ORS.,17-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7881/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition of appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim died in an accident after being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in his motorcycle – Claim petition by appellants – The MACT assessed the compensation to hold that the appellants were entitled to a total Decision Date : 17-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7881/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SAJEENA IKHBAL & ORS.versusMINI BABU GEORGE & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7862024 INSC 787Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition of appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim died in an accident after being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in his motorcycle – Claim petition by appellants – The MACT assessed the compensation to hold that the appellants were entitled to a totalDecision Date :17-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7881/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC787,2025-06-13T22:49:08.333844 IDBI BANK LTD.versusRAMSWAROOP DALIYA AND ORS.,16-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11115/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 16-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11115/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","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 ofDecision Date :16-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11115/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC780,2025-06-13T22:49:16.607990 KAZI AKILODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6776/2013,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as on 03.06.1999; does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as contended by the acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC); if it falls within the ‘Blue the land; if the land or any part thereof is not to be determined as a ‘Blue Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction Zone’ as per the extant laws; and what should be the market value payable for that portion; what should be the market value payable for any portion, falling Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6776/2013 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of 2013 partly allowed, and other connected Civil Appeals disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KAZI AKILODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 22482024 INSC 505Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as on 03.06.1999; does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as contended by the acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC); if it falls within the ‘Blue the land; if the land or any part thereof is not to be determined as a ‘Blue Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction Zone’ as per the extant laws; and what should be the market value payable for that portion; what should be the market value payable for any portion, fallingDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6776/2013| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of 2013 partly allowed, and other connected Civil Appeals disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC505,2025-06-13T22:49:30.715450 LEONARD XAVIER VALDARISversusJITENDRA RAMNAYARAN RATHOD & ORS.,22-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2198/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. LEONARD XAVIER VALDARIS versus JITENDRA RAMNAYARAN RATHOD & ORS. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 4002024 INSC 344 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA 400 : 2024 INSC 344 Leonard Xavier Valdaris v. Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2198 of 2024) 22 April 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a Single Judge of the High Court can disagree with an earlier order of a Single Judge based out of same set of facts and one trial – Subsequent order to be treated as order referring the matter to larger Bench of two judges for consideration Held: Single Judge of High Court upheld order passed by the Special Judge framing charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 – Decision Date : 22-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2198/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LEONARD XAVIER VALDARISversusJITENDRA RAMNAYARAN RATHOD & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4002024 INSC 344Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA400 : 2024 INSC 344 Leonard Xavier Valdaris v. Jitendra Ramnayaran Rathod & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2198 of 2024) 22 April 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a Single Judge of the High Court can disagree with an earlier order of a Single Judge based out of same set of facts and one trial – Subsequent order to be treated as order referring the matter to larger Bench of two judges for consideration Held: Single Judge of High Court upheld order passed by the Special Judge framing charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 –Decision Date :22-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2198/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC344,2025-06-13T22:43:32.380057 DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANR.versusKONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD.,08-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7702/2019,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration The issue arising in the present appeal relates to enforcement of an arbitral award expressed in foreign currency. In this context, two questions arise for consideration. First, what is the correct and appropriate date to exchange rate for converting the award amount expressed in foreign currency to Indian rupees. Second, what would be the date of such conversion, when the award debtor deposits some amount before the court during the pendency of proceedings challenging the award. Headnotes† Arbitration and Decision Date : 08-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7702/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DLF LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF UNIVERSAL LTD) AND ANR.versusKONCAR GENERATORS AND MOTORS LTD.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 2912024 INSC 593Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration The issue arising in the present appeal relates to enforcement of an arbitral award expressed in foreign currency. In this context, two questions arise for consideration. First, what is the correct and appropriate date to exchange rate for converting the award amount expressed in foreign currency to Indian rupees. Second, what would be the date of such conversion, when the award debtor deposits some amount before the court during the pendency of proceedings challenging the award. Headnotes† Arbitration andDecision Date :08-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7702/2019| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC593,2025-06-13T22:46:49.738676 THE MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.versusBAPUNA ALCOBREW PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.,04-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1095/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 04-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1095/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 firstDecision Date :04-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1095/2013| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC829,2025-06-13T22:48:48.360521 CHIRAG BHANU SINGH & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.,06-09-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 312/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Writ petition filed by two seniormost District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved with the non-consideration of their names by the High Court Collegium for elevation as Judges of the High Court and recommendation of names of to them for elevation, in ignorance of the directions of reconsideration given by the Collegium of the Supreme Court. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable; whether elevation for judgeship in the High Court has to be considered collectively by the High Court Collegium or whether the Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 312/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHIRAG BHANU SINGH & ANR.versusHIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1502024 INSC 660Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Writ petition filed by two seniormost District and Sessions Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh aggrieved with the non-consideration of their names by the High Court Collegium for elevation as Judges of the High Court and recommendation of names of to them for elevation, in ignorance of the directions of reconsideration given by the Collegium of the Supreme Court. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable; whether elevation for judgeship in the High Court has to be considered collectively by the High Court Collegium or whether theDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 312/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC660,2025-06-13T22:44:42.295798 JALALUDDIN KHANversusUNION OF INDIA,13-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3173/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 13-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3173/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 theDecision Date :13-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3173/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC604,2025-06-13T22:46:27.596894 DINESH GUPTAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,11-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DINESH GUPTA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 3902024 INSC 32 VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Despite the commercial nature of the dispute involved, criminal complaint was filed and an FIR was registered against the appellants. Whether, the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR and the summoning order. Headnotes Administration of Justice – of law – Forum shopping – Financial transactions between parties based in New Delhi – On the basis of complaint filed by respondent- complainant, FIR was registered in Gautam Budh Nagar against three companies, appellants-promoters of the companies and other accused persons Decision Date : 11-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DINESH GUPTAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3902024 INSC 32Coram : VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Despite the commercial nature of the dispute involved, criminal complaint was filed and an FIR was registered against the appellants. Whether, the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR and the summoning order. Headnotes Administration of Justice – of law – Forum shopping – Financial transactions between parties based in New Delhi – On the basis of complaint filed by respondent- complainant, FIR was registered in Gautam Budh Nagar against three companies, appellants-promoters of the companies and other accused personsDecision Date :11-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 214/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC32,2025-06-13T22:48:00.032641 KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR.versusKANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.,19-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1573/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by Respondent No. 2; whether the sale consideration was paid with respect to sale deed dated 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was presented for registration on 05.12.1985 or not; whether sale deed dated 02.12.1985 would prove to be fatal; whether non-mutation would take away the right created by the sale deed in favor of the vendees; whether respondent no.2 had any right, title or interest left in the suit property after 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was void Decision Date : 19-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1573/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR.versusKANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 22952024 INSC 540Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was executed by Respondent No. 2; whether the sale consideration was paid with respect to sale deed dated 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was presented for registration on 05.12.1985 or not; whether sale deed dated 02.12.1985 would prove to be fatal; whether non-mutation would take away the right created by the sale deed in favor of the vendees; whether respondent no.2 had any right, title or interest left in the suit property after 02.12.1985; whether the sale deed dated 02.12.1985 was voidDecision Date :19-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1573/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC540,2025-06-13T22:48:28.158740 DECCAN VALUE INVESTORS L.P. & ANR.versusDINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR.,06-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2801/2020,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DECCAN VALUE INVESTORS L.P. & ANR. versus DINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 10442024 INSC 321 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Whether the judgment dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which upholds the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal is legally flawed and unsustainable; Whether the reasons or grounds taken by the in the instant case qualify and can be treated as a fraud on the part of the resolution professional. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s. 62 – On facts and to justify withdrawal, it was submitted that in the instant case, the successful resolution applicants were Decision Date : 06-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2801/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DECCAN VALUE INVESTORS L.P. & ANR.versusDINKAR VENKATASUBRAMANIAN & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10442024 INSC 321Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Whether the judgment dated 07.02.2020 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal which upholds the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal is legally flawed and unsustainable; Whether the reasons or grounds taken by the in the instant case qualify and can be treated as a fraud on the part of the resolution professional. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s. 62 – On facts and to justify withdrawal, it was submitted that in the instant case, the successful resolution applicants wereDecision Date :06-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2801/2020| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC321,2025-06-13T22:41:07.244531 BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTDversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.,06-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3216/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application against the rejection of the discharge application moved by the appellant-Company. Headnotes† Companies Act, 1956 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Code 1973 – Immunity from the prosecution – Grant of – Allegations against the appellant-Company that it cleared its goods into the Indian Market on payment of Countervailing Duty-CVD on the invoice value of the concerned goods, rather than the payment of the CVD on the Maximum Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3216/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTDversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 542024 INSC 662Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application against the rejection of the discharge application moved by the appellant-Company. Headnotes† Companies Act, 1956 – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Code 1973 – Immunity from the prosecution – Grant of – Allegations against the appellant-Company that it cleared its goods into the Indian Market on payment of Countervailing Duty-CVD on the invoice value of the concerned goods, rather than the payment of the CVD on the MaximumDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3216/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC662,2025-06-13T22:44:44.745328 CHALASANI UDAYA SHANKAR AND OTHERSversusM/S. LEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS,09-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5735/2023,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5735/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 fraudulentDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5735/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC671,2025-06-13T22:44:26.791512 ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.,03-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10193/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 03-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10193/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 certainDecision Date :03-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10193/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC651,2025-06-13T22:44:51.263696 M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS FZE,07-11-2024,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 31/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 31/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 ofDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :ARBITRATION PETITION No. 31/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC850,2025-06-13T22:48:01.738880 U.P. ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.,26-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 894/2020,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants who were the former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State Government, held any pensionable post before or after their absorption in the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation; whether Roadways Karmchari Sanyukta Parishad (RKSP) who were promoted after the cut-off date of 27.08.1982 were entitled to pension. Headnotes† Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 – U.P. Civil Service Regulations – Article 350 – Roadways (Abolition of Post and Absorption of Decision Date : 26-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 894/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ROADWAYS RETIRED OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 13682024 INSC 555Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants who were the former employees of Uttar Pradesh Roadways, a temporary department of the State Government, held any pensionable post before or after their absorption in the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation; whether Roadways Karmchari Sanyukta Parishad (RKSP) who were promoted after the cut-off date of 27.08.1982 were entitled to pension. Headnotes† Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 – U.P. Civil Service Regulations – Article 350 – Roadways (Abolition of Post and Absorption ofDecision Date :26-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 894/2020| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC555,2025-06-13T22:47:48.201096 DEEP MUKERJEEversusSREYASHI BANERJEE,05-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4722/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4722/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 CourtDecision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4722/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC274,2025-06-13T22:46:41.547114 BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR.versusHIMAL KUMARI & ANR. ETC.,16-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7815/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 – Decision Date : 16-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7815/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 –Decision Date :16-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7815/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC531,2025-06-13T22:48:40.660937 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJEEV BANSAL,03-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether after 01 April 2021, the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read along with the substituted provisions; whether Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 01 section 3(1) of TOLA overrides section 149 of the Income Tax Act; whether TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151 of the Income Tax Act; whether the directions in Ashish Agarwal will extend to all the reassessment notices issued Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJEEV BANSAL-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 16332024 INSC 754Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether after 01 April 2021, the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be read along with the substituted provisions; whether Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 (TOLA) will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 01 section 3(1) of TOLA overrides section 149 of the Income Tax Act; whether TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151 of the Income Tax Act; whether the directions in Ashish Agarwal will extend to all the reassessment notices issuedDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC754,2025-06-13T22:49:44.069364 DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,06-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2015,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or under a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part I, 302, 307 read with s.34 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Previous of the appellants and the victim – Appellants assaulted the victim with weapons after making a threat that they would kill him and later the victim succumbed to his injuries – Courts below convicted the appellants u/s.302 and s.307 rw s.34 and sentenced accordingly – Decision Date : 06-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2015 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 5232024 INSC 841Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or under a lesser offence. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part I, 302, 307 read with s.34 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Previous of the appellants and the victim – Appellants assaulted the victim with weapons after making a threat that they would kill him and later the victim succumbed to his injuries – Courts below convicted the appellants u/s.302 and s.307 rw s.34 and sentenced accordingly –Decision Date :06-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2015| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC841,2025-06-13T22:48:25.871442 RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.,07-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3403/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of the Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3403/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 6412024 INSC 846Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of theDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3403/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC846,2025-06-13T22:48:08.854215 SUKHPAL SINGHversusNCT OF DELHI,07-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 55/2015,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be read as a piece of substantive the links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.299 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 – Appellant murdered his wife owing to her suspected infidelity however, fled Decision Date : 07-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 55/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUKHPAL SINGHversusNCT OF DELHI-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 3152024 INSC 385Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.302, Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife. Courts below whether justified in holding that the statement of Complainant-PW-1 recorded in proceedings u/s.299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be read as a piece of substantive the links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.299 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.33 – Appellant murdered his wife owing to her suspected infidelity however, fledDecision Date :07-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 55/2015| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC385,2025-06-13T22:41:14.869681 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDARSHAN LAL BOHRA & ORS.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8048/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the respondents-landowners forestalled their right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because they have not filed objections; or they were not tenure holders as per the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; or after submitting their objections, they have accepted compensation without any demur; (ii) If the answer to the aforementioned question is in negative, whether the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 5A has been complied with in Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8048/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusDARSHAN LAL BOHRA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10012024 INSC 508Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the respondents-landowners forestalled their right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of non-compliance of Section 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because they have not filed objections; or they were not tenure holders as per the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; or after submitting their objections, they have accepted compensation without any demur; (ii) If the answer to the aforementioned question is in negative, whether the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 5A has been complied with inDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8048/2019| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC508,2025-06-13T22:49:06.860306 "DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusBIBHU PRASAD ACHARYA, ETC.",06-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4314/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The appellant filed complaints against the respondents and others u/s.44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents and other accused persons. However, that it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub-section (1) of s.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Decision Date : 06-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4314/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusBIBHU PRASAD ACHARYA, ETC.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 5102024 INSC 843Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The appellant filed complaints against the respondents and others u/s.44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents and other accused persons. However, that it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub-section (1) of s.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents. Headnotes† Prevention of Money LaunderingDecision Date :06-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4314/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC843,2025-06-13T22:48:23.203060 RAHULversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER,09-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8614/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in reducing the percentage of disability suffered by the pillion rider who met with an accident from 25% as fixed by the tribunal, to 20% while determining the compensation payable to him. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Reduction of the percentage of disability suffered in a motor accident by the claimant-pillion rider on a motorcycle from 25% as fixed by the tribunal to 20% by the High Court and re-assessed the compensation – Correctness: Held: Pillion rider underwent a surgery in which, plates and screws Decision Date : 09-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8614/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Contempt petition listed for next date, SLPs disposed of | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAHULversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 2872024 INSC 598Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in reducing the percentage of disability suffered by the pillion rider who met with an accident from 25% as fixed by the tribunal, to 20% while determining the compensation payable to him. Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Reduction of the percentage of disability suffered in a motor accident by the claimant-pillion rider on a motorcycle from 25% as fixed by the tribunal to 20% by the High Court and re-assessed the compensation – Correctness: Held: Pillion rider underwent a surgery in which, plates and screwsDecision Date :09-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8614/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Direction Issue :Contempt petition listed for next date, SLPs disposed of| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC598,2025-06-13T22:46:37.276535 RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA,14-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8315/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, r.99 – Predecessor of the from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit, if could file application under Or. XXI, r.99 against dispossession: Held: Yes – Under Or.XXI, r.99, where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for Decision Date : 14-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8315/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","RENJITH K.G. & OTHERSversusSHEEBA-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13592024 INSC 773Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, r.99 – Predecessor of the from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit, if could file application under Or. XXI, r.99 against dispossession: Held: Yes – Under Or.XXI, r.99, where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree forDecision Date :14-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8315/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC773,2025-06-13T22:49:32.185834 SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS.versusVINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.,30-01-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 14585/2023,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS. versus VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11282024 INSC 75 VIKRAM NATH Issue for Consideration One R (owner) sold premises in dispute to five persons. Thereafter, R committed suicide and left behind a suicide note, naming the tenants, who were in possession of premises in question, as abettors. On the strength of the same, to the local police. The tenants were held in police station and the premises in question were demolished with the help of local police. Thereafter, two tenants filed complaint u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was forwarded to the concerned Police Station for registration and investigation. The High Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 14585/2023 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS.versusVINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11282024 INSC 75Coram : VIKRAM NATHIssue for Consideration One R (owner) sold premises in dispute to five persons. Thereafter, R committed suicide and left behind a suicide note, naming the tenants, who were in possession of premises in question, as abettors. On the strength of the same, to the local police. The tenants were held in police station and the premises in question were demolished with the help of local police. Thereafter, two tenants filed complaint u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was forwarded to the concerned Police Station for registration and investigation. The HighDecision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 14585/2023| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC75,2025-06-13T22:47:05.958164 REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS.versusAKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.,22-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5218/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree – Objections u/s. 47 – Property originally owned by defendant No.1 – Execution of agreement to sell the property by the brother of defendant No.1- Decision Date : 22-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5218/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.REHAN AHMED (D) THR. LRS.versusAKHTAR UN NISA (D) THR. LRS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6942024 INSC 329Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court allowing the objections u/s. 47 CPC filed by the respondent no. 1, setting aside the order passed by the Executing Court and holding that the decree passed by the trial court in the suit Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 47 – Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree – Objections u/s. 47 – Property originally owned by defendant No.1 – Execution of agreement to sell the property by the brother of defendant No.1-Decision Date :22-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5218/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC329,2025-06-13T22:43:23.363515 M/S A.K. SARKAR & CO. & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.,07-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1447/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 wherein s. 52 provides a maximum penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- for misbranded food. The issue arose whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of Act and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently prescribed under the new law, though it was not in force when the offence was committed. Headnotes Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss. 16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7, s. 2(ix)(k) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Decision Date : 07-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1447/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 A.K. SARKAR & CO. & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3562024 INSC 186Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 wherein s. 52 provides a maximum penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- for misbranded food. The issue arose whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of Act and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently prescribed under the new law, though it was not in force when the offence was committed. Headnotes Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss. 16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7, s. 2(ix)(k) – Prevention of Food AdulterationDecision Date :07-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1447/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC186,2025-06-13T22:40:29.448119 PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),08-04-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31248/2018,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal against the judgment of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by some of the Claimant who died pending the reference and who were not impleaded in the reference proceeding. Headnotes Limitation – Object of the law of limitation – Explained Held: The law of limitation is based on public policy and is enshrined in the legal maxim “interest Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31248/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.RS. & ORS.versusTHE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2412024 INSC 286Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5659 days in filing the proposed appeal against the judgment of the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by some of the Claimant who died pending the reference and who were not impleaded in the reference proceeding. Headnotes Limitation – Object of the law of limitation – Explained Held: The law of limitation is based on public policy and is enshrined in the legal maxim “interestDecision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 31248/2018| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC286,2025-06-13T22:46:11.646708 G.M. SHAHUL HAMEEDversusJAYANTHI R. HEGDE,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1188/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DIPANKAR DATTA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by Section 151 of the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.151 – Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.33-35, 58 – GPA insufficiently stamped, admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit – No objection from the Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1188/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.G.M. SHAHUL HAMEEDversusJAYANTHI R. HEGDE-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 3162024 INSC 493Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by Section 151 of the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.151 – Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – ss.33-35, 58 – GPA insufficiently stamped, admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit – No objection from theDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1188/2015| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC493,2025-06-13T22:49:54.184679 MOHD. ABDUL SAMADversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.,10-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2842/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration (i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act; (iv) If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law, whether Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are applicable; (v) If Section 125 of the CrPC is Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2842/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MOHD. ABDUL SAMADversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 12362024 INSC 506Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration (i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such Muslim women, married and divorced under the addition to remedies available under the Special Marriage Act; (iv) If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law, whether Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are applicable; (v) If Section 125 of the CrPC isDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2842/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC506,2025-06-13T22:49:26.812059 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITYversusMANISH AGARWAL & ORS.,05-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5918/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The appellant-NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority filed a claim of INR 06.29 Crores which was admitted by the Respondent No.01- Resolution Professional. The NCLT vide order dated 05.10.2020, granted only INR 50 Lakhs to the appellant against its 06.29 Crores. In the instant appeals, the challenge is to the judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by NCLAT which were preferred by the appellant being the operational creditor impugning the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by the Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5918/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITYversusMANISH AGARWAL & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 4892024 INSC 839Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The appellant-NOIDA Special Economic Zone Authority filed a claim of INR 06.29 Crores which was admitted by the Respondent No.01- Resolution Professional. The NCLT vide order dated 05.10.2020, granted only INR 50 Lakhs to the appellant against its 06.29 Crores. In the instant appeals, the challenge is to the judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by NCLAT which were preferred by the appellant being the operational creditor impugning the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the NCLT approving the Resolution Plan as presented on the approval by theDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5918/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC839,2025-06-13T22:48:46.960299 MALLAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,12-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1162/2011,Disposed off,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MALLAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2882024 INSC 104 BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration The trial Court acquitted appellants-accused nos.3, 4 and 5 for the commission of murder of one ‘M’. However, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and held the appellants guilty of the commission of murder. Whether the High Court was correct in trial Court and thereby convicting the accused persons u/s. 302 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Acquittal under – As per prosecution eight accused persons armed with axes, knives and clubs attacked ‘M’ and assualted him – PW-4 tried to run away, Decision Date : 12-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1162/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MALLAPPA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 2882024 INSC 104Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration The trial Court acquitted appellants-accused nos.3, 4 and 5 for the commission of murder of one ‘M’. However, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and held the appellants guilty of the commission of murder. Whether the High Court was correct in trial Court and thereby convicting the accused persons u/s. 302 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Acquittal under – As per prosecution eight accused persons armed with axes, knives and clubs attacked ‘M’ and assualted him – PW-4 tried to run away,Decision Date :12-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1162/2011| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC104,2025-06-13T22:45:35.593613 BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERSversusDHARAMDEO DAS,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6977/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether promotion ought to be reckoned from the date it is granted or from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. Headnotes† Service law – Promotion – Reckoning of – From the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created: Held: Promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created – On facts, respondent-physically challenged and Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6977/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERSversusDHARAMDEO DAS-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7632024 INSC 549Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether promotion ought to be reckoned from the date it is granted or from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. Headnotes† Service law – Promotion – Reckoning of – From the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created: Held: Promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created – On facts, respondent-physically challenged andDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6977/2015| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC549,2025-06-13T22:48:18.719854 RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.,08-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2210/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAJ REDDY KALLEM versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 2032024 INSC 347 A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Additionally, an FIR was also filed against the appellant u/ ss.406, 420, 120B, IPC. Parties agreed to compound the offence at the appellate stage and a settlement was reached. But, the appellant could the time stipulated in the settlement agreement. However, eventually, entire amount was paid by him but, the complainant did not agree for compounding of the offence. Complainant, if can be compelled by the courts to give consent for compounding of the matter. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2210/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 2032024 INSC 347Coram : A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Additionally, an FIR was also filed against the appellant u/ ss.406, 420, 120B, IPC. Parties agreed to compound the offence at the appellate stage and a settlement was reached. But, the appellant could the time stipulated in the settlement agreement. However, eventually, entire amount was paid by him but, the complainant did not agree for compounding of the offence. Complainant, if can be compelled by the courts to give consent for compounding of the matter. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act,Decision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2210/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC347,2025-06-13T22:46:03.821128 ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED,12-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10620/2024,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether an application for extension of time under Section 29A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be filed after the expiry of the period for making of the arbitral award. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Application for extending the time to pass an arbitral award u/s.29A(4) r/w s.29A(5), if maintainable after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month Decision Date : 12-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10620/2024 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Appeals to be listed for final hearing and disposal. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ROHAN BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusBERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 4732024 INSC 686Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether an application for extension of time under Section 29A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be filed after the expiry of the period for making of the arbitral award. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29A(4) – Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Application for extending the time to pass an arbitral award u/s.29A(4) r/w s.29A(5), if maintainable after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-monthDecision Date :12-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10620/2024| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Direction Issue :Appeals to be listed for final hearing and disposal.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC686,2025-06-13T22:43:36.128177 CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.,02-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8355/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The issue pertains to rights of the parties to a lease of a Plot vested with the State Government and the manner in which the said rights can be transferred. Headnotes† State Largesse – Grant of – Method to be adopted: Held: Rights of the State as the only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which the State fetches the best possible price – Rights of the State as the lessor can only be sold by a public auction or by any other transparent method by which, apart from the lessee, others too, get a right to submit their Decision Date : 02-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8355/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 232024 INSC 570Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The issue pertains to rights of the parties to a lease of a Plot vested with the State Government and the manner in which the said rights can be transferred. Headnotes† State Largesse – Grant of – Method to be adopted: Held: Rights of the State as the only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which the State fetches the best possible price – Rights of the State as the lessor can only be sold by a public auction or by any other transparent method by which, apart from the lessee, others too, get a right to submit theirDecision Date :02-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8355/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC570,2025-06-13T22:47:46.172258 M/S. JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.)versusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,05-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8336/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration High Court had sanctioned the scheme for amalgamation of M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Pvt Ltd and M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement, directing that the properties in the Schedule thereto which included four plots Jaiprakash Associates Pvt Ltd shall stand vested in M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement-transferee (now known as the appellant). Whether amalgamation amounted to transferring the plots. Respondent- DDA’s demand for an unearned increase in the value (i.e. difference between the premium paid and the Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8336/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.)versusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 4272024 INSC 273Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration High Court had sanctioned the scheme for amalgamation of M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Pvt Ltd and M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement, directing that the properties in the Schedule thereto which included four plots Jaiprakash Associates Pvt Ltd shall stand vested in M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement-transferee (now known as the appellant). Whether amalgamation amounted to transferring the plots. Respondent- DDA’s demand for an unearned increase in the value (i.e. difference between the premium paid and theDecision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8336/2009| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC273,2025-06-13T22:46:48.077991 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITYversusNARESH AGARWAL & ORS.,08-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2286/2006,Reference answered,7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA*, SURYA KANT*, J.B. PARDIWALA*, DIPANKAR DATTA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The issues were: 1) ingredients, indicia or criteria for an educational institution to be considered a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution; Muslim University (AMU) is a minority educational institution; 3) whether the Constitution Bench decision in Azeez Basha was incorrect, and 4) Whether two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya erred in referring the correctness of the decision rendered in Azeez Basha directly to a Decision Date : 08-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2286/2006 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITYversusNARESH AGARWAL & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1647Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA*, SURYA KANT*, J.B. PARDIWALA*, DIPANKAR DATTA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The issues were: 1) ingredients, indicia or criteria for an educational institution to be considered a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution; Muslim University (AMU) is a minority educational institution; 3) whether the Constitution Bench decision in Azeez Basha was incorrect, and 4) Whether two-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya erred in referring the correctness of the decision rendered in Azeez Basha directly to aDecision Date :08-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2286/2006| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :7 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T22:47:54.304831 YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7305/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending not a bona fide purchaser. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Impleadment of transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation – If barred – Code of Civil Procedure – Order 1 Rule Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7305/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6682024 INSC 510Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Appellant, pendente lite purchaser of the Subject Land, filed impleadment application before the District Judge (ADJ) under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was dismissed. The order was upheld by the High Court. Whether Appellant, who undisputedly had notice of the pending not a bona fide purchaser. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Impleadment of transferee pendente lite who undisputedly had notice of the pending litigation – If barred – Code of Civil Procedure – Order 1 RuleDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7305/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC510,2025-06-13T22:49:33.751220 BRS VENTURES INVESTMENTS LTD.versusSREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4565/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the payment of Rs.38.87 crores to the financial creditor under the resolution plan of the corporate guarantor will extinguish the liability of the principal borrower/corporate debtor to pay the entire amount payable under the loan transaction after paid on behalf of the corporate guarantor in terms of its resolution plan; whether a holding company is the owner of the assets of its subsidiary and can the assets of the subsidiaries be included in the resolution plan of the holding company; can the financial creditor file simultaneous/separate Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4565/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BRS VENTURES INVESTMENTS LTD.versusSREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 21432024 INSC 548Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the payment of Rs.38.87 crores to the financial creditor under the resolution plan of the corporate guarantor will extinguish the liability of the principal borrower/corporate debtor to pay the entire amount payable under the loan transaction after paid on behalf of the corporate guarantor in terms of its resolution plan; whether a holding company is the owner of the assets of its subsidiary and can the assets of the subsidiaries be included in the resolution plan of the holding company; can the financial creditor file simultaneous/separateDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4565/2021| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC548,2025-06-13T22:48:00.637293 SUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,20-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4664/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether it was the appellant-accused who assaulted the victim-deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred; whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Headnotes† s.302 and s.304 Part-I – Prosecution case that PW-6 and her husband-victim went to the house of PW-5 – Appellant-accused came in front of the house of PW-5 and started abusing PW-5 and his wife on account of a loan they had taken – Victim intervened – Appellant abused Decision Date : 20-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4664/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14402024 INSC 878Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether it was the appellant-accused who assaulted the victim-deceased due to which the death of the deceased has occurred; whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, deserves to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC. Headnotes† s.302 and s.304 Part-I – Prosecution case that PW-6 and her husband-victim went to the house of PW-5 – Appellant-accused came in front of the house of PW-5 and started abusing PW-5 and his wife on account of a loan they had taken – Victim intervened – Appellant abusedDecision Date :20-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4664/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC878,2025-06-13T22:47:47.005521 MEENAKSHIversusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8473/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MEENAKSHI versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 14332024 INSC 573 HIMA KOHLI, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether perquisites/allowances in the nature of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund can be excluded from the basic salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects for assessing Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Claim for compensation – Perquisites/allowances in the nature of house rent, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund cannot be excluded from the basic salary for the purpose of applying future prospects – Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8473/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MEENAKSHIversusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14332024 INSC 573Coram : HIMA KOHLI, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether perquisites/allowances in the nature of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund can be excluded from the basic salary of the deceased while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects for assessing Headnotes† Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Claim for compensation – Perquisites/allowances in the nature of house rent, flexible benefit plan and company contribution to provident fund cannot be excluded from the basic salary for the purpose of applying future prospects –Decision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8473/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC573,2025-06-13T22:47:55.014919 AABID KHANversusDINESH AND OTHERS,09-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4828/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced compensation. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement – Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a self- employed mechanic with 30 years work experience extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest – Decision Date : 09-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4828/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AABID KHANversusDINESH AND OTHERS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2642024 INSC 291Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to entitlement of the claimant for enhanced compensation. Headnotes Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 – Compensation – Enhancement – Road accident resulting in injuries to the claimant, a self- employed mechanic with 30 years work experience extent of 17% – Tribunal computed the compensation towards loss of future income as Rs.87,700/- with interest @ 7% p.a. reducing the whole body disability at 10% on surmises and conjectures – High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs.1,27,700/- with same interest –Decision Date :09-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4828/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC291,2025-06-13T22:45:34.013125 A (MOTHER OF X)versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,29-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5194/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the opinion of the medical board constituted under the MTP Act to reflect the effect of the pregnancy on the pregnant person’s physical and mental health; that the MTP Act and the reproductive right of a pregnant to their consent; and the usage of term ‘pregnant person’ instead of term ‘pregnant woman’. Headnotes Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Termination of pregnancy – 14 year old girl subjected to sexual assault, sought permission to terminate her Decision Date : 29-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5194/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.A (MOTHER OF X)versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4702024 INSC 371Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the opinion of the medical board constituted under the MTP Act to reflect the effect of the pregnancy on the pregnant person’s physical and mental health; that the MTP Act and the reproductive right of a pregnant to their consent; and the usage of term ‘pregnant person’ instead of term ‘pregnant woman’. Headnotes Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Termination of pregnancy – 14 year old girl subjected to sexual assault, sought permission to terminate herDecision Date :29-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5194/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC371,2025-06-13T22:42:33.378902 SHAHID ALIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,11-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1479/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration In a celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony, the Appellant shot the deceased resulting in his demise. Whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 I, 304 Part II – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25, s.27 – Deceased shot with country-made pistol – Succumbed to death after bullet hit the deceased on his neck – FIR registered under s.302 along with s.25, 27 Arms Act - All Eyewitnesses turned hostile – Trial Court based Decision Date : 11-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1479/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHAHID ALIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3772024 INSC 191Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration In a celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony, the Appellant shot the deceased resulting in his demise. Whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 I, 304 Part II – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25, s.27 – Deceased shot with country-made pistol – Succumbed to death after bullet hit the deceased on his neck – FIR registered under s.302 along with s.25, 27 Arms Act - All Eyewitnesses turned hostile – Trial Court basedDecision Date :11-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1479/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC191,2025-06-13T22:40:19.697135 NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,09-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 644/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2422024 INSC 95 BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration The appellants were dismissed/discharged from service on the ground that at the time of their enrollment in the Army through Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre under the Unit Headquarters Quota in December, 2009 they had produced false verification were found to be manipulated and false. The points which arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellants were enrolled/recruited by giving benefit of relationship with the servicemen/ex-servicemen; (ii) Whether the appellants have produced any relationship certificate(s); Decision Date : 09-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 644/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 2422024 INSC 95Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration The appellants were dismissed/discharged from service on the ground that at the time of their enrollment in the Army through Maratha Light Infantry Regimental Centre under the Unit Headquarters Quota in December, 2009 they had produced false verification were found to be manipulated and false. The points which arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellants were enrolled/recruited by giving benefit of relationship with the servicemen/ex-servicemen; (ii) Whether the appellants have produced any relationship certificate(s);Decision Date :09-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 644/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC95,2025-06-13T22:45:52.989653 SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD.versusTHE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.,05-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6493/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and; whether the Government 1994 notification, which inter alia notified “ghee” as one of for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of “ghee” in all notified market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Headnotes Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – Decision Date : 05-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6493/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD.versusTHE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1742024 INSC 174Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and; whether the Government 1994 notification, which inter alia notified “ghee” as one of for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of “ghee” in all notified market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Headnotes Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 –Decision Date :05-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6493/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC174,2025-06-13T22:41:24.782545 KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT,08-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1547/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Appellant’s vehicle was seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 as the driver of the vehicle was found carrying liquor beyond permissible limit. Appellant approached the High Court by filing Special Criminal Application under Articles 226/227 of release of the seized vehicle, without first approaching concerned court under Section 451 CrPC. Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the Special Criminal Application filed by the Appellant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Directly invoking writ jurisdiction Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1547/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALAversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6062024 INSC 285Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Appellant’s vehicle was seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 as the driver of the vehicle was found carrying liquor beyond permissible limit. Appellant approached the High Court by filing Special Criminal Application under Articles 226/227 of release of the seized vehicle, without first approaching concerned court under Section 451 CrPC. Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the Special Criminal Application filed by the Appellant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Directly invoking writ jurisdictionDecision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1547/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC285,2025-06-13T22:46:04.991313 NOBLE M. PAIKADAversusUNION OF INDIA,21-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628/2021,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Item 6 in the impugned notification which granted exemption from requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc., if provided a blanket exemption which was 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – r.5(4) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21 – First EC notification provided that certain projects falling under categories set out in the Decision Date : 21-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628/2021 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NOBLE M. PAIKADAversusUNION OF INDIA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12492024 INSC 241Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Item 6 in the impugned notification which granted exemption from requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc., if provided a blanket exemption which was 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 – r.5(4) – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21 – First EC notification provided that certain projects falling under categories set out in theDecision Date :21-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1628/2021| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC241,2025-06-13T22:48:39.100348 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.versusV.V. BRAHMA REDDY & ANR.,06-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5267/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration The appellant issued a notification dated 08.06.2017 repatriating employees who were on deputation, including the present respondents, to their parent cadres in TSRTC, i.e., to the zones in which they were initially appointed. the notification. In writ appeals, taking note of the guidelines for allocation formulated by both Corporations (APSRTC and TSRTC), the High Court passed an interim order dated 18.04.2018 suspending the order of the Single judge of the High Court and directing the respondents to report in Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5267/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.versusV.V. BRAHMA REDDY & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 752024 INSC 663Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration The appellant issued a notification dated 08.06.2017 repatriating employees who were on deputation, including the present respondents, to their parent cadres in TSRTC, i.e., to the zones in which they were initially appointed. the notification. In writ appeals, taking note of the guidelines for allocation formulated by both Corporations (APSRTC and TSRTC), the High Court passed an interim order dated 18.04.2018 suspending the order of the Single judge of the High Court and directing the respondents to report inDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5267/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC663,2025-06-13T22:44:45.812498 TINKUversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.,13-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died on duty in 1997 when he was seven years on compassionate grounds in 2008 after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee: Held: Compassionate appointment is an Decision Date : 13-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","TINKUversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7132024 INSC 867Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant was entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. Headnotes† Service Law – Appointment on compassionate grounds – When not entitled to – Appellant’s father, a constable died on duty in 1997 when he was seven years on compassionate grounds in 2008 after attaining majority – Claim rejected being time barred in view of the 1999 policy which introduced three years limit for attainment of the age of majority from the date of death of the deceased employee: Held: Compassionate appointment is anDecision Date :13-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8540/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC867,2025-06-13T22:47:52.440337 MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.,14-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999,Directions issued,8 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the 9-judge bench judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr. Etc given prospective effect? Headnotes† Constitution of the United States – Evolution of Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Objectives and Purpose – Factors to be considered for its applicability – Discussed: Held: The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied Decision Date : 14-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 8 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MINERAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5402024 INSC 607Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, ABHAY S. OKA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the 9-judge bench judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr. Etc given prospective effect? Headnotes† Constitution of the United States – Evolution of Doctrine of Prospective Overruling – Objectives and Purpose – Factors to be considered for its applicability – Discussed: Held: The doctrine of prospective overruling is appliedDecision Date :14-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4056/1999| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :8 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC607,2025-06-13T22:46:10.073904 VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA,17-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 213/2020,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307 and 201 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of appellant informed about a robbery at his house and the murder of his wife, daughter and mother and the injuries caused to his neighbour-PW-12 – Later, he was arrested on the basis of suspicion of committing the said murders as it was revealed during investigation that he had an Decision Date : 17-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 213/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7532024 INSC 788Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant and the death sentence awarded for the alleged murders of his wife, daughter and mother were justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307 and 201 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Case of appellant informed about a robbery at his house and the murder of his wife, daughter and mother and the injuries caused to his neighbour-PW-12 – Later, he was arrested on the basis of suspicion of committing the said murders as it was revealed during investigation that he had anDecision Date :17-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 213/2020| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC788,2025-06-13T22:49:09.914368 THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.,19-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12527/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. versus M/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13352024 INSC 890 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.89(4) Stamp Act – Arts. 18 and 23 of first Schedule – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 94 – Successful auction purchaser – Sale certificate issued – Whether it is mandatory to deposit stamp duty in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12527/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13352024 INSC 890Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Headnotes† Registration Act, 1908 – s.89(4) Stamp Act – Arts. 18 and 23 of first Schedule – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI Rule 94 – Successful auction purchaser – Sale certificate issued – Whether it is mandatory to deposit stamp duty in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and theDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12527/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC890,2025-06-13T22:47:49.931068 DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.versusDELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD.,10-04-2024,CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 108/2022,Case Allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the curative petition is maintainable; and (ii) Whether this Court (two-judge Bench) was justified in restoring had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. Headnotes Curative Petition – Curative Jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice: Held: The Supreme Court laid down an overarching principle in Rupa Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 108/2022 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.versusDELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PVT. LTD.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 4732024 INSC 292Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANTIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the curative petition is maintainable; and (ii) Whether this Court (two-judge Bench) was justified in restoring had been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that it suffered from patently illegality. Headnotes Curative Petition – Curative Jurisdiction may be invoked if there is a miscarriage of justice: Held: The Supreme Court laid down an overarching principle in RupaDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CURATIVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 108/2022| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDFCited In",2024INSC292,2025-06-13T22:45:06.884483 BALASAHEB KESHAWRAO BHAPKAR & ORS.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.,15-07-2024,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 546/2023,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the facts of the case necessitated constitution of a High Powered Sale Committee, under Article 142 of the Constitution, to auction the immovable assets of the companies to satisfy the investors’ claims and liquidate all other Companies. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Invocation of Art.142 for constitution of a High-Powered Sale Committee chaired by a former judge of the Supreme Court of India – Committee tasked with the responsibility of liquidating the assets to generate funds to Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 546/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BALASAHEB KESHAWRAO BHAPKAR & ORS.versusSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7302024 INSC 525Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the facts of the case necessitated constitution of a High Powered Sale Committee, under Article 142 of the Constitution, to auction the immovable assets of the companies to satisfy the investors’ claims and liquidate all other Companies. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.142 – Invocation of Art.142 for constitution of a High-Powered Sale Committee chaired by a former judge of the Supreme Court of India – Committee tasked with the responsibility of liquidating the assets to generate funds toDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 546/2023| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC525,2025-06-13T22:48:57.354800 AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. & ORS.,18-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023,Unknown,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023 | Direction Issue : Matters directed to be listed before the Regular Bench. | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusDELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 14042024 INSC 791Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT,Decision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023| Direction Issue :Matters directed to be listed before the Regular Bench.| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC791,2025-06-13T22:48:58.536044 PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA,05-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1338/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution – Conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety: Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However, the deceased Decision Date : 05-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1338/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PRADEEP KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3062024 INSC 21Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution – Conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety: Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However, the deceasedDecision Date :05-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1338/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC21,2025-06-13T22:48:17.558020 SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA,07-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3257/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had rightly affirmed the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case moved for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by its judgment dated 03.03.2023. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – that respondent had borrowed rupees two lakhs from him – Against the said loan the respondent issued a cheque, as a guarantee against repayment – Since the respondent failed to repay the loan despite repeated requests, the appellant presented the concerned cheque for encashment, as Decision Date : 07-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3257/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1212024 INSC 586Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court had rightly affirmed the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case moved for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by its judgment dated 03.03.2023. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – that respondent had borrowed rupees two lakhs from him – Against the said loan the respondent issued a cheque, as a guarantee against repayment – Since the respondent failed to repay the loan despite repeated requests, the appellant presented the concerned cheque for encashment, asDecision Date :07-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3257/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC586,2025-06-13T22:47:26.044996 "PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMALversusSTATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE",03-01-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 863/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – “in the custody of a police officer” – Interpretation – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant was taken into custody during the course of investigation for the murder of Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 863/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMALversusSTATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 872024 INSC 13Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if can be deemed to be in the ‘custody’ of the police, admissibility of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and sentence of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – “in the custody of a police officer” – Interpretation – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant was taken into custody during the course of investigation for the murder ofDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 863/2019| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC13,2025-06-13T22:48:26.903416 AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA,22-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 700/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether while imposing a sentence for an offence punishable under Section 307 part 2, IPC (attempt to commit murder – causing hurt to any person), a term of imprisonment beyond a period of ten years is permissible not to be given by the Courts below. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 – Part II – When the Court decided not to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life – Can a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years be imposed: Held: In case the victim suffered hurt Decision Date : 22-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 700/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AMIT RANA @ KOKA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7562024 INSC 543Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether while imposing a sentence for an offence punishable under Section 307 part 2, IPC (attempt to commit murder – causing hurt to any person), a term of imprisonment beyond a period of ten years is permissible not to be given by the Courts below. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – S.307 – Part II – When the Court decided not to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life – Can a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 14 years be imposed: Held: In case the victim suffered hurtDecision Date :22-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 700/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC543,2025-06-13T22:48:21.167709 PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,19-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5062/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue as regards the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty. Whether it was the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 (rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, or the rule 19 that was substituted by an amendment in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 – r.19 – Penalties – Permissible limits of loss of liquor in transit due to leakage, evaporation, wastage etc. Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5062/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PERNOD RICARD INDIA (P) LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6642024 INSC 327Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue as regards the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty. Whether it was the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 (rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, or the rule 19 that was substituted by an amendment in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 – r.19 – Penalties – Permissible limits of loss of liquor in transit due to leakage, evaporation, wastage etc.Decision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5062/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC327,2025-06-13T22:43:44.379114 MAMIDI ANIL KUMAR REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR,05-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 758/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MAMIDI ANIL KUMAR REDDY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2522024 INSC 101 VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Quashing of the docket order – Matter pertaining to matrimonial disputes, wherein the High Court refused to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the husband and in-laws for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Decision Date : 05-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 758/2024 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAMIDI ANIL KUMAR REDDYversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 2522024 INSC 101Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration The High Court, if justified in refusing to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Quashing of the docket order – Matter pertaining to matrimonial disputes, wherein the High Court refused to quash the docket order which re-initiated criminal proceedings against the husband and in-laws for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 IPC and u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,Decision Date :05-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 758/2024| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC101,2025-06-13T22:46:41.351021 SANDEEPversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND,14-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2224/2014,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by the High Court. Arms Act, 1959 – s.25/27 – Prosecution case that four persons including appellant shot victim-deceased dead, when he was sitting in his courtyard – Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous Decision Date : 14-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2224/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SANDEEPversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7692024 INSC 771Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by the High Court. Arms Act, 1959 – s.25/27 – Prosecution case that four persons including appellant shot victim-deceased dead, when he was sitting in his courtyard – Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorousDecision Date :14-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2224/2014| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC771,2025-06-13T22:49:30.827897 SATYENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,18-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12509/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory? Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law. Headnotes† Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) – Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012 Decision Date : 18-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12509/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SATYENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 16342024 INSC 873Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory? Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant were in gross violation of Rule 7(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Rules, 1999, and is non-est in law. Headnotes† Appeal against disciplinary penalty – Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Rule 7(3) – Appellant, an Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, was subject to disciplinary proceedings in 2012Decision Date :18-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12509/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC873,2025-06-13T22:47:51.882227 SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC.,11-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1511/2021,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the criteria on the basis of which selection was made could be made the legal basis for selection and appointment of Laboratory Attendants. Headnotes† Service law – Selection/appointment – Post of Selection process for 31 vacancies – 1,952 candidates shortlisted for interview after the written test – Publication of final select list – Challenge to, by the unsuccessful candidates – Single Judge annulled the selection process observing that the process was irregular Decision Date : 11-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1511/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUKHMANDER SINGH AND ORS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ETC.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 982024 INSC 736Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the criteria on the basis of which selection was made could be made the legal basis for selection and appointment of Laboratory Attendants. Headnotes† Service law – Selection/appointment – Post of Selection process for 31 vacancies – 1,952 candidates shortlisted for interview after the written test – Publication of final select list – Challenge to, by the unsuccessful candidates – Single Judge annulled the selection process observing that the process was irregularDecision Date :11-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1511/2021| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC736,2025-06-13T22:43:59.898246 CHANDRAMANI NANDAversusSARAT CHANDRA SWAIN AND ANOTHER,15-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11100/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment – Enhancement of compensation – Appellant-claimant having suffered injuries in an accident became mentally unstable Compensation of ₹20,60,385/- awarded by the Tribunal was modified and enhanced to ₹30,99,873/- by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: An enhanced income should be considered for calculation of compensation – However, the courts below assessed the appellant’s annual income Decision Date : 15-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11100/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHANDRAMANI NANDAversusSARAT CHANDRA SWAIN AND ANOTHER-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9202024 INSC 777Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Appellant-claimant, if entitled to enhancement of compensation. Headnotes† Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Assessment – Enhancement of compensation – Appellant-claimant having suffered injuries in an accident became mentally unstable Compensation of ₹20,60,385/- awarded by the Tribunal was modified and enhanced to ₹30,99,873/- by the High Court – Challenge to: Held: An enhanced income should be considered for calculation of compensation – However, the courts below assessed the appellant’s annual incomeDecision Date :15-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11100/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC777,2025-06-13T22:49:21.534173 NAEEMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,05-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978/2022,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Conviction of the appellants-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 based solely on the dying declaration, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Dying declaration, sole basis of conviction – Appellants convicted for offences punishable Correctness: Held: Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court – Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, Decision Date : 05-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978/2022 | Direction Issue : Appeals qua accused no. 2 and accused no.3 allowed and appeal qua accused no.1 dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NAEEMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 362024 INSC 169Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Conviction of the appellants-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 based solely on the dying declaration, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Dying declaration, sole basis of conviction – Appellants convicted for offences punishable Correctness: Held: Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court – Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring,Decision Date :05-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1978/2022| Direction Issue :Appeals qua accused no. 2 and accused no.3 allowed and appeal qua accused no.1 dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC169,2025-06-13T22:41:36.625817 "THE TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANR.versusGANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS",20-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 722/2012,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012 The respondents-plaintiffs claimed that they had been granted patta (lease) of the land by Gram Panchayat in the year 1959 and on the basis thereof, they were continuing in possession. However, being shown in the ownership of the Government. A civil suit was filed by the respondents for permanent injunction and for ownership and possession of the suit land. The suit was filed as a notice was issued by the appellants u/s. 92A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Whether a suit Decision Date : 20-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 722/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 TEHSILDAR, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANR.versusGANGA BAI MENARIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6502024 INSC 121Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Civil Appeal No. 722 of 2012 The respondents-plaintiffs claimed that they had been granted patta (lease) of the land by Gram Panchayat in the year 1959 and on the basis thereof, they were continuing in possession. However, being shown in the ownership of the Government. A civil suit was filed by the respondents for permanent injunction and for ownership and possession of the suit land. The suit was filed as a notice was issued by the appellants u/s. 92A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. Whether a suitDecision Date :20-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 722/2012| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC121,2025-06-13T22:42:38.580557 INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANR.versusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS,22-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 97/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service, if entitled to two advance increments given to the Scientists in Agricultural Research Service on acquiring Ph.D. degree in their Incentives – Grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree to Scientists in Agricultural Research Service – Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service seeking the same benefit – Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court – Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 97/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANR.versusRAJINDER SINGH AND ORS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5072024 INSC 622Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service, if entitled to two advance increments given to the Scientists in Agricultural Research Service on acquiring Ph.D. degree in their Incentives – Grant of two advance increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree to Scientists in Agricultural Research Service – Employees working on the technical side in the Agricultural Research Service seeking the same benefit – Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court –Decision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 97/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC622,2025-06-13T22:45:35.696861 GOVIND KUMAR SHARMA & ANRversusBANK OF BARODA & ORS,18-04-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 24155/2018,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether an auction/ sale under the Securit isation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act) carried out without issuing the mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower under Rules 8(6) and 8 (7) of the Security 2002 is liable to be set aside. If so, can the bona fide purchaser, who was originally the tenant, be forced to hand over the physical possession of the premises in order get the refund. Whether the bona fide purchaser would be entitled to refund of the auction money and interest, and compensation Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 24155/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GOVIND KUMAR SHARMA & ANRversusBANK OF BARODA & ORS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6332024 INSC 326Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether an auction/ sale under the Securit isation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act) carried out without issuing the mandatory 30-day notice to the borrower under Rules 8(6) and 8 (7) of the Security 2002 is liable to be set aside. If so, can the bona fide purchaser, who was originally the tenant, be forced to hand over the physical possession of the premises in order get the refund. Whether the bona fide purchaser would be entitled to refund of the auction money and interest, and compensationDecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 24155/2018| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC326,2025-06-13T22:44:18.801905 MUKUL KUMAR TYAGIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS,05-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9026/2019,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the services of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list and had produced the Course on computer concepts-CCC certificate at the time of the interview could have Termination – Selection to the post of Technician Grade-II – Course on computer concepts certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate mandatory educational qualification to be submitted at the time of interview – Written exam and interview held and final Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9026/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MUKUL KUMAR TYAGIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 4282024 INSC 832Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the services of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list and had produced the Course on computer concepts-CCC certificate at the time of the interview could have Termination – Selection to the post of Technician Grade-II – Course on computer concepts certificate or its equivalent computer qualification certificate mandatory educational qualification to be submitted at the time of interview – Written exam and interview held and finalDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9026/2019| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC832,2025-06-13T22:48:42.079679 GURDEV SINGH BHALLAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS,05-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 120/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department. Headnotes Code of s. 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Case of misappropriation of paddy against father of the informant – Application u/s. 319 for summoning the appellant-Inspector investigating the crime and three other police officials Decision Date : 05-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 120/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GURDEV SINGH BHALLAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 3192024 INSC 22Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other officials of the Police Department. Headnotes Code of s. 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence – Case of misappropriation of paddy against father of the informant – Application u/s. 319 for summoning the appellant-Inspector investigating the crime and three other police officialsDecision Date :05-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 120/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC22,2025-06-13T22:48:16.575297 BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT,10-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 334/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in overturning the order of acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Interference by the appellate court, when: Held: Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible – Judgment of acquittal must be found to Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 334/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3222024 INSC 295Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in overturning the order of acquittal. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Interference by the appellate court, when: Held: Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible – Judgment of acquittal must be found toDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 334/2019| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC295,2025-06-13T22:44:41.503274 KUNHIMUHAMMED@KUNHEETHUversusTHE STATE OF KERALA,06-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5097/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether appellant had the intention to commit murder; whether the appellant’s act can be brought under section 304, IPC in light of the offence being committed in exercise of private defense and thereby exceeding the power given under the law, that is under exception appellant’s sentence should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-accused. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 324 and 326/34 – The sympathizers of two political groups fought against each other – Appellant along with other accused committed murder Decision Date : 06-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5097/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KUNHIMUHAMMED@KUNHEETHUversusTHE STATE OF KERALA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3922024 INSC 937Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether appellant had the intention to commit murder; whether the appellant’s act can be brought under section 304, IPC in light of the offence being committed in exercise of private defense and thereby exceeding the power given under the law, that is under exception appellant’s sentence should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-accused. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 324 and 326/34 – The sympathizers of two political groups fought against each other – Appellant along with other accused committed murderDecision Date :06-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5097/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC937,2025-06-13T22:47:30.867285 NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF DELHI,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1751/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Non-questioning the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 on the twin incriminating circumstances during his examination u/s.313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if caused material prejudice to him vitiating the trial qua him. Headnotes† Code of – s.302 r/w s.34 – Non-compliance of s.313 – Non-questioning on the twin incriminating circumstances to the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s. 34, IPC during his examination u/s.313, when the finding of common intention was based on the aforesaid twin incriminating Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1751/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF DELHI-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1782024 INSC 464Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Non-questioning the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 on the twin incriminating circumstances during his examination u/s.313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if caused material prejudice to him vitiating the trial qua him. Headnotes† Code of – s.302 r/w s.34 – Non-compliance of s.313 – Non-questioning on the twin incriminating circumstances to the appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s. 34, IPC during his examination u/s.313, when the finding of common intention was based on the aforesaid twin incriminatingDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1751/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC464,2025-06-13T22:51:16.066334 DUNI CHANDversusVIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8187/2023,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendants despite the lack of specific pleadings, and no evidence to show consent of interested persons. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Consent of persons interested in the immovable property required – No specific pleading or evidence showing the consent, whether express or implied, of the interested persons – Relief granted in favour of defendants by the High Court relying on Section 41 was unwarranted. Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8187/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DUNI CHANDversusVIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 12022024 INSC 516Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendants despite the lack of specific pleadings, and no evidence to show consent of interested persons. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Consent of persons interested in the immovable property required – No specific pleading or evidence showing the consent, whether express or implied, of the interested persons – Relief granted in favour of defendants by the High Court relying on Section 41 was unwarranted.Decision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8187/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC516,2025-06-13T22:49:36.497436 BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusVIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3088/2020,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration The present appeals raise a question on the right to claim set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, when the Resolution Professional proceeds in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (2) of s.25 of the Insolvency and take custody and control of all the assets of the corporate debtor. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – clause (a) to sub- section (2) of s.25, s.238, s.243 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 – Regn. 29 – The Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3088/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusVIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1402024 INSC 15Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration The present appeals raise a question on the right to claim set-off in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, when the Resolution Professional proceeds in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (2) of s.25 of the Insolvency and take custody and control of all the assets of the corporate debtor. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – clause (a) to sub- section (2) of s.25, s.238, s.243 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 – Regn. 29 – TheDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3088/2020| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC15,2025-06-13T22:48:28.281134 DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS,01-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5604/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a fault can be found in the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations; (ii) Whether the Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination harmed the interest of the reservation category candidates. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – The Single Judge of the High Court invalidated the decision taken by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) on 10.10.2022, proposing to hold a fresh Decision Date : 01-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5604/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal and SLPs dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 362024 INSC 362Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration (i) Whether a fault can be found in the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations; (ii) Whether the Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination harmed the interest of the reservation category candidates. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – The Single Judge of the High Court invalidated the decision taken by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) on 10.10.2022, proposing to hold a freshDecision Date :01-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5604/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal and SLPs dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC362,2025-06-13T22:42:01.248910 RAKESH RANJAN SHRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.,15-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 741/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the provision of sub-section (1) of s.143A, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides for the grant of interim compensation, is directory or mandatory. If it is held to be a directory provision, what are factors to be considered while exercising (1) of Section 143A of the N.I. Act. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.143A(1) – Grant of interim compensation – Directory or mandatory: Held: Power under sub-section (1) of s.143A is discretionary and not mandatory – Sub-section (1) of s.143A provides for Decision Date : 15-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 741/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAKESH RANJAN SHRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4382024 INSC 205Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the provision of sub-section (1) of s.143A, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides for the grant of interim compensation, is directory or mandatory. If it is held to be a directory provision, what are factors to be considered while exercising (1) of Section 143A of the N.I. Act. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.143A(1) – Grant of interim compensation – Directory or mandatory: Held: Power under sub-section (1) of s.143A is discretionary and not mandatory – Sub-section (1) of s.143A provides forDecision Date :15-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 741/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC205,2025-06-13T22:50:50.751785 PERIYASAMYversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,18-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 270/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court justified in affirming the judgment of trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, (A-1), for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 307 of Penal Code, 1860 and accused appellant (A-2) for the offence punishable & 307/109 of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.307 – Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellants – Relying on ocular and medical evidence – High Court confirmed the sentence and conviction – Whether the sentence and conviction falls Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 270/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PERIYASAMYversusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7472024 INSC 212Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court justified in affirming the judgment of trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, (A-1), for the offence punishable under sections 302 & 307 of Penal Code, 1860 and accused appellant (A-2) for the offence punishable & 307/109 of Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.307 – Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellants – Relying on ocular and medical evidence – High Court confirmed the sentence and conviction – Whether the sentence and conviction fallsDecision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 270/2019| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC212,2025-06-13T22:49:52.643820 SUMAN L. SHAHversusTHE CUSTODIAN & ORS.,05-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4577/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration There were questionable transactions between the appellants and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the alleged benami companies of respondent No. 2 (notified party). Whether the Special Court committed manifest error in facts as well as in law in holding that the garnishees of respondent No. 2. Whether the conclusions and findings passed by the Special Court, that the appellant herein failed to prove the fact that amounts had been repaid to the benami companies of the notified person- respondent No.2, can be sustained. Headnotes Special Court (Trial of Decision Date : 05-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4577/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUMAN L. SHAHversusTHE CUSTODIAN & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 2942024 INSC 170Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration There were questionable transactions between the appellants and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the alleged benami companies of respondent No. 2 (notified party). Whether the Special Court committed manifest error in facts as well as in law in holding that the garnishees of respondent No. 2. Whether the conclusions and findings passed by the Special Court, that the appellant herein failed to prove the fact that amounts had been repaid to the benami companies of the notified person- respondent No.2, can be sustained. Headnotes Special Court (Trial ofDecision Date :05-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4577/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC170,2025-06-13T22:41:13.265015 SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS,04-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11030/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Despite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the conclusion of the appointment process, the State Government sought to scrap the entire process and undertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules. Whether this amounted to of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules. Headnotes† Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 – Bihar Water Decision Date : 04-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11030/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD SINGHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13442024 INSC 763Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Despite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the conclusion of the appointment process, the State Government sought to scrap the entire process and undertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules. Whether this amounted to of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules. Headnotes† Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 – Bihar WaterDecision Date :04-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11030/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC763,2025-06-13T22:49:36.201215 TARINA SENversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,03-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4114/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be justified, when the matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Exercise of power u/ss.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act – Application u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge – Disposed of, by the High Court by permitting the appellants to urge all the pleas raised in the Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4114/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odiaਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TARINA SENversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4172024 INSC 752Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be justified, when the matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Exercise of power u/ss.120-B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act – Application u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge – Disposed of, by the High Court by permitting the appellants to urge all the pleas raised in theDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4114/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC752,2025-06-13T22:49:36.596066 PRADHAN BABU AND OTHERSversusNACHIMUTHU NAGAR KUDIYIRUPPOR NALA SANGAM AND OTHERS,28-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5875/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether the suit land was under any sort of legal encumbrance so as to make it unfit for transfer of right, title and interest thereon in light of the Layout Plan notified by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Thanjavur region in the revised in the year 1981. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 – ss.37 and 38 – For a creation of a Nagar various plots were formed by one N – In a Layout plan, a portion of land was earmarked for public purpose for welfare of the residents – Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5875/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","PRADHAN BABU AND OTHERSversusNACHIMUTHU NAGAR KUDIYIRUPPOR NALA SANGAM AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 16732024 INSC 1047Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether the suit land was under any sort of legal encumbrance so as to make it unfit for transfer of right, title and interest thereon in light of the Layout Plan notified by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Thanjavur region in the revised in the year 1981. Headnotes† Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1972 – ss.37 and 38 – For a creation of a Nagar various plots were formed by one N – In a Layout plan, a portion of land was earmarked for public purpose for welfare of the residents –Decision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5875/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1047,2025-06-13T22:45:07.001389 VIKAS CHANDRAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,22-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1101/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Respondent No.2 was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether justified in quashing the summons. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – When not – Code of ss.482, 204 – Case of the appellant was that his father committed suicide by consuming poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj where he was working, leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on respondent No.2 – Deceased was earlier working in Mandi Samiti, Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1101/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VIKAS CHANDRAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 12232024 INSC 261Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Respondent No.2 was summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. High Court whether justified in quashing the summons. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss.306, 107 – Abetment of suicide – When not – Code of ss.482, 204 – Case of the appellant was that his father committed suicide by consuming poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj where he was working, leaving a suicide note attributing responsibility for the same on respondent No.2 – Deceased was earlier working in Mandi Samiti,Decision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1101/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC261,2025-06-13T22:41:40.200409 ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,18-03-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 596/2024,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 13152024 INSC 226 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration What is the extent of information required to State Bank of India under sub-paragraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 219 of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. [2024] 2 SCR 420? Headnotes Elections – Electoral Bonds – SBI directed to disclose details of each Electoral Bond Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 596/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC REFORMS & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 13152024 INSC 226Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration What is the extent of information required to State Bank of India under sub-paragraphs “b” and “c” of paragraph 219 of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. [2024] 2 SCR 420? Headnotes Elections – Electoral Bonds – SBI directed to disclose details of each Electoral BondDecision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 596/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC226,2025-06-13T22:50:35.137118 SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKRISH SPINNING,18-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7821/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties would operate as a bar to invoke arbitration; as regards the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny that an application u/s. 11(6) of Act 1996 can be subjected to when a plea of “accord and satisfaction” is taken by the defendant; and as regards the effect of the decision of this Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Stamp Act 1899 Decision Date : 18-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7821/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusKRISH SPINNING-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 8402024 INSC 532Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the execution of a discharge voucher towards the full and final settlement between the parties would operate as a bar to invoke arbitration; as regards the scope and standard of judicial scrutiny that an application u/s. 11(6) of Act 1996 can be subjected to when a plea of “accord and satisfaction” is taken by the defendant; and as regards the effect of the decision of this Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Stamp Act 1899Decision Date :18-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7821/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC532,2025-06-13T22:48:37.403789 TARUN DHAMEJAversusSUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR.,06-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14005/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR 987 : 2024 INSC 973 Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 14005 of 2024) 06 December 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the arbitration clause between the parties is non-existent or requires agreement of all the parties to the in a partnership deed invoked by Appellant who is the legal representative of a deceased partner – Arbitration clause reads as: “That if at any time either during the continuance of the partnership or after the retirement of any partner, any dispute or difference shall arise between Decision Date : 06-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14005/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","TARUN DHAMEJAversusSUNIL DHAMEJA & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 987Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR987 : 2024 INSC 973 Tarun Dhameja v. Sunil Dhameja & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 14005 of 2024) 06 December 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the arbitration clause between the parties is non-existent or requires agreement of all the parties to the in a partnership deed invoked by Appellant who is the legal representative of a deceased partner – Arbitration clause reads as: “That if at any time either during the continuance of the partnership or after the retirement of any partner, any dispute or difference shall arise betweenDecision Date :06-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14005/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T22:47:29.071041 UJAGAR SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusPUNJAB STATE & ORS.,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1365/2011,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court fell in error in dismissing the suit primarily on the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by s.21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 when the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents during the trial Act, 1972 – s.21 – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, if barred – Appellants filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, asserting that the land in question was exempt under the Act – They sought declaration that the land belonged to the religious and charitable Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1365/2011 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UJAGAR SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusPUNJAB STATE & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6112024 INSC 497Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court fell in error in dismissing the suit primarily on the ground that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barred by s.21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 when the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed by the respondents during the trial Act, 1972 – s.21 – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, if barred – Appellants filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, asserting that the land in question was exempt under the Act – They sought declaration that the land belonged to the religious and charitableDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1365/2011| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC497,2025-06-13T22:49:59.204613 JATINDER KUMAR SAPRAversusANUPAMA SAPRA,06-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6088/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was it a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage? Headnotes† Factors to be considered jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Explained: Held: Both the Family Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dismissed the petition instituted by the Appellant Decision Date : 06-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6088/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JATINDER KUMAR SAPRAversusANUPAMA SAPRA-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 8792024 INSC 382Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was it a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage? Headnotes† Factors to be considered jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India and pass a decree for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Explained: Held: Both the Family Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dismissed the petition instituted by the AppellantDecision Date :06-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6088/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC382,2025-06-13T22:41:39.172528 WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,15-04-2024,DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 8208/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 4 S.C.R. 5182024 INSC 311 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to clarification of the order passed by this Court as regards grant of pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. Headnotes Armed Forces – Women Short – Pensionary benefits – Order by this Court granting one time pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers on basis that they have completed the minimum qualifying service of twenty years, required for pension – Eligible officers in terms thereof, not Decision Date : 15-04-2024 | Case No : DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 8208/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.WG CDR A U TAYYABA (RETD) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5182024 INSC 311Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to clarification of the order passed by this Court as regards grant of pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers in Armed Forces. Headnotes Armed Forces – Women Short – Pensionary benefits – Order by this Court granting one time pensionary benefits to the women Short Service Commissioned Officers on basis that they have completed the minimum qualifying service of twenty years, required for pension – Eligible officers in terms thereof, notDecision Date :15-04-2024| Case No :DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 8208/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC311,2025-06-13T22:44:39.226572 SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2807/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint filed by the second respondent stating that the contentions raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated and under Section 362 of the Cr. PC. Headnotes† Quashing – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.362 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the agreements for sale filed against the appellants by the second respondent and his brother was later Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2807/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1272024 INSC 472Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing the complaint filed by the second respondent stating that the contentions raised were rejected in an earlier criminal revision application, which cannot be re-agitated and under Section 362 of the Cr. PC. Headnotes† Quashing – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.362 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the agreements for sale filed against the appellants by the second respondent and his brother was laterDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2807/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC472,2025-06-13T22:50:59.786896 DR. RAJIV VERGHESEversusROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS,19-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12546/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DR. RAJIV VERGHESE versus ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13122024 INSC 876 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before Family Court. Appellant (wife) filed an application for maintenance in the same proceeding and the Family Court by an Order granted a monthly interim (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only) to her. This order was challenged before the High Court by the Respondent. The High Court modified the order of the Family Court by reducing the monthly interim maintenance to Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty thousand only). Before the Supreme Court, the Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12546/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal No. 12547 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 19922 of 2023 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 4109 of 2023 is dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","DR. RAJIV VERGHESEversusROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13122024 INSC 876Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before Family Court. Appellant (wife) filed an application for maintenance in the same proceeding and the Family Court by an Order granted a monthly interim (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only) to her. This order was challenged before the High Court by the Respondent. The High Court modified the order of the Family Court by reducing the monthly interim maintenance to Rs. 80,00,000/- (Eighty thousand only). Before the Supreme Court, theDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12546/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal No. 12547 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 19922 of 2023 is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 12546 of 2024 arising out of SLP(C) No. 4109 of 2023 is dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC876,2025-06-13T22:47:51.012759 AKANKSHA ARORAversusTANAY MABEN,04-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5004/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"AKANKSHA ARORA versus TANAY MABEN - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 954 PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court can convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into a revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it as per law; Whether s.397 CrPC can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – petition u/s.482 CrPC in the High Court seeking enhancement of interim maintenance – The said petition has been dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned on the ground that it is not maintainable as the appellant-wife has a remedy of a revision u/s.397 CrPC – Correctness: Decision Date : 04-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5004/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","AKANKSHA ARORAversusTANAY MABEN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 954Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court can convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into a revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it as per law; Whether s.397 CrPC can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – petition u/s.482 CrPC in the High Court seeking enhancement of interim maintenance – The said petition has been dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned on the ground that it is not maintainable as the appellant-wife has a remedy of a revision u/s.397 CrPC – Correctness:Decision Date :04-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5004/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T22:47:34.383903 THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusDR. SANAT KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.,08-07-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 17403/2023,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in the State-aided Universities in the State of West Bengal. Headnotes† Universities – Appointment of Vice-Chancellors in 35 State- aided Universities in the State of West Bengal – Dispute between and the Governor of West Bengal-Chancellor of subject Universities, as regards the appointment of regular Vice-Chancellors – No consensus between the authorities in the matter of constitution and composition of Search Committees for shortlisting the candidates for appointment as Vice Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 17403/2023 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 WEST BENGALversusDR. SANAT KUMAR GHOSH AND ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 692024 INSC 469Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in the State-aided Universities in the State of West Bengal. Headnotes† Universities – Appointment of Vice-Chancellors in 35 State- aided Universities in the State of West Bengal – Dispute between and the Governor of West Bengal-Chancellor of subject Universities, as regards the appointment of regular Vice-Chancellors – No consensus between the authorities in the matter of constitution and composition of Search Committees for shortlisting the candidates for appointment as ViceDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 17403/2023| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC469,2025-06-13T22:50:46.973679 MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.versusVITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.,28-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3573/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. K (President of a Society), in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of ₹79,54,26,963/- – Further case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 is a Decision Date : 28-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3573/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.versusVITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7532024 INSC 636Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bail – The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. K (President of a Society), in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of ₹79,54,26,963/- – Further case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 is aDecision Date :28-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3573/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC636,2025-06-13T22:45:03.516925 TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS.versusRAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.,07-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2634/2013,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end; (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject; (d) Whether recruiting bodies can devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting process; (e) Whether the procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule can be violated; (f) Whether appointment could be denied Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2634/2013 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK & ORS.versusRAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 282024 INSC 847Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end; (b) Basis of the doctrine that ‘rules of the game’ must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is the decision in K. Manjusree is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject; (d) Whether recruiting bodies can devise an appropriate procedure for concluding recruiting process; (e) Whether the procedure prescribed in the Extant Rule can be violated; (f) Whether appointment could be deniedDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2634/2013| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC847,2025-06-13T22:48:16.162914 ARVIND KEJRIWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,12-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Validity of arrest of the appellant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; scope and ambit of the Courts to examine the legality of the arrest under Section 19; whether the Court while examining the validity of arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of into and examine the necessity and need to arrest; whether interim bail ought to be granted to the appellant. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.19(1) – “need and necessity to arrest”, if a separate ground to be considered beyond the conditions Decision Date : 12-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : nterim bail granted to the appellant. Questions of law referred to a larger Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ARVIND KEJRIWALversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 23632024 INSC 512Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Validity of arrest of the appellant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; scope and ambit of the Courts to examine the legality of the arrest under Section 19; whether the Court while examining the validity of arrest in terms of Section 19(1) of into and examine the necessity and need to arrest; whether interim bail ought to be granted to the appellant. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.19(1) – “need and necessity to arrest”, if a separate ground to be considered beyond the conditionsDecision Date :12-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2493/2024| Disposal Nature :Matter referred to larger bench| Direction Issue :nterim bail granted to the appellant. Questions of law referred to a larger Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC512,2025-06-13T22:49:00.556163 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGERversusM/S TATA STEEL LTD.,30-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2759/2009,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration A claim for 35.08 crores was filed by the insured after the ‘20 Hi Cold Rolling Mill’ was totally destroyed due to fire. Since running of the company was important, the Insured got a new 6 Hi Cold Rolling Mill installed in its unit and based on the interim report of the surveyors, a sum of Rs.4,92,80,905/- was released in favour of the Insured by NIACL-insurer. Thereafter, the Insured gave consent for receiving Rs.20.95 Crores as net adjusted loss. However, the NIACL computed depreciation at 60% and settled the claim on Decision Date : 30-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2759/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGERversusM/S TATA STEEL LTD.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 2852024 INSC 356Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration A claim for 35.08 crores was filed by the insured after the ‘20 Hi Cold Rolling Mill’ was totally destroyed due to fire. Since running of the company was important, the Insured got a new 6 Hi Cold Rolling Mill installed in its unit and based on the interim report of the surveyors, a sum of Rs.4,92,80,905/- was released in favour of the Insured by NIACL-insurer. Thereafter, the Insured gave consent for receiving Rs.20.95 Crores as net adjusted loss. However, the NIACL computed depreciation at 60% and settled the claim onDecision Date :30-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2759/2009| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC356,2025-06-13T22:42:08.115934 JAVED AHMAD HAJAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,07-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR filed against him for the offence punishable u/s.153-A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.153-A – When not attracted – Appellant- group that consisted of college teachers, students, and parents – He had put up a Whatsapp status protesting against the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and a picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th August-Happy Decision Date : 07-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAVED AHMAD HAJAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3172024 INSC 187Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the FIR filed against him for the offence punishable u/s.153-A, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.153-A – When not attracted – Appellant- group that consisted of college teachers, students, and parents – He had put up a Whatsapp status protesting against the decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; and a picture containing “Chand” and below that the words “14th August-HappyDecision Date :07-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 886/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC187,2025-06-13T22:40:22.594444 "UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICEversusJUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS",15-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4272/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether gap between the retirement of a District Judge and her subsequent appointment as the Judge of the High Court would constitute ‘break in service’ adversely affecting her benefits. Headnotes The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s. 14, 15, Para 2, Part III of the First Schedule – Entitlement of High Court Judge promoted from District Judiciary to pension and retirement benefits despite break in service – Decision Date : 15-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4272/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICEversusJUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8482024 INSC 219Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether gap between the retirement of a District Judge and her subsequent appointment as the Judge of the High Court would constitute ‘break in service’ adversely affecting her benefits. Headnotes The High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s. 14, 15, Para 2, Part III of the First Schedule – Entitlement of High Court Judge promoted from District Judiciary to pension and retirement benefits despite break in service –Decision Date :15-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4272/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC219,2025-06-13T22:50:46.473937 YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusAFREEN FATIMA ZAIDI & ANR.,22-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Respondent no.1-complainant decided to go to watch a movie on the silver screen with her family. However, she found that the movie did not contain the song, which was widely circulated for promoting and publicising the movie. Whether there is provision of the entertainment service that the consumer has availed by paying the consideration through the purchase of a ticket. The complainant alleges that there is ‘deficiency’ in the service because what was shown in the film was not as per what was promised. Whether it is an Decision Date : 22-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusAFREEN FATIMA ZAIDI & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1432024 INSC 328Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Respondent no.1-complainant decided to go to watch a movie on the silver screen with her family. However, she found that the movie did not contain the song, which was widely circulated for promoting and publicising the movie. Whether there is provision of the entertainment service that the consumer has availed by paying the consideration through the purchase of a ticket. The complainant alleges that there is ‘deficiency’ in the service because what was shown in the film was not as per what was promised. Whether it is anDecision Date :22-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC328,2025-06-13T22:43:30.040381 STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusNORTHERN COAL FIELDS,03-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7614/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"STATE OF U.P. & ANR. versus NORTHERN COAL FIELDS - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 19182024 INSC 948 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE 1918 : 2024 INSC 948 State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields (Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014) 03 October 2024 (Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State Government to realise lease rent from the – Vesting of land or rights in Central Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently, the said land vested in the respondent-government Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7614/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","STATE OF U.P. & ANR.versusNORTHERN COAL FIELDS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 19182024 INSC 948Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE1918 : 2024 INSC 948 State of U.P. & Anr. v. Northern Coal Fields (Civil Appeal No. 7614 of 2014) 03 October 2024 (Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.) Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the legislative competence of the State Government to realise lease rent from the – Vesting of land or rights in Central Government – Power of Central Government to direct vesting of land or rights in a Government company – Acquisition of land by the Central Government under the Act – Subsequently, the said land vested in the respondent-governmentDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7614/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC948,2025-06-13T22:49:39.955260 BILKIS YAKUB RASOOLversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS,08-01-2024,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 491/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 7432024 INSC 24 B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation, assailing the dated 10.08.2022, if maintainable; Government of State of Gujarat, if competent to pass the impugned orders of remission in favour of convicts in Bilkis Bano case; Order of remission passed by the State of Gujarat in favour of convicts in Bilkis Bano case, if in accordance with law; and the Decision Date : 08-01-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 491/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BILKIS YAKUB RASOOLversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 7432024 INSC 24Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Writ petition filed u/Art. 32 by one of the victims challenging the order of State of Gujarat granting remission and early release of 11 convicts held guilty in Bilkis Bano matter, if maintainable; writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation, assailing the dated 10.08.2022, if maintainable; Government of State of Gujarat, if competent to pass the impugned orders of remission in favour of convicts in Bilkis Bano case; Order of remission passed by the State of Gujarat in favour of convicts in Bilkis Bano case, if in accordance with law; and theDecision Date :08-01-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 491/2022| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC24,2025-06-13T22:48:04.844661 SONU CHOUDARYversusSTATE OF NCT DELHI,06-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3111/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SONU CHOUDARY versus STATE OF NCT DELHI - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 7862024 INSC 864 BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction of the appellant u/ss.324 and 452 IPC is sustainable; and whether a restaurant can be said to be a place used for dwelling or for worship or for the custody of property for convicting a person u/s.452 IPC for committing offence of – ss.324 and 452 – Voluntarily causing hurt – House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Prosecution case that the appellant inflicted injuries with the blade on the thigh, shoulder and back of the owner of the restaurant, when the owner Decision Date : 06-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3111/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SONU CHOUDARYversusSTATE OF NCT DELHI-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7862024 INSC 864Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the conviction of the appellant u/ss.324 and 452 IPC is sustainable; and whether a restaurant can be said to be a place used for dwelling or for worship or for the custody of property for convicting a person u/s.452 IPC for committing offence of – ss.324 and 452 – Voluntarily causing hurt – House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Prosecution case that the appellant inflicted injuries with the blade on the thigh, shoulder and back of the owner of the restaurant, when the ownerDecision Date :06-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3111/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC864,2025-06-13T22:48:22.862732 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusJAGAT RAM,03-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4964/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it found order was proved but the official who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) – Decision Date : 03-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4964/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusJAGAT RAM-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5332024 INSC 952Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Respondent was convicted u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Trial Court. High Court acquitted the respondent holding that the findings of the Trial Court were based on evidence however, as regards the issue of sanction it found order was proved but the official who gave the sanction was not examined. Appeal by CBI. Whether the irregularity of the sanction order, if any, has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.19, 19(3)(a), (4) –Decision Date :03-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4964/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC952,2025-06-13T22:47:36.977149 JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,05-11-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 232/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and (2) Whether High Court, irrespective of their source of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining service conditions, including post-retirement benefits. Headnotes† High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India – Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 232/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 10422024 INSC 862Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (1) Whether Judges of the High Court appointed from the District Judiciary can be denied subscription to the General Provident Fund (GPF) on the basis of their previous service under the New Pension Scheme (NPS); and (2) Whether High Court, irrespective of their source of recruitment, constitute a homogenous class for determining service conditions, including post-retirement benefits. Headnotes† High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – s.20 – Constitution of India –Decision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 232/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC862,2025-06-13T22:48:40.043637 M/S. BISCO LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,20-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4663/2009,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The appellant had imported second hand steel mill machinery and parts covered by three transit bonds totalling 595 cases. The officials of the Preventive Branch of the Commissionerate searched the industrial premises of the appellant, including the warehouse and found that only 304 cases were stocked inside the warehouse, whereas 264 cases were found outside the warehouse but within the industrial/factory premises of the appellant. Remaining 27 cases were neither found inside the warehouse nor outside the warehouse. The Commissioner of Decision Date : 20-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4663/2009 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BISCO LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8902024 INSC 231Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The appellant had imported second hand steel mill machinery and parts covered by three transit bonds totalling 595 cases. The officials of the Preventive Branch of the Commissionerate searched the industrial premises of the appellant, including the warehouse and found that only 304 cases were stocked inside the warehouse, whereas 264 cases were found outside the warehouse but within the industrial/factory premises of the appellant. Remaining 27 cases were neither found inside the warehouse nor outside the warehouse. The Commissioner ofDecision Date :20-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4663/2009| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC231,2025-06-13T22:48:59.476014 GLOBAL CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED & ANR.versusSACH MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ANR,25-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1143/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration (i) Whether there can be debt within the meaning of sub-section (11) of section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) What is the test to determine whether a debt is a financial debt within the meaning of sub-section (8) of section 5 of Is it necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction reflected in the writing, while deciding the issue whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt; (iv) When is the debt, an operational debt. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Whether Decision Date : 25-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1143/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GLOBAL CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED & ANR.versusSACH MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ANR-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 2152024 INSC 340Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration (i) Whether there can be debt within the meaning of sub-section (11) of section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) What is the test to determine whether a debt is a financial debt within the meaning of sub-section (8) of section 5 of Is it necessary to ascertain what is the real nature of the transaction reflected in the writing, while deciding the issue whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt; (iv) When is the debt, an operational debt. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – WhetherDecision Date :25-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1143/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC340,2025-06-13T22:43:15.275252 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARDversusAYYAPPA SPICES & ORS.,06-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3866/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should have been entertained by the High Court; and whether the appellant- Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1) (j) of the Food Safety and Standards – Public tenders for procurement – Interested party invoking writ jurisdiction, exercise of power of judicial review – Contract by tender for sourcing raw material (cardamom) for preparation of Aravana Prasadam in the Sabarimala Temple – Eventually, respondent no.2 was Decision Date : 06-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3866/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARDversusAYYAPPA SPICES & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3632024 INSC 183Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration Whether the writ petition at the behest of respondent no.1 should have been entertained by the High Court; and whether the appellant- Board qualifies as a “food business operator” as defined u/s.3(1) (j) of the Food Safety and Standards – Public tenders for procurement – Interested party invoking writ jurisdiction, exercise of power of judicial review – Contract by tender for sourcing raw material (cardamom) for preparation of Aravana Prasadam in the Sabarimala Temple – Eventually, respondent no.2 wasDecision Date :06-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3866/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC183,2025-06-13T22:40:58.025475 RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,09-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2018,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct evidence – Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 4662024 INSC 487Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct evidence –Decision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1635/2018| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC487,2025-06-13T22:50:00.666536 DEVU G NAIRversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.,11-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1730/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, was correct in directing the ‘corpus’ to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist; what guidelines should be followed by courts corpus petitions or petitions for police protection. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Habeas Corpus petition filed in High Court on the ground that Corpus (also referred to as ‘X’) was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody whereas she wished Decision Date : 11-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1730/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DEVU G NAIRversusTHE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12732024 INSC 228Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court, in a habeas corpus petition, was correct in directing the ‘corpus’ to undergo a counselling session with a psychologist; what guidelines should be followed by courts corpus petitions or petitions for police protection. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Habeas Corpus petition filed in High Court on the ground that Corpus (also referred to as ‘X’) was being forcibly kept by her parents in their custody whereas she wishedDecision Date :11-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1730/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC228,2025-06-13T22:40:05.927086 LEELA AGRAWALversusSARKAR & ANR.,19-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12538/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58(c) The dispute centers around a piece of land and the plaintiff-respondent is the undisputed owner of this land – In 1990, the plaintiff in need of funds approached the defendant-appellant and mortgaged the suit land – In pursuant thereto, a mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 was executed Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12538/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","LEELA AGRAWALversusSARKAR & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 11302024 INSC 946Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.58(c) The dispute centers around a piece of land and the plaintiff-respondent is the undisputed owner of this land – In 1990, the plaintiff in need of funds approached the defendant-appellant and mortgaged the suit land – In pursuant thereto, a mortgage deed dated 17.10.1990 was executedDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12538/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC946,2025-06-13T22:47:51.529726 CHOUDAPPA & ANR.versusCHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.,03-09-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3056/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. CHOUDAPPA & ANR. versus CHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS. - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 2292024 INSC 691 PANKAJ MITHAL, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration In 2014, an application purported to be u/s. 141 CPC or under Order XX Rule 12 CPC was filed by the respondents for the determination of the mesne profits as directed by the judgment, order and decree dated 12.07.1973. Whether such an application is barred Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.12 and s.141 – A suit for recovery of possession and for correction of mutation entries was filed by respondents in the year 1963 and it was decreed on 12.07.1973 – The said judgment, order and decree specifically directs for holding an inquiry Decision Date : 03-09-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3056/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHOUDAPPA & ANR.versusCHOUDAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 2292024 INSC 691Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration In 2014, an application purported to be u/s. 141 CPC or under Order XX Rule 12 CPC was filed by the respondents for the determination of the mesne profits as directed by the judgment, order and decree dated 12.07.1973. Whether such an application is barred Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.12 and s.141 – A suit for recovery of possession and for correction of mutation entries was filed by respondents in the year 1963 and it was decreed on 12.07.1973 – The said judgment, order and decree specifically directs for holding an inquiryDecision Date :03-09-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3056/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC691,2025-06-13T22:44:53.206196 XXXXversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER,06-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3431/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 – Punishment for committing rape repeatedly for Criminal intimidation – Complainant’s case against the appellant alleging rape on false pretext of marriage; and that the appellant assured that he would marry her and take care of her daughter if she divorced her husband – However, the appellant refused to marry – Decision Date : 06-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3431/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.XXXXversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3092024 INSC 181Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 – Punishment for committing rape repeatedly for Criminal intimidation – Complainant’s case against the appellant alleging rape on false pretext of marriage; and that the appellant assured that he would marry her and take care of her daughter if she divorced her husband – However, the appellant refused to marry –Decision Date :06-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3431/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC181,2025-06-13T22:41:09.689382 ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKARversusSHARMILA DAS & OTHERS,26-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2272/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL 537 : 2024 INSC 342 Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 2272 of 2024) 26 April 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is sufficient to make out prima facie case on the basis of allegations for summoning of the accused. case was made out – Sessions Court partly allowed the revision against the order of magistrate setting aside the order to the extent of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the respondent no.1 and for the offence punishable under section 420 read Decision Date : 26-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2272/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKARversusSHARMILA DAS & OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5372024 INSC 342Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL537 : 2024 INSC 342 Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das & Others (Criminal Appeal No. 2272 of 2024) 26 April 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is sufficient to make out prima facie case on the basis of allegations for summoning of the accused. case was made out – Sessions Court partly allowed the revision against the order of magistrate setting aside the order to the extent of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the respondent no.1 and for the offence punishable under section 420 readDecision Date :26-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2272/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC342,2025-06-13T22:42:44.502042 NENAVATH BUJJI ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.,21-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1738/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating lot of fear and panic in the minds Headnotes Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Decision Date : 21-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1738/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NENAVATH BUJJI ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 11812024 INSC 239Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration High Court, if erred in affirming the order of preventive detention passed by the Detaining Authority against the detenu and his associates for committing offence of gold chain snatching creating lot of fear and panic in the minds Headnotes Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of BootLeggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled CommoditiesDecision Date :21-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1738/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC239,2025-06-13T22:48:26.134697 M/S DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.versusM/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD. & ANR.,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 353/2008,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors, if would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of s. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; in the of the car, the National Commission, if justified in awarded the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car; and National Commission, if justified in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5 Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 353/2008 | Direction Issue : C.A. No. 353/2008 partly allowed. C.A. No. 19536 and 19537/2017 and C.A. No. 2633/2018 dismissed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.versusM/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 4162024 INSC 496Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors, if would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of s. 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; in the of the car, the National Commission, if justified in awarded the compensation by directing the appellants to refund the purchase price-Rs. 58 lakhs approx. to the complainant, and take back the car; and National Commission, if justified in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5Decision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 353/2008| Direction Issue :C.A. No. 353/2008 partly allowed. C.A. No. 19536 and 19537/2017 and C.A. No. 2633/2018 dismissed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC496,2025-06-13T22:49:47.372080 DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANRversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.,19-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1007/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Parties levelled counter-allegations against each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings Parties made allegations against each other of taking money for providing a job – Respondent no.6 filed FIR against the appellant – High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings – Correctness: Held: In the complaint made by Decision Date : 19-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1007/2024 | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANRversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3642024 INSC 117Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Parties levelled counter-allegations against each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings Parties made allegations against each other of taking money for providing a job – Respondent no.6 filed FIR against the appellant – High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings – Correctness: Held: In the complaint made byDecision Date :19-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1007/2024| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC117,2025-06-13T22:43:17.613969 "IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES VERSUSversus",20-08-2024,SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2/2024,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES VERSUS versus - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 10472024 INSC 613 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration R.G. Kar Hospital trainee doctor alleged rape and murder case. Lack of institutional safety standards in health care establishments; systemic issues for healthcare across directions issued for formation of a National Task Force. Headnotes† R.G. Kar trainee doctor murder and alleged rape case – Lack of institutional safety norms for medical professionals (doctors, medical students undergoing compulsory rotating medical internship (CRMI) in the MBBS Decision Date : 20-08-2024 | Case No : SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2/2024 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES VERSUSversus-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 10472024 INSC 613Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration R.G. Kar Hospital trainee doctor alleged rape and murder case. Lack of institutional safety standards in health care establishments; systemic issues for healthcare across directions issued for formation of a National Task Force. Headnotes† R.G. Kar trainee doctor murder and alleged rape case – Lack of institutional safety norms for medical professionals (doctors, medical students undergoing compulsory rotating medical internship (CRMI) in the MBBSDecision Date :20-08-2024| Case No :SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2/2024| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC613,2025-06-13T22:45:50.915986 UNION OF INDIAversusPRANAV SRINIVASAN,18-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5932/2023,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts.5, 6, 7, 8 – Citizenship Act, 1955 – ss.5, 8 – Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Respondent’s grandparents were born in India, father in 1963 and mother in 1972 – On 19.12.1998, his parents adopted citizenship of Singapore – Respondent was born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore – On 05.05.2017, respondent sought for resumption of his Indian citizenship, however, he was found ineligible Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5932/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIAversusPRANAV SRINIVASAN-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7362024 INSC 792Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The issue involved in the instant cases concerns the grant of Indian citizenship to the respondent. Headnotes Constitution of India – Arts.5, 6, 7, 8 – Citizenship Act, 1955 – ss.5, 8 – Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Respondent’s grandparents were born in India, father in 1963 and mother in 1972 – On 19.12.1998, his parents adopted citizenship of Singapore – Respondent was born on 01.03.1999 in Singapore – On 05.05.2017, respondent sought for resumption of his Indian citizenship, however, he was found ineligibleDecision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5932/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC792,2025-06-13T22:49:03.154197 MARY PUSHPAMversusTELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.,03-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9941/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts. Headnotes Judicial Discipline – Rule and importance of: Held: Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ promotes decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions – When a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9941/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MARY PUSHPAMversusTELVI CURUSUMARY & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 112024 INSC 8Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration As regards the principles of judicial discipline, if the lower or subordinate Courts could contradict the decisions of higher courts. Headnotes Judicial Discipline – Rule and importance of: Held: Rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ promotes decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions – When a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take aDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9941/2016| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC8,2025-06-13T22:48:21.302831 M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,23-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1659/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered u/s.120-B r/w. ss.409/420 ss.13(1)(d)/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants before this Court are M/s Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited (KECML) arrayed as accused No. 12 in the chargesheet and Chairman and Managing Director of Emta Coal Limited and former Managing Director of accused No. 12, Decision Date : 23-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1659/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 11462024 INSC 623Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered u/s.120-B r/w. ss.409/420 ss.13(1)(d)/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants before this Court are M/s Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited (KECML) arrayed as accused No. 12 in the chargesheet and Chairman and Managing Director of Emta Coal Limited and former Managing Director of accused No. 12,Decision Date :23-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1659/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC623,2025-06-13T22:45:13.960430 DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,06-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2809/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the possession as offered by Agra Development Authority on 04.12.2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not. Absence if vitiated the offer of possession made by the ADA. Headnotes† Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 – s.4(5) – RERA Act, 2016 – s.19(10) – Offer of possession Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2809/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 972024 INSC 667Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the possession as offered by Agra Development Authority on 04.12.2014 should be taken as a valid offer of possession even if there was no completion certificate and whether the firefighting clearance certificate was available with the ADA or not. Absence if vitiated the offer of possession made by the ADA. Headnotes† Consumer Protection – Deficiency in service – UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 – s.4(5) – RERA Act, 2016 – s.19(10) – Offer of possessionDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2809/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC667,2025-06-13T22:44:46.798144 "GULSHAN BAJWAversusREGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.",30-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 577/2007,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. GULSHAN BAJWA versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11512024 INSC 74 VIKRAM NATH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration High Court exercising suo motu contempt jurisdiction against the appellant for repeatedly disobeying the orders of the court, and for casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters, and thereafter, holding him guilty of criminal contempt calls for interference Headnotes Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant-practising advocate and former army personnel threatened lady counsel appearing for the opposite side after seeking adjournment in the matter, repeatedly disobeyed orders, repeatedly failed to appear before the court Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 577/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GULSHAN BAJWAversusREGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11512024 INSC 74Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration High Court exercising suo motu contempt jurisdiction against the appellant for repeatedly disobeying the orders of the court, and for casting aspersions and threatening the Judges hearing the matters, and thereafter, holding him guilty of criminal contempt calls for interference Headnotes Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant-practising advocate and former army personnel threatened lady counsel appearing for the opposite side after seeking adjournment in the matter, repeatedly disobeyed orders, repeatedly failed to appear before the courtDecision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 577/2007| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC74,2025-06-13T22:47:02.538743 KHURSHEED & ANR.versusSHAQOOR,10-09-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 26454/2019,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KHURSHEED & ANR. versus SHAQOOR - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 9632024 INSC 764 SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether by virtue of s.5(2)(a) upon publication of Notification u/s.4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, any pending civil suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by fraud and impersonation, stands abated and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such in terms of s.49 of Consolidation Act. Headnotes† U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 – s.5(2)(a) and s.49 – Respondent herein filed a civil suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed before the Civil Judge – Petitioner No.2 herein filed an application stating that suit Decision Date : 10-09-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 26454/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KHURSHEED & ANR.versusSHAQOOR-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 9632024 INSC 764Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether by virtue of s.5(2)(a) upon publication of Notification u/s.4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, any pending civil suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by fraud and impersonation, stands abated and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such in terms of s.49 of Consolidation Act. Headnotes† U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 – s.5(2)(a) and s.49 – Respondent herein filed a civil suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed before the Civil Judge – Petitioner No.2 herein filed an application stating that suitDecision Date :10-09-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 26454/2019| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC764,2025-06-13T22:44:14.470792 SHOMA KANTI SENversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.,05-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2595/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The appellant was detained on 06.06.2018. The appellant assails the order of a Division Bench of the High Court passed on 17.01.2023, disposing her application for bail with liberty to approach the Trial Court for filing a fresh application for bail. The that whether the offences under Part IV & VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleged to have been committed by the appellant, are prima facie true or not. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 153A, 505 (1b), 117 r/w. s.34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2595/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHOMA KANTI SENversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 2702024 INSC 269Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The appellant was detained on 06.06.2018. The appellant assails the order of a Division Bench of the High Court passed on 17.01.2023, disposing her application for bail with liberty to approach the Trial Court for filing a fresh application for bail. The that whether the offences under Part IV & VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleged to have been committed by the appellant, are prima facie true or not. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 153A, 505 (1b), 117 r/w. s.34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Decision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2595/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC269,2025-06-13T22:47:00.961811 NIPUN MALHOTRAversusSONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.,08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7230/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA 246 : 2024 INSC 465 Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI and J B Pardiwala, J.] Issue for Consideration The appellant is a person with arthrogryposis and is aggrieved by the manner Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the composition of the Board and the Advisory panel under the Cinematograph Act and recommendations to beep certain parts of the present film as well.The issues arises for consideration include the impact of the provisions of RPwD Act 2016 on the Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7230/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NIPUN MALHOTRAversusSONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2462024 INSC 465Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA246 : 2024 INSC 465 Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2024) 08 July 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI and J B Pardiwala, J.] Issue for Consideration The appellant is a person with arthrogryposis and is aggrieved by the manner Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the composition of the Board and the Advisory panel under the Cinematograph Act and recommendations to beep certain parts of the present film as well.The issues arises for consideration include the impact of the provisions of RPwD Act 2016 on theDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7230/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC465,2025-06-13T22:51:13.127324 P. SASIKUMARversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302/34 as well as u/ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC, in absence of test identification parade, where accused is a stranger to a witness and the trial court accepted the dock identification by Headnotes† Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance – Non- conduct of Test Identification Parade-TIP, effect on prosecution case – On facts, in a brutal murder of a teenager girl allegedly by the main accused and co-accused, conviction and sentence u/s. Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.P. SASIKUMARversusTHE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 872024 INSC 474Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302/34 as well as u/ss. 449, 404 and 201 r/w 302 IPC, in absence of test identification parade, where accused is a stranger to a witness and the trial court accepted the dock identification by Headnotes† Evidence – Test identification parade – Relevance – Non- conduct of Test Identification Parade-TIP, effect on prosecution case – On facts, in a brutal murder of a teenager girl allegedly by the main accused and co-accused, conviction and sentence u/s.Decision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1473/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC474,2025-06-13T22:51:11.967535 NAVAS @ MULANAVASversusSTATE OF KERALA,18-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1215/2011,Case Partly allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable u/ ss.302, 449, 309, IPC and sentenced accordingly. For the offence punishable u/s.302, IPC, he was sentenced to death. High Court confirmed the conviction, however the sentence of death was modified and for life with a direction that he shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 years including the period already undergone with set off u/s.428, Cr.P.C. alone. What should be the appropriate sentence and whether the High Court was justified in adopting the Swamy Shraddananda v. Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1215/2011 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NAVAS @ MULANAVASversusSTATE OF KERALA-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 9132024 INSC 215Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable u/ ss.302, 449, 309, IPC and sentenced accordingly. For the offence punishable u/s.302, IPC, he was sentenced to death. High Court confirmed the conviction, however the sentence of death was modified and for life with a direction that he shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 years including the period already undergone with set off u/s.428, Cr.P.C. alone. What should be the appropriate sentence and whether the High Court was justified in adopting the Swamy Shraddananda v.Decision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1215/2011| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC215,2025-06-13T22:49:58.311024 ATAMJIT SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.,22-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 516/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,"Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ATAMJIT SINGHversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11792024 INSC 84Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning Respondent No. 2 in relation to commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the premise that as on the date of the issuance of the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of interference by the High Court in proceedings u/s.138 of the NI Act qua allegedly time barredDecision Date :22-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 516/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC84,2025-06-13T22:47:34.398577 RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI,06-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 7672024 INSC 211 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration 1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to statement made u/s. 27 Evidence Act can be admissible, when known to all and not exclusively within knowledge of maker. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 106, 27 – Appellant’s wife found dead with throat slit – Appellant convicted by trial court Decision Date : 06-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAVINDER KUMARversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 7672024 INSC 211Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration 1) Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused; 2) Whether burden of proof u/s. 106 Evidence Act can be on accused before the prosecution proves its case; 3) Whether recovery pursuant to statement made u/s. 27 Evidence Act can be admissible, when known to all and not exclusively within knowledge of maker. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 106, 27 – Appellant’s wife found dead with throat slit – Appellant convicted by trial courtDecision Date :06-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC211,2025-06-13T22:40:54.013568 JYOTI DEVIversusSUKET HOSPITAL & ORS.,23-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5256/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Post surgery of appendicitis at respondent hospital, the claimant- appellant suffered continuous pains near the surgical site. Eventually upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm needle was present in the abdomen and for removing it another surgery had to be Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant. However, State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakhs. NCDRC applying the eggshell skull rule enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs. Appellant sought enhancement of compensation. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Medical Decision Date : 23-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5256/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JYOTI DEVIversusSUKET HOSPITAL & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 7572024 INSC 330Coram : SANJAY KAROL*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Post surgery of appendicitis at respondent hospital, the claimant- appellant suffered continuous pains near the surgical site. Eventually upon investigation, it was found that a 2.5 cm needle was present in the abdomen and for removing it another surgery had to be Rs.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant. However, State Commission reduced the compensation to Rs.1 lakhs. NCDRC applying the eggshell skull rule enhanced the compensation to Rs.2 lakhs. Appellant sought enhancement of compensation. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – MedicalDecision Date :23-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5256/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC330,2025-06-13T22:43:17.778776 RABBU @ SARVESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,12-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty u/ss. 376A and 302 IPC and of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 450 of the IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s. 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.5(g)/6 – Appellant contended that the instant case Decision Date : 12-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RABBU @ SARVESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 372024 INSC 720Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty u/ss. 376A and 302 IPC and of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 450 of the IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s. 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.5(g)/6 – Appellant contended that the instant caseDecision Date :12-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 449/2019| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC720,2025-06-13T22:43:55.279187 LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM & OTHERSversusKOHLI BROTHERS COLOUR LAB. PVT. LTD. & OTHERS,22-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2878/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration 1) Whether statutory vesting of property termed as enemy property under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 amounts to expropriation which leads to change of its status inasmuch as its ownership is transferred to the Union is a transfer of ownership by its statutory vesting in the Custodian for Enemy Property, whether the Union within the meaning of Article 285 of the Constitution would be entitled to exemption from payment of property or other local taxes to Municipal Corporation under provisions of the UP Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2878/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM & OTHERSversusKOHLI BROTHERS COLOUR LAB. PVT. LTD. & OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 8472024 INSC 135Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration 1) Whether statutory vesting of property termed as enemy property under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 amounts to expropriation which leads to change of its status inasmuch as its ownership is transferred to the Union is a transfer of ownership by its statutory vesting in the Custodian for Enemy Property, whether the Union within the meaning of Article 285 of the Constitution would be entitled to exemption from payment of property or other local taxes to Municipal Corporation under provisions of the UPDecision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2878/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC135,2025-06-13T22:41:45.634608 THE STATE OF MEGHALAYAversusLALRINTLUANGA SAILO & ANR.,16-07-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 16021/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 MEGHALAYA versus LALRINTLUANGA SAILO & ANR. - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 13142024 INSC 537 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to the mandate under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act, and without taking in view the quantity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Recording a finding mandated u/s.37 is sine qua non for granting bail to accused under the Act – High Court erred in granting bail to accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to Decision Date : 16-07-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 16021/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 MEGHALAYAversusLALRINTLUANGA SAILO & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 13142024 INSC 537Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to the mandate under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act, and without taking in view the quantity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Recording a finding mandated u/s.37 is sine qua non for granting bail to accused under the Act – High Court erred in granting bail to accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting toDecision Date :16-07-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 16021/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC537,2025-06-13T22:48:41.710563 ASHOKversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,02-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 771/2024,Case Allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 302, 201 IPC as also SC and ST Act 1989; and as regards the role of the Public Prosecutor and appointment of legal – ss.376, 302, 201 – Rape and murder – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape and murder of a ten year old girl – Victim’s cousin-witness to the incident, and narrated the same to the victim’s father – Dead body found hidden at the place of Decision Date : 02-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 771/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASHOKversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3352024 INSC 919Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 302, 201 IPC as also SC and ST Act 1989; and as regards the role of the Public Prosecutor and appointment of legal – ss.376, 302, 201 – Rape and murder – Prosecution case that appellant committed rape and murder of a ten year old girl – Victim’s cousin-witness to the incident, and narrated the same to the victim’s father – Dead body found hidden at the place ofDecision Date :02-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 771/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC919,2025-06-13T22:47:39.989560 SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PVT. LIMITEDversusMAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,05-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3856/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PVT. LIMITED versus MAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 4542024 INSC 201 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in setting aside the arbitral award and holding that Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (MSSIDCL) cannot be said to be a buyer within the meaning of Interest on Delayed Payments Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 and therefore, the appellant (SSPL) was not entitled to claim interest under the 1993 Act against MSSIDCL; whether the proviso to s.3, 1993 Act would be applicable to the agreement in question entered into between the parties on 30.03.1995, albeit the Decision Date : 05-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3856/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SNEHADEEP STRUCTURES PVT. LIMITEDversusMAHARASHTRA SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4542024 INSC 201Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in setting aside the arbitral award and holding that Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (MSSIDCL) cannot be said to be a buyer within the meaning of Interest on Delayed Payments Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 and therefore, the appellant (SSPL) was not entitled to claim interest under the 1993 Act against MSSIDCL; whether the proviso to s.3, 1993 Act would be applicable to the agreement in question entered into between the parties on 30.03.1995, albeit theDecision Date :05-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3856/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC201,2025-06-13T22:41:18.752373 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONversusD.D.A. & ANR.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2230/2012,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the power of general superintendence direction, and management of the Central Information Commission’s affairs under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act 2005, includes the authority to constitute benches of the CIC and frame Regulations for the of work within the Commission, including the issuance of orders and the formation of committees. Headnotes† Right to Information Act, 2005 – Constitution and Powers of the CIC – Section 12 of the RTI Act: Held: Section 12 of the RTI Act outlines the constitution and powers Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2230/2012 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONversusD.D.A. & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6172024 INSC 513Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the power of general superintendence direction, and management of the Central Information Commission’s affairs under Section 12(4) of the Right to Information Act 2005, includes the authority to constitute benches of the CIC and frame Regulations for the of work within the Commission, including the issuance of orders and the formation of committees. Headnotes† Right to Information Act, 2005 – Constitution and Powers of the CIC – Section 12 of the RTI Act: Held: Section 12 of the RTI Act outlines the constitution and powersDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2230/2012| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC513,2025-06-13T22:49:28.602936 SWATI PRIYADARSHINIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,22-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9758/2024,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration An Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Respondent No.4 deciding not to extend the contract of the appellant as Assistant Project Coordinator from 31.03.2013 on the ground of dereliction of duty, as the work/performance of the appellant was found to Service on contract basis – Non-extension of contract – Appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on contract basis – By an order dated 30.03.2013, the respondent no.4 decided not to Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9758/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SWATI PRIYADARSHINIversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9012024 INSC 620Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration An Order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Respondent No.4 deciding not to extend the contract of the appellant as Assistant Project Coordinator from 31.03.2013 on the ground of dereliction of duty, as the work/performance of the appellant was found to Service on contract basis – Non-extension of contract – Appellant was appointed by the Respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Project Coordinator (APC) under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on contract basis – By an order dated 30.03.2013, the respondent no.4 decided not toDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9758/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC620,2025-06-13T22:45:32.729194 THE STATE OF WEST BENGALversusJAYEETA DAS,18-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to the case suffer from any illegality or infirmity; whether the extension of remand by the Chief the period of 90 days was illegal. Headnotes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – FIR registered u/ss. 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of IPC – I.O. filed an application for addition of charges u/ss. 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 WEST BENGALversusJAYEETA DAS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 6402024 INSC 313Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 to the case suffer from any illegality or infirmity; whether the extension of remand by the Chief the period of 90 days was illegal. Headnotes Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – FIR registered u/ss. 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of IPC – I.O. filed an application for addition of charges u/ss. 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPADecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2128/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC313,2025-06-13T22:44:08.275215 ELFIT ARABIA & ANR.versusCONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS.,09-07-2024,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 15/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ELFIT ARABIA & ANR. versus CONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS. - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 12302024 INSC 536 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether claims of the petitioner in the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were barred by limitation. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Claims of Petitioners, if barred by limitation – Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 11(6) may reject ex-facie non-arbitrable or dead claims – Duty of the court to protect the parties from being compelled to arbitrate when the claim is demonstrably barred by limitation: Held: Whether a Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 15/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ELFIT ARABIA & ANR.versusCONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 12302024 INSC 536Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether claims of the petitioner in the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were barred by limitation. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Claims of Petitioners, if barred by limitation – Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 11(6) may reject ex-facie non-arbitrable or dead claims – Duty of the court to protect the parties from being compelled to arbitrate when the claim is demonstrably barred by limitation: Held: Whether aDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :ARBITRATION PETITION No. 15/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC536,2025-06-13T22:49:48.708779 ANANTDEEP SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.,06-09-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 267/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant seeking direction to reinstate him into service as civil judge with all the consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 Court in C.A.No. 3082 of 2022. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Matrimonial discord between appellant and his wife – Allegations against the appellant of having an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer – The Full Court of the High Court accepted the report of Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 267/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ANANTDEEP SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1352024 INSC 673Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Miscellaneous application is filed by the appellant seeking direction to reinstate him into service as civil judge with all the consequential benefits in view of the order dated 20.04.2022 Court in C.A.No. 3082 of 2022. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Matrimonial discord between appellant and his wife – Allegations against the appellant of having an illicit relationship with a lady judicial officer – The Full Court of the High Court accepted the report ofDecision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 267/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC673,2025-06-13T22:44:43.661424 IN RE: ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 17.07.2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUESversus,07-08-2024,SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8/2024,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY Issue for Consideration Whether gratuitous observations passed by a Judge of a High Court regarding previous orders of the Supreme Court, undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and should therefore Suo moto proceedings initiated by Supreme Court – Observations made in an order by Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the Supreme Court found to be a matter of grave concern – Totally unnecessary for the ultimate order passed – Gratuitous observations on Decision Date : 07-08-2024 | Case No : SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 17.07.2024 AND ANCILLARY ISSUESversus-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9492024 INSC 594Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROYIssue for Consideration Whether gratuitous observations passed by a Judge of a High Court regarding previous orders of the Supreme Court, undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and should therefore Suo moto proceedings initiated by Supreme Court – Observations made in an order by Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the Supreme Court found to be a matter of grave concern – Totally unnecessary for the ultimate order passed – Gratuitous observations onDecision Date :07-08-2024| Case No :SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC594,2025-06-13T22:47:28.728483 S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C,10-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3989/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Respondent sought refund of the entire maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant (wife of respondent). Headnotes† Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – s.25 – Respondent filed an application u/s. 25 of the Act and sought setting by which his appellant-wife was granted Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation – Respondent also sought return of the maintenance amount paid on the ground of fraud: Held: The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the Act Decision Date : 10-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3989/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.S. VIJIKUMARIversusMOWNESHWARACHARI C-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 452024 INSC 732Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Respondent sought refund of the entire maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant (wife of respondent). Headnotes† Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – s.25 – Respondent filed an application u/s. 25 of the Act and sought setting by which his appellant-wife was granted Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation – Respondent also sought return of the maintenance amount paid on the ground of fraud: Held: The Magistrate while exercising his discretion under Section 25(2) of the ActDecision Date :10-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3989/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC732,2025-06-13T22:44:02.416141 N. MANOGAR & ANR.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.,16-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. N. MANOGAR & ANR. versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 6852024 INSC 130 VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court whereunder, the trial court rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s. 216/319 CrPC seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants as accused persons case u/ss. 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 216/319 – Discretionary powers under – Exercise of, by the High Court – Application by the complainant u/s. 216/319 seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants Decision Date : 16-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.N. MANOGAR & ANR.versusTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6852024 INSC 130Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court whereunder, the trial court rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s. 216/319 CrPC seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants as accused persons case u/ss. 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 216/319 – Discretionary powers under – Exercise of, by the High Court – Application by the complainant u/s. 216/319 seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellantsDecision Date :16-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC130,2025-06-13T22:43:21.406195 THE STATE OF HARYANAversusASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.,11-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3959/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which approved the decision of Accepting Authority altering the Personal Appraisal Report score under All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Secretary, State of Haryana challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh branch, Chandigarh the decision of the Accepting Authority, Chief Minister of Haryana downgrading his Performance Appraisal Report (the “PAR”) score - No provision in the PAR Rules Decision Date : 11-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3959/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 HARYANAversusASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 3932024 INSC 190Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which approved the decision of Accepting Authority altering the Personal Appraisal Report score under All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Secretary, State of Haryana challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh branch, Chandigarh the decision of the Accepting Authority, Chief Minister of Haryana downgrading his Performance Appraisal Report (the “PAR”) score - No provision in the PAR RulesDecision Date :11-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3959/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC190,2025-06-13T22:40:21.394616 VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR.versusRAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.,13-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3854/2014,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR. versus RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3262024 INSC 109 HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 1947, when a mother ‘T’ transferred property by executing First Settlement Deed in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The issues arise for consideration are (i) Whether G’s suit for declaration based on the First Settlement Deed, eventually filed in the year 1993 barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter was Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3854/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR.versusRAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3262024 INSC 109Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The action that set in motion the instant dispute was in the year 1947, when a mother ‘T’ transferred property by executing First Settlement Deed in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter. Some forty-odd years later, the filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993. The issues arise for consideration are (i) Whether G’s suit for declaration based on the First Settlement Deed, eventually filed in the year 1993 barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the suit for declaration simpliciter wasDecision Date :13-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3854/2014| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC109,2025-06-13T22:45:27.967942 ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,09-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2221/2023,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered in respect of alleged illegal excavation against the accused. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence – Registration of FIR in respect of alleged illegal excavation and theft of Coal in leasehold areas of Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2221/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ABHISHEK BANERJEE & ANR.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1102024 INSC 668Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to seeking quashing of the summons issued to the appellants by the Enforcement Directorate, seeking their personal appearance in New Delhi with the documents sought for, pertaining to the FIR registered in respect of alleged illegal excavation against the accused. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s. 50 – Power of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence – Registration of FIR in respect of alleged illegal excavation and theft of Coal in leasehold areas ofDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2221/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC668,2025-06-13T22:44:15.808055 M/S NEW WIN EXPORT & ANR.versusA. SUBRAMANIAM,11-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2948/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 NEW WIN EXPORT & ANR. versus A. SUBRAMANIAM - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 12252024 INSC 535 SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether in the instant case, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed by the Supreme Court as the parties had settled the dispute among themselves by entering into a settlement agreement. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Offence under – Compounding of – Settlement treated to be compounding of the offence: Held: Appellants and respondent-complainant had entered into a settlement agreement dated 27.01.2024 – It is clear that the parties have settled the dispute among themselves – As Decision Date : 11-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2948/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 NEW WIN EXPORT & ANR.versusA. SUBRAMANIAM-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 12252024 INSC 535Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether in the instant case, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed by the Supreme Court as the parties had settled the dispute among themselves by entering into a settlement agreement. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Offence under – Compounding of – Settlement treated to be compounding of the offence: Held: Appellants and respondent-complainant had entered into a settlement agreement dated 27.01.2024 – It is clear that the parties have settled the dispute among themselves – AsDecision Date :11-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2948/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC535,2025-06-13T22:49:02.151042 RAJIVE RATURIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,08-11-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 243/2005,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however, in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for University of Law was appointed to assess the situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40 Decision Date : 08-11-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 243/2005 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAJIVE RATURIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 9702024 INSC 858Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Writ Petition sought directions to ensure meaningful access to public spaces for persons with disabilities (PWDs). Directions were issued by this Court to the States and Union Territories however, in view of slow progress in compliance, the Centre for University of Law was appointed to assess the situation on the ground and recommend steps to ensure compliance with accessibility standards for PWDs. Submissions filed by the petitioner; report submitted by NALSAR-CDS. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – s.40Decision Date :08-11-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 243/2005| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC858,2025-06-13T22:47:59.319284 M/S. K.P. MOZIKAversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS,09-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3548/2017,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. K.P. MOZIKA versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4882024 INSC 27 ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration In a group of appeals, the assessee have, under a contract, agreed to provide different categories of motor vehicles, such as trucks, trailers, tankers, buses, scrapping winch chassis, and cranes, to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). In the Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) has entered into agreements with transporters to provide tank trucks to deliver its petroleum products. Whether, by hiring the motor vehicles/ cranes, there is a transfer of the right to use any goods. If there is a transfer of the right to use the goods, it Decision Date : 09-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3548/2017 | Direction Issue : : Appeal preferred by assesses, allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. K.P. MOZIKAversusOIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4882024 INSC 27Coram : ABHAY S. OKA, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration In a group of appeals, the assessee have, under a contract, agreed to provide different categories of motor vehicles, such as trucks, trailers, tankers, buses, scrapping winch chassis, and cranes, to the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). In the Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) has entered into agreements with transporters to provide tank trucks to deliver its petroleum products. Whether, by hiring the motor vehicles/ cranes, there is a transfer of the right to use any goods. If there is a transfer of the right to use the goods, itDecision Date :09-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3548/2017| Direction Issue :: Appeal preferred by assesses, allowed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC27,2025-06-13T22:48:02.564599 PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNIversusMAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,29-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1982/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,"Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PRIYANKA PRAKASH KULKARNIversusMAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12232024 INSC 98Issue for Consideration Appellant was not able to take benefit of female reservation on account of her inability to produce a valid Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate on the last date of submission of the application form. Later, a corrigendum enabled candidates to submit an the current financial year. However, the High Court held that since the petitioner had applied from Open General Category because she did not hold the NCL certificate, her prayer for change of category cannot be accepted. Headnotes Service Law – Female Reservation – Non-Creamy LayerDecision Date :29-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1982/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC98,2025-06-13T22:47:12.475149 NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS,04-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2741/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration The question that arises for consideration is that how far the High Court was justified in completely overturning the findings of Scrutiny Committee (validating the caste certificate of the appellant), in exercise 226 of the Constitution of India by reappraisal of the entire evidence on record. Headnotes Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Decision Date : 04-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2741/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NAVNEET KAUR HARBHAJANSING KUNDLES @ NAVNEET KAUR RAVI RANAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 1212024 INSC 266Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration The question that arises for consideration is that how far the High Court was justified in completely overturning the findings of Scrutiny Committee (validating the caste certificate of the appellant), in exercise 226 of the Constitution of India by reappraisal of the entire evidence on record. Headnotes Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteDecision Date :04-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2741/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC266,2025-06-13T22:47:29.462501 SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRSversusSHYAM LAL CHAUHAN & ORS.,30-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5569/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRS versus SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN & ORS. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 4622024 INSC 352 A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, while substituting Respondent No.6 as the appellant in the Second Appeal, has followed the correct procedure prescribed under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXII Rule 5 – Substitution gives the right to the substituted legal representatives to contest the claim of the deceased. Held: The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case – The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person so Decision Date : 30-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5569/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRSversusSHYAM LAL CHAUHAN & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4622024 INSC 352Coram : A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court, while substituting Respondent No.6 as the appellant in the Second Appeal, has followed the correct procedure prescribed under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure – Order XXII Rule 5 – Substitution gives the right to the substituted legal representatives to contest the claim of the deceased. Held: The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case – The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person soDecision Date :30-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5569/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC352,2025-06-13T22:42:21.945258 "VISHWANATHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT",08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE 50 : 2024 INSC 482 Vishwanatha v. The State of Karnataka by the Secretary, Home Department (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2012) 08 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale,JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court reversing the order of acquittal found the appellant along with co-accused it was the accused persons who were responsible for the death of PW-1 and PW-3’s mother. Headnotes† Evidence – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of – When fatal – As per the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused (now deceased) broke into the Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VISHWANATHAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 502024 INSC 482Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE50 : 2024 INSC 482 Vishwanatha v. The State of Karnataka by the Secretary, Home Department (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2012) 08 July 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale,JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court reversing the order of acquittal found the appellant along with co-accused it was the accused persons who were responsible for the death of PW-1 and PW-3’s mother. Headnotes† Evidence – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of – When fatal – As per the prosecution, the appellant and the co-accused (now deceased) broke into theDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 129/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC482,2025-06-13T22:51:07.043767 "MAHAKALI SUJATHAversusTHE BRANCH MANAGER, FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER",10-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3821/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the insured-deceased, who is also the nominee under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The controversy in to the factum of repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground of the material suppression of information regarding the previous policies allegedly held by the insured-deceased, while taking the life insurance policy from the respondent insurance company. Whether, the Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3821/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHAKALI SUJATHAversusTHE BRANCH MANAGER, FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 7242024 INSC 296Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The present civil appeal has been filed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the insured-deceased, who is also the nominee under the subject life insurance policies of her late father. The controversy in to the factum of repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground of the material suppression of information regarding the previous policies allegedly held by the insured-deceased, while taking the life insurance policy from the respondent insurance company. Whether, theDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3821/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC296,2025-06-13T22:44:53.108187 A.S. PHARMA PVT. LTD.versusNAYATI MEDICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.,23-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. A.S. PHARMA PVT. LTD. versus NAYATI MEDICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS. - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 14762024 INSC 690 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, 1881 to compound the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite the non-consent of the Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 147 – Scope – Trial Court dismissed the application for compounding the offence u/s.138, N.I. Act filed u/s.320 Cr.P.C. – High Court despite the absence of the consent of the Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.A.S. PHARMA PVT. LTD.versusNAYATI MEDICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14762024 INSC 690Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, 1881 to compound the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite the non-consent of the Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 147 – Scope – Trial Court dismissed the application for compounding the offence u/s.138, N.I. Act filed u/s.320 Cr.P.C. – High Court despite the absence of the consent of theDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3051/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC690,2025-06-13T22:48:10.550047 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.,18-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6884/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose that when there is an agreement based on ex-parte decree, and the ex-parte decree having been set aside, parties if could rely upon the agreement. Headnotes Suit – Ex-parte decree – Agreement based on ex-parte decree – Ex-parte decree parties if could rely upon the agreement – Suit property owned by the State, however, defendant No.1 perfected his rights by adverse possession and transferred all his rights in favour of the plaintiff as also handed over possession – Defendant No.1 allegedly likely to transfer the Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6884/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 MADHYA PRADESHversusSATISH JAIN (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5982024 INSC 315Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose that when there is an agreement based on ex-parte decree, and the ex-parte decree having been set aside, parties if could rely upon the agreement. Headnotes Suit – Ex-parte decree – Agreement based on ex-parte decree – Ex-parte decree parties if could rely upon the agreement – Suit property owned by the State, however, defendant No.1 perfected his rights by adverse possession and transferred all his rights in favour of the plaintiff as also handed over possession – Defendant No.1 allegedly likely to transfer theDecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6884/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC315,2025-06-13T22:44:14.359113 MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.,14-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Applicability of the Rule of Stepping up of pay of a Government employee on the basis of the pay of his junior. Headnotes† Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 – Rule 21 – Stepping up of pay – Assistant Professors in Government Colleges in Rule of stepping up shall apply only if the anomaly is the direct result of the application of Rule 21 and only if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled – One of the condition stipulates that if even in the lower post, the junior Government employee draws a higher rate of pay Decision Date : 14-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL PATEL & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4722024 INSC 608Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Applicability of the Rule of Stepping up of pay of a Government employee on the basis of the pay of his junior. Headnotes† Gujarat Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2002 – Rule 21 – Stepping up of pay – Assistant Professors in Government Colleges in Rule of stepping up shall apply only if the anomaly is the direct result of the application of Rule 21 and only if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled – One of the condition stipulates that if even in the lower post, the junior Government employee draws a higher rate of payDecision Date :14-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9059/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC608,2025-06-13T22:46:03.703841 "SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGIversusSUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS",25-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5323/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950 Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust, can be condoned. Further, consequence of beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act. Headnotes Appellant was registered as a Public Trust u/s. 18 of the 1950 Act – Mode of succession of managership was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust and the eldest male member of his Decision Date : 25-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5323/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGIversusSUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 622024 INSC 339Coram : A.S. BOPANNA*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950 Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust, can be condoned. Further, consequence of beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act. Headnotes Appellant was registered as a Public Trust u/s. 18 of the 1950 Act – Mode of succession of managership was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust and the eldest male member of hisDecision Date :25-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5323/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC339,2025-06-13T22:43:14.329332 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusNATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,05-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8821/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the notice sent to the Registrar in Form No.5 is an “instrument” as defined u/s.2(l), Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; whether the maximum cap on stamp duty is applicable every time there is an increase in the share capital or is it a 1958 – s.2(l), Article 10 of Schedule-I – “instrument” – Companies Act, 1956 – ss.97, 31(2) – Articles of Association, an instrument within the meaning of s.2(l), Stamp Act and mentioned in Article 10 of Schedule-I, where stamp duty is to be charged on Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8821/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusNATIONAL ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3402024 INSC 270Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the notice sent to the Registrar in Form No.5 is an “instrument” as defined u/s.2(l), Bombay Stamp Act, 1958; whether the maximum cap on stamp duty is applicable every time there is an increase in the share capital or is it a 1958 – s.2(l), Article 10 of Schedule-I – “instrument” – Companies Act, 1956 – ss.97, 31(2) – Articles of Association, an instrument within the meaning of s.2(l), Stamp Act and mentioned in Article 10 of Schedule-I, where stamp duty is to be charged onDecision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8821/2011| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC270,2025-06-13T22:46:44.294914 DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNUversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,22-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 960/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Concurrent conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, s.34 – Concurrent conviction under – If to be interferred with: Held: No – Evidence of witnesses cannot be totally discarded merely because they turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of trial – One of the panch witnesses duly supported the case of Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 960/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNUversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9292024 INSC 740Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Concurrent conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, s.34 – Concurrent conviction under – If to be interferred with: Held: No – Evidence of witnesses cannot be totally discarded merely because they turned hostile to the case of prosecution during the course of trial – One of the panch witnesses duly supported the case ofDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 960/2021| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC740,2025-06-13T22:45:36.692599 PARVINDER SINGH KHURANAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,23-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3059/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration The issue involved in these appeals concerns the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under sub-Section (2) of Section 439 of Procedure, 1973. Sub-Section (3) of Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3059/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PARVINDER SINGH KHURANAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9792024 INSC 546Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration The issue involved in these appeals concerns the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under sub-Section (2) of Section 439 of Procedure, 1973. Sub-Section (3) of Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Decision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3059/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC546,2025-06-13T22:48:12.954310 XYZversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.,05-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4463/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of settlement. Headnotes† Criminal law – Quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the – Advisable to procure presence of victim either personally or through video conferencing: Held: When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4463/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","XYZversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 7922024 INSC 869Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed on the ground of settlement. Headnotes† Criminal law – Quashing of criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the – Advisable to procure presence of victim either personally or through video conferencing: Held: When petitions are filed before the High Court by invoking either Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminalDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4463/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC869,2025-06-13T22:48:43.133191 PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHIversusKUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH,24-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 934/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI versus KUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6972024 INSC 55 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether a decree for divorce can be granted for the reason that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Headnotes Marriage – Irretrievable break down – Appellant contended that the appellant and the respondent were living apart due for the last 13 years and as there are no prospects for reconciliation, the marriage has irretrievably broken down: Held: The appellant lost his job in Canada and the family came back to India in January, 2011 – The couple last resided together in appellant’s mother’s house till Decision Date : 24-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 934/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHIversusKUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 6972024 INSC 55Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether a decree for divorce can be granted for the reason that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Headnotes Marriage – Irretrievable break down – Appellant contended that the appellant and the respondent were living apart due for the last 13 years and as there are no prospects for reconciliation, the marriage has irretrievably broken down: Held: The appellant lost his job in Canada and the family came back to India in January, 2011 – The couple last resided together in appellant’s mother’s house tillDecision Date :24-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 934/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC55,2025-06-13T22:47:19.886996 NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWALversusE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS,08-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL versus E INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1942024 INSC 94 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 is inconsistent with and beyond the rule- making power of the (Amendment) Act, 2006 – Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 – Writ petition was filed with a prayer to declare Rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules, 2007 as invalid on the ground that the said Decision Date : 08-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWALversusE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1942024 INSC 94Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 is inconsistent with and beyond the rule- making power of the (Amendment) Act, 2006 – Chartered Accountants’ (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 – Writ petition was filed with a prayer to declare Rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules, 2007 as invalid on the ground that the saidDecision Date :08-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4672/2012| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC94,2025-06-13T22:45:54.555973 SUDEEP CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.,02-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3210/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused-appellant while granting provisional pre-arrest bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused- bail: Held: Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable – Conditions should be put warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to Decision Date : 02-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3210/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUDEEP CHATTERJEEversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 6622024 INSC 567Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused-appellant while granting provisional pre-arrest bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Whether the High Court erred by putting onerous conditions on accused- bail: Held: Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable – Conditions should be put warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed toDecision Date :02-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3210/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC567,2025-06-13T22:47:47.311747 FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS.versusM/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED,26-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5366/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Suspension of legal proceedings as envisaged u/s. 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, if would extend to a suit for recovery of money even if the debt sought to be proved in the plaint has not sick industrial company and if so, whether the decree in favour of the original plaintiff could be said to be coram non-judice; and the High Court, if erred in granting 24% compound interest on the principal decretal amount in favour of the original plaintiff. Headnotes Sick Industrial Companies Decision Date : 26-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5366/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED & ORS.versusM/S COROMANDAL SACKS PRIVATE LIMITED-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 3212024 INSC 348Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Suspension of legal proceedings as envisaged u/s. 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, if would extend to a suit for recovery of money even if the debt sought to be proved in the plaint has not sick industrial company and if so, whether the decree in favour of the original plaintiff could be said to be coram non-judice; and the High Court, if erred in granting 24% compound interest on the principal decretal amount in favour of the original plaintiff. Headnotes Sick Industrial CompaniesDecision Date :26-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5366/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC348,2025-06-13T22:42:58.364081 SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH,18-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2790/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Penal Code, 1860 who had been in custody for more than nine years. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Serious charges no ground to deny bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – SS.16, 43D – Penal Code, 1860 – SS. 489B, 489C – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized from Decision Date : 18-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2790/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10542024 INSC 534Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in denying bail to the appellant, an under-trial prisoner prosecuted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Penal Code, 1860 who had been in custody for more than nine years. Headnotes† Bail – Denial – When Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to speedy trial – Serious charges no ground to deny bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – SS.16, 43D – Penal Code, 1860 – SS. 489B, 489C – Fake counterfeit Indian currency notes seized fromDecision Date :18-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2790/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC534,2025-06-13T22:48:36.157716 "IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS",13-08-2024,SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration In violation of the undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 given to this Court, the press conference on 22.11.2023 making casual public statements regarding the efficacy of particular medicines manufactured by them and making derogatory statements in respect of other systems of treatment; and also continued to issue misleading advertisements. Conduct of the proposed contemnors, Decision Date : 13-08-2024 | Case No : SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4012024 INSC 605Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration In violation of the undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 given to this Court, the press conference on 22.11.2023 making casual public statements regarding the efficacy of particular medicines manufactured by them and making derogatory statements in respect of other systems of treatment; and also continued to issue misleading advertisements. Conduct of the proposed contemnors,Decision Date :13-08-2024| Case No :SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 4/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC605,2025-06-13T22:46:19.555212 MANISH SISODIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,09-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3295/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellant was incarcerated for around 17 months, trial yet to commence. Bail denied. Whether the trial court and the High Court correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The claim of applying the triple test contemplated under Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Whether the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 45 of the PMLA. Whether the Decision Date : 09-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3295/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANISH SISODIAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 10612024 INSC 595Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellant was incarcerated for around 17 months, trial yet to commence. Bail denied. Whether the trial court and the High Court correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The claim of applying the triple test contemplated under Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Whether the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 45 of the PMLA. Whether theDecision Date :09-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3295/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC595,2025-06-13T22:46:38.222256 PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.,23-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9781/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the arbitral award in favour of the contractor as regards labour charges for uneconomical stoppage of work, interest on delayed payment, and interest, upheld by the District Judge but set aside/modified by the High Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Arbitral awards – Work contract – Claims raised by the contractor under different heads alleging delays on the part of the State, referred to the arbitrator – Arbitral award in favour of the contractor under heads-loss of Decision Date : 23-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9781/2024 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8128 of 2021 partly allowed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8129 of 2021 disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PAM DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 6152024 INSC 628Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the arbitral award in favour of the contractor as regards labour charges for uneconomical stoppage of work, interest on delayed payment, and interest, upheld by the District Judge but set aside/modified by the High Act, 1996 – ss. 34 and 37 – Arbitral awards – Work contract – Claims raised by the contractor under different heads alleging delays on the part of the State, referred to the arbitrator – Arbitral award in favour of the contractor under heads-loss ofDecision Date :23-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9781/2024| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8128 of 2021 partly allowed. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8129 of 2021 disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC628,2025-06-13T22:45:19.507358 VIKAS KANAUJIAversusSARITA,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7380/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Headnotes† Marriage – Divorce – and setting aside the decree of divorce granted by Family Court – Constitution of India – Article 142: Held: i)The Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife have lived together on their own will for hardly 43 days since marriage – The period of separation has been more than 22 Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7380/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VIKAS KANAUJIAversusSARITA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9332024 INSC 517Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Headnotes† Marriage – Divorce – and setting aside the decree of divorce granted by Family Court – Constitution of India – Article 142: Held: i)The Appellant-husband and Respondent-wife have lived together on their own will for hardly 43 days since marriage – The period of separation has been more than 22Decision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7380/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC517,2025-06-13T22:49:35.367147 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ORS.versusVIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7414/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Validity of forfeiture by forest department of the security deposit made by successful auction bidder due to failure to comply with work mandate, considered. Headnotes† Auction – Conditions of sale – Forfeiture of security deposit – Respondent in auction conducted by forest department, Gorakhpur (U.P.) in 1998 for certain forest produce – Parties executed an Agreement in terms of relevant Conditions of Sale – However despite being informed about last date to deposit the bid amount and complete the work, followed by two Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7414/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 CONSERVATOR OF FOREST & ORS.versusVIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 24272024 INSC 514Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Validity of forfeiture by forest department of the security deposit made by successful auction bidder due to failure to comply with work mandate, considered. Headnotes† Auction – Conditions of sale – Forfeiture of security deposit – Respondent in auction conducted by forest department, Gorakhpur (U.P.) in 1998 for certain forest produce – Parties executed an Agreement in terms of relevant Conditions of Sale – However despite being informed about last date to deposit the bid amount and complete the work, followed by twoDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7414/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC514,2025-06-13T22:49:08.916096 USHA DEVI & ORS.versusRAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS.,05-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8446/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. USHA DEVI & ORS. versus RAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 5012024 INSC 599 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Respondents had filed a suit for specific performance in September 1993 inter alia seeking execution of sale deed on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 17.12.1989. As per the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and i.e. up to 16.01.1990. The agreement to sell incorporated a clause that the said agreement was valid for five years. The said suit for specific performance was dismissed with costs by the Trial Court. The first appellate court set aside the order of Trial Court and decreed the suit in favour Decision Date : 05-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8446/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.USHA DEVI & ORS.versusRAM KUMAR SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 5012024 INSC 599Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Respondents had filed a suit for specific performance in September 1993 inter alia seeking execution of sale deed on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 17.12.1989. As per the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and i.e. up to 16.01.1990. The agreement to sell incorporated a clause that the said agreement was valid for five years. The said suit for specific performance was dismissed with costs by the Trial Court. The first appellate court set aside the order of Trial Court and decreed the suit in favourDecision Date :05-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8446/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC599,2025-06-13T22:47:34.690274 PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,05-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1012/2002,Reference answered,9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, B.V. NAGARATHNA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, RAJESH BINDAL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and whether the phrase ‘material resources Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1012/2002 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 835Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, B.V. NAGARATHNA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, RAJESH BINDAL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration (1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and whether the phrase ‘material resourcesDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1012/2002| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :9 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC835,2025-06-13T22:48:43.602650 BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.,08-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1842/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The question of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal after about 4 years since the filing of the claim petition and the appeal filed in 2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the claim petition after about 6 years. Headnotes Motor Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident – Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses – Tribunal held that the mere fact that the Decision Date : 08-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1842/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 12042024 INSC 361Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The question of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal after about 4 years since the filing of the claim petition and the appeal filed in 2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the claim petition after about 6 years. Headnotes Motor Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident – Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses – Tribunal held that the mere fact that theDecision Date :08-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1842/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC361,2025-06-13T22:45:59.115038 THE BLUE DREAMZ ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusKOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.,07-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8516/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Where the case is of an ordinary breach of contract and the explanation offered by the person concerned raises a bona fide dispute, whether blacklisting/debarment can resorted to as a penalty. Headnotes† Tender – Tender conditions – Blacklisting/ debarment – Respondent no.1-Corporation invited bids for allotment of contract for display of advertisement on street hoardings (including V shaped), Bus passenger shelter and kiosks – Appellant was the successful bidder – There were issues between the Decision Date : 07-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8516/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 BLUE DREAMZ ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusKOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1892024 INSC 589Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Where the case is of an ordinary breach of contract and the explanation offered by the person concerned raises a bona fide dispute, whether blacklisting/debarment can resorted to as a penalty. Headnotes† Tender – Tender conditions – Blacklisting/ debarment – Respondent no.1-Corporation invited bids for allotment of contract for display of advertisement on street hoardings (including V shaped), Bus passenger shelter and kiosks – Appellant was the successful bidder – There were issues between theDecision Date :07-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8516/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC589,2025-06-13T22:47:08.525295 KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYAversusAMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.,08-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6282/2023,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration Whether an election petition alleging corrupt practice in the nature of undue influence and alleging improper acceptance of nomination is to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when material facts as required under s. 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 pleaded and where no grounds as contemplated under s. 100 RP Act are made out. Headnotes Representation of People Act, 1951 – Election petition filed under ss. 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act to declare election of Appellant void – Allegation raised regarding false statement, Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6282/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KARIM UDDIN BARBHUIYAversusAMINUL HAQUE LASKAR & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5232024 INSC 282Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration Whether an election petition alleging corrupt practice in the nature of undue influence and alleging improper acceptance of nomination is to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when material facts as required under s. 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 pleaded and where no grounds as contemplated under s. 100 RP Act are made out. Headnotes Representation of People Act, 1951 – Election petition filed under ss. 100(1)(b) and 100(1)(d)(i) RP Act to declare election of Appellant void – Allegation raised regarding false statement,Decision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6282/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC282,2025-06-13T22:46:32.939561 NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA,22-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1722/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. NARESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 8302024 INSC 149 J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.306, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman appellant u/s.306, IPC – Correctness: Held: In order to convict a person u/s.306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence – Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide – It also requires an active act or Decision Date : 22-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1722/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF HARYANA-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 8302024 INSC 149Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.306, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman appellant u/s.306, IPC – Correctness: Held: In order to convict a person u/s.306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence – Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide – It also requires an active act orDecision Date :22-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1722/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC149,2025-06-13T22:42:25.224987 BIRMA DEVI & ORS.versusSUBHASH & ANR.,06-12-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29397/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BIRMA DEVI & ORS. versus SUBHASH & ANR. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 4842024 INSC 949 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted. Headnotes† Specific Executing court declined to handover the possession of the suit property to the respondents-plaintiffs (decree holders) holding that though there was a decree for specific performance no relief as regards putting the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property was granted – Order set Decision Date : 06-12-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29397/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BIRMA DEVI & ORS.versusSUBHASH & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4842024 INSC 949Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted. Headnotes† Specific Executing court declined to handover the possession of the suit property to the respondents-plaintiffs (decree holders) holding that though there was a decree for specific performance no relief as regards putting the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property was granted – Order setDecision Date :06-12-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29397/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC949,2025-06-13T22:47:29.586862 COX & KINGS LTD.versusSAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.,09-09-2024,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 38/2020,Case Allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the application of the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator deserves to be allowed. Whether the requirement of prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stipulated u/s. 11 of the Act, 1996, is satisfied. Whether a party to the arbitration agreement or not. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) r/w. s.11(12) (a) – Petitioner has filed the present petition in terms of s.11(6) r/w.s.11(12)(a) of the Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 38/2020 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.COX & KINGS LTD.versusSAP INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1992024 INSC 670Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the application of the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator deserves to be allowed. Whether the requirement of prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, as stipulated u/s. 11 of the Act, 1996, is satisfied. Whether a party to the arbitration agreement or not. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) r/w. s.11(12) (a) – Petitioner has filed the present petition in terms of s.11(6) r/w.s.11(12)(a) of the Act, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication ofDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :ARBITRATION PETITION No. 38/2020| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC670,2025-06-13T22:44:30.628733 NEERAJ SHARMAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH,03-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1420/2019,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellants, inter alia, for offence u/s.364-A, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-A – Conditions to be met to make out offence u/s.364-A – Conviction of the appellants u/ ss.307/120B, 364-A Prosecution if proved its case u/s.364-A beyond reasonable doubt: Held: In the present case, the most important witness is the complainant himself-an injured witness, who was an 18 year old boy who trusted his friends (appellants), not aware that he was being taken by deceit by his friends Decision Date : 03-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1420/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEERAJ SHARMAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 402024 INSC 6Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellants, inter alia, for offence u/s.364-A, Penal Code, 1860, if justified. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-A – Conditions to be met to make out offence u/s.364-A – Conviction of the appellants u/ ss.307/120B, 364-A Prosecution if proved its case u/s.364-A beyond reasonable doubt: Held: In the present case, the most important witness is the complainant himself-an injured witness, who was an 18 year old boy who trusted his friends (appellants), not aware that he was being taken by deceit by his friendsDecision Date :03-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1420/2019| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC6,2025-06-13T22:48:22.215273 ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,15-03-2024,DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 11805/2024,Disposed off,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 4172024 INSC 209 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the application filed by ECI seeking return of data as before this Court in compliance with the interim order dated 12.04.2019, to enable it to comply with the order of this Court dated 11.04.24 directing ECI to upload the data furnished on its website. Headnotes Elections – Electoral Bonds – Application by ECI seeking return of data Decision Date : 15-03-2024 | Case No : DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 11805/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASSOCIATION FOR DEMOCRATIC REFORMS AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 4172024 INSC 209Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJIV KHANNA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the application filed by ECI seeking return of data as before this Court in compliance with the interim order dated 12.04.2019, to enable it to comply with the order of this Court dated 11.04.24 directing ECI to upload the data furnished on its website. Headnotes Elections – Electoral Bonds – Application by ECI seeking return of dataDecision Date :15-03-2024| Case No :DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 11805/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC209,2025-06-13T22:50:36.855898 VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,30-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5153/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Headnotes Service Law – appointment – The appellants’ pleaded for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed: Held: The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5153/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VINOD KUMAR & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 12302024 INSC 332Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The Tribunal’s judgment negated the appellants’ plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed. The High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Headnotes Service Law – appointment – The appellants’ pleaded for regularization and absorption into the posts of ‘Accounts Clerk’ against which they were temporarily appointed: Held: The essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms ofDecision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5153/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC332,2025-06-13T22:46:45.316214 VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,08-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1980/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR 308 : 2024 INSC 284 Vipin Sahni and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1980 of 2024) 08 April 2024 [Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is open for High Court to convert or treat a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., as one 239 Cr.P.C. discharged the appellants – CBI approached the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside the discharge order and directed the learned Special Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case – Appellants preferred appeal against the said impugned order Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1980/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHERversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3082024 INSC 284Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR308 : 2024 INSC 284 Vipin Sahni and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 1980 of 2024) 08 April 2024 [Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is open for High Court to convert or treat a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., as one 239 Cr.P.C. discharged the appellants – CBI approached the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside the discharge order and directed the learned Special Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the case – Appellants preferred appeal against the said impugned orderDecision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1980/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC284,2025-06-13T22:46:25.532325 M K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,21-03-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 838/2019,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Conservation and protection of the endangered species of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). Headnotes Environment – Rapid and steady decline in the population of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) – Apart from various other existing population of these endangered birds was partly attributed to overhead transmission lines – Vide order dtd. 19.04.2021, a Committee was appointed for assessing the feasibility of laying high voltage underground power lines; direction was also issued imposing blanket prohibition Decision Date : 21-03-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 838/2019 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 K RANJITSINH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 13202024 INSC 280Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Conservation and protection of the endangered species of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). Headnotes Environment – Rapid and steady decline in the population of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) – Apart from various other existing population of these endangered birds was partly attributed to overhead transmission lines – Vide order dtd. 19.04.2021, a Committee was appointed for assessing the feasibility of laying high voltage underground power lines; direction was also issued imposing blanket prohibitionDecision Date :21-03-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 838/2019| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC280,2025-06-13T22:47:51.246828 DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2806/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon, if detrimental to the failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer, if would invalidate the consideration of the statement of the deceased recorded u/s. 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration; and disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the discovery and Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2806/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DHARMENDRA KUMAR @ DHAMMAversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2182024 INSC 480Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration High Court if justified in upholding conviction and sentence of the appellant under ss. 302/34 IPC; the contradictions or discrepancies and the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon, if detrimental to the failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer, if would invalidate the consideration of the statement of the deceased recorded u/s. 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration; and disclosure statement made by the appellant leading to the discovery andDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2806/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC480,2025-06-13T22:50:40.264639 BABU SAHEBAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA,19-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 985/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Headnotes Code of s.378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – Scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court: Held: It is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 985/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BABU SAHEBAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1742024 INSC 320Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s. 302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Headnotes Code of s.378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – Scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court: Held: It is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittalDecision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 985/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC320,2025-06-13T22:43:58.046824 SHABNA ABDULLAversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3082/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the detenue’s sister-in-law challenging the detention order as well as the confirmation of detention on the ground of non-supply and thus, sought release of the detenue, when the coordinate Bench of the same High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by the co-accused persons challenging the same detention order holding that documents relied upon in the detention orders ought to have been furnished to the detenus Decision Date : 20-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3082/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHABNA ABDULLAversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4602024 INSC 612Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the detenue’s sister-in-law challenging the detention order as well as the confirmation of detention on the ground of non-supply and thus, sought release of the detenue, when the coordinate Bench of the same High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by the co-accused persons challenging the same detention order holding that documents relied upon in the detention orders ought to have been furnished to the detenusDecision Date :20-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3082/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC612,2025-06-13T22:45:58.125810 "KIRPAL SINGHversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.",21-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12849/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"KIRPAL SINGH versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 13292024 INSC 944 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be condoned u/s.14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporated in the National Highways – s.14 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 and s.37 – National Highways Act, 1956 – A land belonging to appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award dated 25.07.2011 – A Regular First Appeal was filed before the High Decision Date : 21-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12849/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","KIRPAL SINGHversusGOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 13292024 INSC 944Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be condoned u/s.14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporated in the National Highways – s.14 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 and s.37 – National Highways Act, 1956 – A land belonging to appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award dated 25.07.2011 – A Regular First Appeal was filed before the HighDecision Date :21-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12849/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC944,2025-06-13T22:47:45.566123 JAMES KUNJWALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.,13-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3350/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The Single Judge of the High Court observed that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit and therefore a direction was issued to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to file a complaint against him. The question that falls for consideration is of the affidavit filed before the High Court, constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Allegation of filing a false affidavit – Decision Date : 13-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3350/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAMES KUNJWALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 3322024 INSC 601Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The Single Judge of the High Court observed that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit and therefore a direction was issued to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to file a complaint against him. The question that falls for consideration is of the affidavit filed before the High Court, constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Allegation of filing a false affidavit –Decision Date :13-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3350/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC601,2025-06-13T22:46:26.473639 DR. JAYA THAKUR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.,22-03-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 14/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JAYA THAKUR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 8812024 INSC 246 SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to applications for stay of selection and appointment of the Election Commissioners. Headnotes Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – s. 7(1) – of the Election Commissioners in a writ petition challenging vires of s. 7(1) that substituted the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the Selection Committee for the post of the Chief Election Commissioner and the ECs: Held: Grant of Decision Date : 22-03-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 14/2024 | Direction Issue : IAs dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JAYA THAKUR & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8812024 INSC 246Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to applications for stay of selection and appointment of the Election Commissioners. Headnotes Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023 – s. 7(1) – of the Election Commissioners in a writ petition challenging vires of s. 7(1) that substituted the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister in the Selection Committee for the post of the Chief Election Commissioner and the ECs: Held: Grant ofDecision Date :22-03-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 14/2024| Direction Issue :IAs dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC246,2025-06-13T22:47:49.727439 AMRO DEVI & ORS.versusJULFI RAM (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.,15-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7791/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Appellants, claiming to be owners in possession of suit land on the basis of an alleged compromise entered into by them in an earlier litigation with the original owners of the property. The by the trial court. The order of dismissal was set aside in first appeal filed by the Respondents and the order of first appellate court was confirmed by the High Court in regular second appeal vide the impugned order. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the judgment of the first Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7791/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AMRO DEVI & ORS.versusJULFI RAM (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 13982024 INSC 527Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Respondents had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Appellants, claiming to be owners in possession of suit land on the basis of an alleged compromise entered into by them in an earlier litigation with the original owners of the property. The by the trial court. The order of dismissal was set aside in first appeal filed by the Respondents and the order of first appellate court was confirmed by the High Court in regular second appeal vide the impugned order. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the judgment of the firstDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7791/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC527,2025-06-13T22:48:59.150225 "M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE",20-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10409/2014,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether the mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings etc. can take the benefit of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Headnotes† CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Rules 3, 2(k), 2(a)(A)(i), (iii) – “inputs”; “goods”/“capital goods” – General Clauses Decision Date : 20-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10409/2014 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 15252024 INSC 880Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether the mobile service providers who pay excise duties on various items for setting up their business more particularly for erection of mobile towers and peripherals like pre-fabricated buildings etc. can take the benefit of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the purpose of payment of service tax on the output services rendered by them. Headnotes† CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Rules 3, 2(k), 2(a)(A)(i), (iii) – “inputs”; “goods”/“capital goods” – General ClausesDecision Date :20-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10409/2014| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC880,2025-06-13T22:47:47.431362 "R.P. GARGversusTHE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS.",10-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10472/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to post-award interest on the sum awarded by the Arbitrator. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31(7)(b) – Grant of post-award interest, not subject to the contract between the parties payment of post-award interest, denied on the ground that the contract between the parties did not permit it – Correctness: Held: Not correct – By virtue of s.31(7)(b), a sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award shall carry interest – s.31(7)(b) deals with grant of interest Decision Date : 10-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10472/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Direction Issue : In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.R.P. GARGversusTHE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DEPARTMENT & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 7632024 INSC 743Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to post-award interest on the sum awarded by the Arbitrator. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31(7)(b) – Grant of post-award interest, not subject to the contract between the parties payment of post-award interest, denied on the ground that the contract between the parties did not permit it – Correctness: Held: Not correct – By virtue of s.31(7)(b), a sum directed to be paid by an Arbitral Award shall carry interest – s.31(7)(b) deals with grant of interestDecision Date :10-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10472/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Direction Issue :In view of the divergent of opinion, the appeal papers directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for assigning the same to the appropriate Bench.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC743,2025-06-13T22:44:03.714451 KRISHNADATT AWASTHYversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,04-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4806/2011,Matter referred to larger bench,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN* Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. V. Viswanathan pronounced separate Judgments. In view of divergent views, vide a common order, it was inter alia directed that the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a for Consideration Matter pertains to the selection and appointment of appellants and four others to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade wherein the selection process, if vitiated by bias, candidates being close relatives of the members of selection committee and non-joinder of parties in the Decision Date : 04-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4806/2011 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : Matter to be placed before Hon’ble CJI for constitution of larger Bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2024INSC252,2025-06-13T22:47:17.404900 ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD.versusTATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS,16-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5599/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was correct in setting aside the finding of the Single Judge that the Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Headnotes Territorial Jurisdiction – Suit by Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. (now Tata Steel 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Scope of, Explained. Held: Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises – Situs of the cause Decision Date : 16-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5599/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ARCADIA SHIPPING LTD.versusTATA STEEL LIMITED AND OTHERS-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 4042024 INSC 333Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was correct in setting aside the finding of the Single Judge that the Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Headnotes Territorial Jurisdiction – Suit by Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. (now Tata Steel 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Scope of, Explained. Held: Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 accords dominus litis to the plaintiff to institute a suit within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises – Situs of the causeDecision Date :16-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5599/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC333,2025-06-13T22:44:36.422215 UNION OF INDIA & ANRversusM/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.,18-10-2024,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 21832024 INSC 799 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. Headnotes† Ground for recall Supreme Court declared unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible – There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of a law Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023 | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","UNION OF INDIA & ANRversusM/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 21832024 INSC 799Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. Headnotes† Ground for recall Supreme Court declared unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible – There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of a lawDecision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC799,2025-06-13T22:49:04.073645 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S PUNJAB SPINTEX LTD.,15-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10970/2014,Case Allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the exemption from payment of Market Fee, granted under the Industrial Policy, 2003, of the Punjab Government, can be said to include exemption from Rural Development Fee. Headnotes† Market Fees – Scope of Exemption in relation to fees collected under Explained: Held: The preamble of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, which governs the collection of market Fee, clearly stipulates that it is a statute to provide for law relating to better regulation of purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce and for Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10970/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusM/S PUNJAB SPINTEX LTD.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7452024 INSC 526Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the exemption from payment of Market Fee, granted under the Industrial Policy, 2003, of the Punjab Government, can be said to include exemption from Rural Development Fee. Headnotes† Market Fees – Scope of Exemption in relation to fees collected under Explained: Held: The preamble of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, which governs the collection of market Fee, clearly stipulates that it is a statute to provide for law relating to better regulation of purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce and forDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10970/2014| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC526,2025-06-13T22:48:47.295163 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusLT. COL. RAHUL ARORA,09-09-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2459/2017,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Legality of the appointment of Judge Advocate who was admittedly junior to the respondent. Headnotes† Service Law – Army Medical Corps – Respondent was charge-sheeted for: (i) extraneous consideration declaring an army recruit as ‘fit’ after (ii) absenting himself without leave from 11.04.2004 to 19.04.2004; (iii) conduct of unbecoming of an officer and the character expected of his position – Upon conclusion of trial by General Court Martial and two of the three charges proven, he was dismissed from service Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2459/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusLT. COL. RAHUL ARORA-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 1862024 INSC 672Coram : PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Legality of the appointment of Judge Advocate who was admittedly junior to the respondent. Headnotes† Service Law – Army Medical Corps – Respondent was charge-sheeted for: (i) extraneous consideration declaring an army recruit as ‘fit’ after (ii) absenting himself without leave from 11.04.2004 to 19.04.2004; (iii) conduct of unbecoming of an officer and the character expected of his position – Upon conclusion of trial by General Court Martial and two of the three charges proven, he was dismissed from serviceDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2459/2017| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC672,2025-06-13T22:44:24.551344 AJAY KUMAR JAINversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,09-12-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2565/2024,Rejected,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AJAY KUMAR JAIN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 4782024 INSC 958 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events. Headnotes† Miscellaneous Application – is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events: Held: The miscellaneous applications filed with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings – No miscellaneous application is maintainable Decision Date : 09-12-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2565/2024 | Disposal Nature : Rejected | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AJAY KUMAR JAINversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 4782024 INSC 958Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether miscellaneous application is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events. Headnotes† Miscellaneous Application – is maintainable in a writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events: Held: The miscellaneous applications filed with fresh cause of action that might have arisen with a very remote connection with the main proceedings – No miscellaneous application is maintainableDecision Date :09-12-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 2565/2024| Disposal Nature :Rejected| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC958,2025-06-13T22:47:20.092001 FRANK VITUSversusNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ORS.,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2814/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two conditions imposed while granting bail. The two conditions are as follows: (i) A certificate of assurance from the is to be placed on record that the applicants/accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Judge as and when required; (ii) Accuse shall drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigation Officer of the case. Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2814/2024 | Direction Issue : Listed for final orders | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.FRANK VITUSversusNARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 972024 INSC 479Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The appellant was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to various terms and conditions incorporated in the said order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the two conditions imposed while granting bail. The two conditions are as follows: (i) A certificate of assurance from the is to be placed on record that the applicants/accused shall not leave the country and shall appear before the Special Judge as and when required; (ii) Accuse shall drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that their location is available to the Investigation Officer of the case.Decision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2814/2024| Direction Issue :Listed for final orders| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC479,2025-06-13T22:50:51.176453 YAGWATI @ POONAMversusGHANSHYAM,29-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1318/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. YAGWATI @ POONAM versus GHANSHYAM - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11002024 INSC 1100 VIKRAM NATH Issue for Consideration Maintenance granted to the appellant by the Family Court, enhanced by High Court. If to be enhanced further. Headnotes Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.18 – Maintenance – Enhancement – Parties having three children were residing with the two major children and the appellant-wife was residing with the minor child – Ex-parte decree of divorce was passed in favour of the Respondent whereafter he re-married – In the interregnum, the Appellant sought maintenance u/ss.18, 20, application was allowed by the Family Decision Date : 29-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1318/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.YAGWATI @ POONAMversusGHANSHYAM-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11002024 INSC 1100Coram : VIKRAM NATHIssue for Consideration Maintenance granted to the appellant by the Family Court, enhanced by High Court. If to be enhanced further. Headnotes Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – s.18 – Maintenance – Enhancement – Parties having three children were residing with the two major children and the appellant-wife was residing with the minor child – Ex-parte decree of divorce was passed in favour of the Respondent whereafter he re-married – In the interregnum, the Appellant sought maintenance u/ss.18, 20, application was allowed by the FamilyDecision Date :29-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1318/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1100,2025-06-13T22:47:08.084049 DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER,10-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5199/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration In the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 – Refusal to quash criminal proceedings, when not justified – FIR lodged by respondent No.2-wife against appellants under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 and Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5199/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5592024 INSC 953Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration In the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4 – Refusal to quash criminal proceedings, when not justified – FIR lodged by respondent No.2-wife against appellants under Section 498A, IPC and Sections 3 andDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5199/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC953,2025-06-13T22:47:17.097217 RAJASEKARversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,05-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 756/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAJASEKAR versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1522024 INSC 96 VIKRAM NATH Issue for Consideration The appellant who was convicted for offence u/ss. 3(a) r/w s. 4 of the POCSO Act, and was awarded the sentence of ten years RI alongwith a fine, the quantum of sentence awarded, if justified. Headnotes Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 3(a) Quantum of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss. 3(a)/4 and sentenced to ten years RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause to undergo SI for three months alongwith the compensation of Rs One Lakh to the victim by the courts below – In appeal before Decision Date : 05-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 756/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJASEKARversusSTATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1522024 INSC 96Coram : VIKRAM NATHIssue for Consideration The appellant who was convicted for offence u/ss. 3(a) r/w s. 4 of the POCSO Act, and was awarded the sentence of ten years RI alongwith a fine, the quantum of sentence awarded, if justified. Headnotes Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss. 3(a) Quantum of sentence – Conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss. 3(a)/4 and sentenced to ten years RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause to undergo SI for three months alongwith the compensation of Rs One Lakh to the victim by the courts below – In appeal beforeDecision Date :05-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 756/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC96,2025-06-13T22:46:35.328241 PEOPLES RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTRE (PRASAR) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,06-08-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 110/2006,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the issue of Silicosis among workers in various industries across the country. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 32, 21, 39(e), 42, 48A and 43 – “Silicosis” among workers – Need for Writ petition u/Art. 32 seeking intervention to address the issue of “Silicosis” among workers in various industries such as mining, construction, stone cutting, and sandblasting, where workers exposed to high levels of silica dust causing incurable occupational lung disease – Decision Date : 06-08-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 110/2006 | Direction Issue : Writ petition and Transfer case disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PEOPLES RIGHTS AND SOCIAL RESEARCH CENTRE (PRASAR) & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 992024 INSC 582Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the issue of Silicosis among workers in various industries across the country. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 32, 21, 39(e), 42, 48A and 43 – “Silicosis” among workers – Need for Writ petition u/Art. 32 seeking intervention to address the issue of “Silicosis” among workers in various industries such as mining, construction, stone cutting, and sandblasting, where workers exposed to high levels of silica dust causing incurable occupational lung disease –Decision Date :06-08-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 110/2006| Direction Issue :Writ petition and Transfer case disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC582,2025-06-13T22:47:30.306305 CHANDANversusTHE STATE (DELHI ADMN.),05-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 788/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to effect of lack or absence of motive, when there is testimony of a reliable eye-witness. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that accused stabbed the victim multiple times with the knife he was carrying, – Victim’s sister-in-law witnessed the incident from a short distance – Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by the courts below – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Blood of the deceased clearly matched with the blood found on the knife recovered from the accused, Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 788/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHANDANversusTHE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 942024 INSC 271Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to effect of lack or absence of motive, when there is testimony of a reliable eye-witness. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that accused stabbed the victim multiple times with the knife he was carrying, – Victim’s sister-in-law witnessed the incident from a short distance – Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by the courts below – Interference with: Held: Not called for – Blood of the deceased clearly matched with the blood found on the knife recovered from the accused,Decision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 788/2012| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC271,2025-06-13T22:46:52.279099 NAEEM BANO ALIAS GAINDOversusMOHAMMAD RAHEES & ANR.,22-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 13050/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"NAEEM BANO ALIAS GAINDO versus MOHAMMAD RAHEES & ANR. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 14922024 INSC 1000 B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a provision of law List, the Parliamentary amendment would apply. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 254; Entry 6, List III, Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.106 – Legislature of State of U.P. amended Section 106 by amendment Decision Date : 22-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 13050/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","NAEEM BANO ALIAS GAINDOversusMOHAMMAD RAHEES & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 14922024 INSC 1000Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a provision of law List, the Parliamentary amendment would apply. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Article 254; Entry 6, List III, Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.106 – Legislature of State of U.P. amended Section 106 by amendmentDecision Date :22-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 13050/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1000,2025-06-13T22:47:42.397068 MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.,08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Is Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 , insofar as it provides age relaxation to the persons serving under educational projects discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Was the award of bonus marks to the discriminatory and ultra vires the Rules; Were the guidelines sanctioning the award of bonus marks on a differential basis for applicants with project experience and other applicants invalid for any other reason. Headnotes† Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 – Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHESH CHAND BARETH & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1962024 INSC 466Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Is Rule 13(v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 , insofar as it provides age relaxation to the persons serving under educational projects discriminatory and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Was the award of bonus marks to the discriminatory and ultra vires the Rules; Were the guidelines sanctioning the award of bonus marks on a differential basis for applicants with project experience and other applicants invalid for any other reason. Headnotes† Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 –Decision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906/2010| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC466,2025-06-13T22:51:08.709824 SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD.versusPRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH & ORS.,24-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3070/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is the “drawer” and whether such signatory could be directed to pay interim compensation in terms of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 leaving The High Court answered the question in the negative. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 141, 143-A – Appellant company entered into several agreements with C Ltd. and made advance payments for supply of sugar – C failed to supply – In order to Decision Date : 24-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3070/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD.versusPRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 12112024 INSC 551Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the signatory of the cheque, authorized by the “Company”, is the “drawer” and whether such signatory could be directed to pay interim compensation in terms of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 leaving The High Court answered the question in the negative. Headnotes† Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 141, 143-A – Appellant company entered into several agreements with C Ltd. and made advance payments for supply of sugar – C failed to supply – In order toDecision Date :24-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3070/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC551,2025-06-13T22:47:53.279667 SHYAM NARAYAN RAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ETC.,21-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4287/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal witnesses. Headnotes† Code of s.294 – The High Court while allowing the appeal filed by accused persons and remanding the matter back to Trial Court recorded – Accused did not get a fair trial as their counsel had admitted the genuineness of documents filed by the prosecution and had dispensed with its formal Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4287/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","SHYAM NARAYAN RAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. ETC.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17262024 INSC 800Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court fell in error in remanding the matter to Trial Court and giving liberty to the accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness and allowing the prosecution to lead further evidence in the form of formal witnesses. Headnotes† Code of s.294 – The High Court while allowing the appeal filed by accused persons and remanding the matter back to Trial Court recorded – Accused did not get a fair trial as their counsel had admitted the genuineness of documents filed by the prosecution and had dispensed with its formalDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4287/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC800,2025-06-13T22:48:54.363028 BABA NATARAJAN PRASADversusM. REVATHI,15-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2912/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had shown undeserving leniency and sympathy to accused Nos.1 and 2 by sentencing them to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, even after finding that they committed the serious offence of bigamy of sentence is called for. Headnotes† Sentence/Sentencing – Enhancement of – High Court after restoring conviction for the offence of bigamy punishable u/s. 494 IPC, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2912/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BABA NATARAJAN PRASADversusM. REVATHI-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7812024 INSC 523Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court had shown undeserving leniency and sympathy to accused Nos.1 and 2 by sentencing them to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, even after finding that they committed the serious offence of bigamy of sentence is called for. Headnotes† Sentence/Sentencing – Enhancement of – High Court after restoring conviction for the offence of bigamy punishable u/s. 494 IPC, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine ofDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2912/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC523,2025-06-13T22:48:49.832724 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. B.T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD,05-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7238/2009,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Entitlement of the respondent to refund of duty drawback and interest for delayed payment thereof. Headnotes Customs Act, 1962 – ss.75A, 27A – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Rules, 1993 – Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 – Exim Policy of 1992-1997 – Duty Exemption Scheme – Duty Drawback Scheme – Supplies in civil construction work, eligibility for ‘deemed export’ benefit under the Exim Decision Date : 05-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7238/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM/S. B.T. PATIL AND SONS BELGAUM (CONSTRUCTION) PVT. LTD-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 912024 INSC 83Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Entitlement of the respondent to refund of duty drawback and interest for delayed payment thereof. Headnotes Customs Act, 1962 – ss.75A, 27A – Central Excise Act, 1944 – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Rules, 1993 – Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 – Exim Policy of 1992-1997 – Duty Exemption Scheme – Duty Drawback Scheme – Supplies in civil construction work, eligibility for ‘deemed export’ benefit under the EximDecision Date :05-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7238/2009| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC83,2025-06-13T22:46:32.402171 THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusBHUPENDRA SINGH,08-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8546/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court quashing the removal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and issuing directions to reconsider the employee’s case for promotion, which was upheld by the Division Bench, if justified. Headnotes† Service – Disciplinary authority accepting enquiry officer’s findings and imposing punishment – Requirement of reasons – On facts, employee placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry for having committed various irregularities – Departmental Decision Date : 08-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8546/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 RAJASTHAN & ORS.versusBHUPENDRA SINGH-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1542024 INSC 592Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court quashing the removal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and issuing directions to reconsider the employee’s case for promotion, which was upheld by the Division Bench, if justified. Headnotes† Service – Disciplinary authority accepting enquiry officer’s findings and imposing punishment – Requirement of reasons – On facts, employee placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry for having committed various irregularities – DepartmentalDecision Date :08-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8546/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC592,2025-06-13T22:47:02.847082 SATYENDAR KUMAR JAINversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,18-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1638/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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, Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1638/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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,Decision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1638/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC217,2025-06-13T22:50:26.105062 BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI,08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7247/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration In the instant case, issue revolves around the power of the Appellate Court dealing with the appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pass an order of remand to Section 34 Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and s.34 and s.37 – An award was passed by the Tribunal – Appellant filed a petition u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court to challenge the award – The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition u/s. 34 and proceeded to set aside the award on various Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7247/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BOMBAY SLUM REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1362024 INSC 478Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration In the instant case, issue revolves around the power of the Appellate Court dealing with the appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pass an order of remand to Section 34 Court. Headnotes† Arbitration and s.34 and s.37 – An award was passed by the Tribunal – Appellant filed a petition u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court to challenge the award – The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition u/s. 34 and proceeded to set aside the award on variousDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7247/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC478,2025-06-13T22:50:48.935767 ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS,12-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9695/2013,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. ASMA LATEEF & ANR versus SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 5172024 INSC 36 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the order dated 05.08.1991 (vide which application u/ rr.5 and 10 of Or.VIII, CPC was allowed by the Trial Court for pronouncement of judgment against defendant no.2 in the suit) suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently by the Executing Court and an objection that it is inexecutable was available to be raised u/s. 47, CPC by the respondents 1 to 3. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – rr. 5, 10 of Or. VIII and s.47 – Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection u/s. 47 of the CPC in an Decision Date : 12-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9695/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 5172024 INSC 36Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, DIPANKAR DATTA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the order dated 05.08.1991 (vide which application u/ rr.5 and 10 of Or.VIII, CPC was allowed by the Trial Court for pronouncement of judgment against defendant no.2 in the suit) suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently by the Executing Court and an objection that it is inexecutable was available to be raised u/s. 47, CPC by the respondents 1 to 3. Headnotes Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – rr. 5, 10 of Or. VIII and s.47 – Respondents 1 to 3 had filed an objection u/s. 47 of the CPC in anDecision Date :12-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9695/2013| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC36,2025-06-13T22:47:53.380103 JADUNATH SINGHversusARVIND KUMAR & ORS. ETC.,19-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2170/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 19-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2170/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 convictedDecision Date :19-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2170/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC325,2025-06-13T22:43:49.886411 M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAHversusTR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH,01-10-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13981/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 01-10-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13981/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 theDecision Date :01-10-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13981/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1059,2025-06-13T22:49:58.373661 U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHADversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS.,05-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3855/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 05-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3855/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 butDecision Date :05-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3855/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC210,2025-06-13T22:41:31.058336 PRASHANTversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI,20-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4721/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 20-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4721/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 sexualDecision Date :20-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4721/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC879,2025-06-13T22:47:48.603425 HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7420/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7420/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 theDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7420/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC796,2025-06-13T22:48:55.913081 NABHA POWER LIMITED & ANR.versusPUNJAB STATE POWER COROPORATION LIMITED & ANR.,05-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8478/2014,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the press release of 01.10.2009 announcing the decision of the Union Cabinet about approval of certain modifications envisaged in the then existing mega power policy, is covered within the meaning of as defined in Clause 1.1 of the Request For Proposal-RFP/Power Purchase Agreement-PPA and if so did the extant legal regime as on 01.10.2009 undergo a change from the said date. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s. 63 – Customs Act – s. 25 – Mega Power Policy of Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8478/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NABHA POWER LIMITED & ANR.versusPUNJAB STATE POWER COROPORATION LIMITED & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 4452024 INSC 833Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the press release of 01.10.2009 announcing the decision of the Union Cabinet about approval of certain modifications envisaged in the then existing mega power policy, is covered within the meaning of as defined in Clause 1.1 of the Request For Proposal-RFP/Power Purchase Agreement-PPA and if so did the extant legal regime as on 01.10.2009 undergo a change from the said date. Headnotes† Electricity Act, 2003 – s. 63 – Customs Act – s. 25 – Mega Power Policy ofDecision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8478/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC833,2025-06-13T22:48:40.605520 BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITEDversusHIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP & OTHERS,27-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7595/2021,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) was occasioned under the force majeure clause of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), and consequently, whether the reduction in tariff payable to the respondents – State of Karnataka introduced a policy dated 26.08.2014 to identify and promote solar energy projects by land-owning farmers – These solar power plants of 1-3 MW capacity would generate and sell power to the State Electricity (Distribution) Supply Companies at the tariff Decision Date : 27-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7595/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITEDversusHIREHALLI SOLAR POWER PROJECT LLP & OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 10242024 INSC 631Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCD) was occasioned under the force majeure clause of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), and consequently, whether the reduction in tariff payable to the respondents – State of Karnataka introduced a policy dated 26.08.2014 to identify and promote solar energy projects by land-owning farmers – These solar power plants of 1-3 MW capacity would generate and sell power to the State Electricity (Distribution) Supply Companies at the tariffDecision Date :27-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7595/2021| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC631,2025-06-13T22:45:07.647730 RATILAL JHAVERBHAI PARMAR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11000/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11000/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 theDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11000/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC801,2025-06-13T22:48:54.836158 DR KAVITA KAMBOJversusHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ORS,13-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2179/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA 1136 : 2024 INSC 192 Dr Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors (Civil Appeal Nos 2179-2180 of 2024) 13 February 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of in-service judicial officers were recommended for appointment by way of promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The challenge before the High Court was inter alia to a decision of the State of Haryana vide Letter dated 12.03.2023, whereby the State had decided not to accept the Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2179/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Environmental pollution; Copper smelter; Environmental norms; Industrial establishment; Environmental violations; Judicial review; Statutory authorities and bodies; Principles of sustainable development; Polluter pays principle; Public trust doctrine; Balancing economic interests; Public welfare concerns; Economic growth; Health and welfare; Human rights; International treaties and agreements; Economic growth; Sustainable progress; Pollution Control Board; Environmental law; Environmental degradation; Natural resources; Intergenerational equity; Environmental heritage. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 KAVITA KAMBOJversusHIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ORS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 11362024 INSC 192Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA1136 : 2024 INSC 192 Dr Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors (Civil Appeal Nos 2179-2180 of 2024) 13 February 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of in-service judicial officers were recommended for appointment by way of promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The challenge before the High Court was inter alia to a decision of the State of Haryana vide Letter dated 12.03.2023, whereby the State had decided not to accept theDecision Date :13-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2179/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Direction Issue :Environmental pollution; Copper smelter; Environmental norms; Industrial establishment; Environmental violations; Judicial review; Statutory authorities and bodies; Principles of sustainable development; Polluter pays principle; Public trust doctrine; Balancing economic interests; Public welfare concerns; Economic growth; Health and welfare; Human rights; International treaties and agreements; Economic growth; Sustainable progress; Pollution Control Board; Environmental law; Environmental degradation; Natural resources; Intergenerational equity; Environmental heritage.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC192,2025-06-13T22:45:17.598664 BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANR.versusKHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND ORS.,30-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1543/2016,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANR. versus KHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11052024 INSC 71 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration The appellants-landlords purchased the subject-premises in the year 1992 from its erstwhile owner. Both the tenants were inducted by the erstwhile owner of the building in question. On 23.01.2002, a demolition notice was issued by the Municipal for eviction were subsequently sent to the tenants, on the various grounds including municipality’s demolition notice and bonafide requirement of landlord. In the present appeals, the appellants are assailing a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court on 04.08.2015 Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1543/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BAITULLA ISMAIL SHAIKH AND ANR.versusKHATIJA ISMAIL PANHALKAR AND ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11052024 INSC 71Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration The appellants-landlords purchased the subject-premises in the year 1992 from its erstwhile owner. Both the tenants were inducted by the erstwhile owner of the building in question. On 23.01.2002, a demolition notice was issued by the Municipal for eviction were subsequently sent to the tenants, on the various grounds including municipality’s demolition notice and bonafide requirement of landlord. In the present appeals, the appellants are assailing a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court on 04.08.2015Decision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1543/2016| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC71,2025-06-13T22:46:51.420290 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusYOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER,11-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5348/2019,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS versus YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 9732024 INSC 30 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration What is the Legislative Scheme of the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (TCP Act); What is the nature of functions/powers of the Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act; have issued directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner; Whether observations in Para 47 of the Mantri Techzone Private Limited would operate as res judicata; Whether the NGT was justified in passing the order dated 14.10.2022 when the High Decision Date : 11-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5348/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERSversusYOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 9732024 INSC 30Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration What is the Legislative Scheme of the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (TCP Act); What is the nature of functions/powers of the Authorities under Chapter-IV of the TCP Act; have issued directions to the legislative body to exercise its legislative functions in a particular manner; Whether observations in Para 47 of the Mantri Techzone Private Limited would operate as res judicata; Whether the NGT was justified in passing the order dated 14.10.2022 when the HighDecision Date :11-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5348/2019| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC30,2025-06-13T22:47:55.512590 THE STATE OF PUNJABversusPARTAP SINGH VERKA,08-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1943/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1943/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 asDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1943/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC483,2025-06-13T22:51:09.634188 KARAKKATTU MUHAMMED BASHEERversusTHE STATE OF KERALA,05-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 – Decision Date : 05-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 –Decision Date :05-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 291/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC838,2025-06-13T22:48:33.198046 GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.,12-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7590/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus PRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 2582024 INSC 102 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether in exercise of powers under s.60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT can recall an order of approval passed under s.31(1) of the IBC; whether the of the order was barred by time; whether the resolution plan put forth by the resolution applicant did not meet the requirements of s.30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and; what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to. Headnotes Insolvency and Decision Date : 12-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7590/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusPRABHJIT SINGH SONI & ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 2582024 INSC 102Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether in exercise of powers under s.60(5), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT can recall an order of approval passed under s.31(1) of the IBC; whether the of the order was barred by time; whether the resolution plan put forth by the resolution applicant did not meet the requirements of s.30(2) of the IBC read with Regulations 37 and 38 of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 and; what relief, if any, the appellant is entitled to. Headnotes Insolvency andDecision Date :12-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7590/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC102,2025-06-13T22:45:42.034200 ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS AND OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC.,16-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4886/2023,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA 545 : 2024 INSC 306 Association of Engineers and Others Etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc. Civil Appeal No. 4886-4888 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17269-17271 of 2022) 16 April 2024 [B. R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta] Issue for Consideration Validity of appointing Technical Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023 (‘Batch 1’) – A Government Order (‘GO’) was issued allowing appointment of Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants with 5 years of service and B.E./A.M.I.E Decision Date : 16-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4886/2023 | Direction Issue : Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023 dismissed. Civil Appeal Nos. 4372, 4890, 4891 and 5747 of 2023 allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERS AND OTHERS ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS ETC.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5452024 INSC 306Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA545 : 2024 INSC 306 Association of Engineers and Others Etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc. Civil Appeal No. 4886-4888 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17269-17271 of 2022) 16 April 2024 [B. R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta] Issue for Consideration Validity of appointing Technical Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023 (‘Batch 1’) – A Government Order (‘GO’) was issued allowing appointment of Junior Draughting Officers, Draughting Officers, Overseers and Technical Assistants with 5 years of service and B.E./A.M.I.EDecision Date :16-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4886/2023| Direction Issue :Civil Appeal Nos. 4886 to 4889, 4892 and 5748 to 5750 of 2023 dismissed. Civil Appeal Nos. 4372, 4890, 4891 and 5747 of 2023 allowed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC306,2025-06-13T22:44:32.667610 K. ARUMUGAMversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.,08-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2842/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Appellant-assessees purchased Kerala State Lotteries from the District Lottery Offices and other States’ lotteries in bulk from registered promoters at a discounted rate. The appellant subsequently sold them to retailers on an outright sale basis. Whether the activity would attract service tax within the scope and ambit of Section 65(19)(ii) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – s.65(19)(ii) r/w. s.65(105)(zzb) – Appellant was directed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Decision Date : 08-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2842/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K. ARUMUGAMversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8302024 INSC 630Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Appellant-assessees purchased Kerala State Lotteries from the District Lottery Offices and other States’ lotteries in bulk from registered promoters at a discounted rate. The appellant subsequently sold them to retailers on an outright sale basis. Whether the activity would attract service tax within the scope and ambit of Section 65(19)(ii) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Headnotes† Finance Act, 1994 – s.65(19)(ii) r/w. s.65(105)(zzb) – Appellant was directed by the Superintendent of Central Excise,Decision Date :08-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2842/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC630,2025-06-13T22:46:41.019189 SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,15-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2914/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Ten persons were arrayed as accused and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC alleging indiscriminate shooting and/or conspiracy leading to death of two persons and injury of one person. The case was committed Sessions against nine accused persons numbered as Sessions Trial No. 17/1995. Subsequently, the case against the proclaimed offender was committed and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 66/2004. During the pendency of trial in 2007, one of the Accused, the 2nd Respondent herein was elected as Member Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2914/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 8132024 INSC 529Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Ten persons were arrayed as accused and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC alleging indiscriminate shooting and/or conspiracy leading to death of two persons and injury of one person. The case was committed Sessions against nine accused persons numbered as Sessions Trial No. 17/1995. Subsequently, the case against the proclaimed offender was committed and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 66/2004. During the pendency of trial in 2007, one of the Accused, the 2nd Respondent herein was elected as MemberDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2914/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC529,2025-06-13T22:48:52.294253 BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.versusZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED,22-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4602/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the order of the High Court upholding the interim order passed by the trial judge directing the appellants-media platform to take down an article published on against the respondent as also restrained them from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of the respondent on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing. Headnotes Defamation – Defamation suits against media platform and/or journalists – Interim Decision Date : 22-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4602/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BLOOMBERG TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.versusZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 9942024 INSC 255Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the order of the High Court upholding the interim order passed by the trial judge directing the appellants-media platform to take down an article published on against the respondent as also restrained them from posting, circulating or publishing the article in respect of the respondent on any online or offline platform till the next date of hearing. Headnotes Defamation – Defamation suits against media platform and/or journalists – InterimDecision Date :22-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4602/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC255,2025-06-13T22:47:44.276400 JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.,09-12-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29045/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR. versus TARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 646 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of plaintiff to ask the defendant to lead the evidence. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XVIII r.1 – Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses – Right to begin – Defendants be asked to lead – When: Held: Ord. XVIII speaks of the ‘hearing’ of a suit which is only a part of the trial of the suit – Determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself – Ord. XVIII r. 1 indeed provides for Decision Date : 09-12-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29045/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","JAMI VENKATA SURYAPRABHA & ANR.versusTARINI PRASAD NAYAK & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 646Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the right of plaintiff to ask the defendant to lead the evidence. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XVIII r.1 – Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses – Right to begin – Defendants be asked to lead – When: Held: Ord. XVIII speaks of the ‘hearing’ of a suit which is only a part of the trial of the suit – Determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself – Ord. XVIII r. 1 indeed provides forDecision Date :09-12-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 29045/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",,2025-06-13T22:47:27.764771 DR SONIA VERMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.,07-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1433/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 SONIA VERMA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. - [2024] 3 S.C.R. 6732024 INSC 227 VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA 673 : 2024 INSC 227 Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024) 07 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of the High Court of Punjab & civil in nature. Headnotes Criminal Law – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Inherent powers – Scope of exercise of power for quashing the criminal proceedings: Held: The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings when it was apprised of the Decision Date : 07-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1433/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 SONIA VERMA & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 6732024 INSC 227Coram : VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA673 : 2024 INSC 227 Dr Sonia Verma & Anr. v. The State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024) 07 March 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of the High Court of Punjab & civil in nature. Headnotes Criminal Law – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Inherent powers – Scope of exercise of power for quashing the criminal proceedings: Held: The High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings when it was apprised of theDecision Date :07-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1433/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC227,2025-06-13T22:40:28.136279 THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.versusMOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.,18-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5001/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in passing the impugned order in review petition in favour of the plaintiff-respondent despite him not proving his title over the suit property (forest land), setting aside the concurrent judgments rendered by courts below that the suit land was a part of the reserved forest and the plaintiff had failed to show his title to the suit property. Headnotes Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – s.15 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. – s.87 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5001/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 TELANGANA & ORS.versusMOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 812024 INSC 310Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration High Court whether justified in passing the impugned order in review petition in favour of the plaintiff-respondent despite him not proving his title over the suit property (forest land), setting aside the concurrent judgments rendered by courts below that the suit land was a part of the reserved forest and the plaintiff had failed to show his title to the suit property. Headnotes Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – s.15 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. – s.87 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908Decision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5001/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC310,2025-06-13T22:44:20.935609 AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS.versusMEHER K. PATEL & ORS.,30-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4786/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration This Hon’ble Court was considering a challenge to an Order of the High Court disposing of a writ petition in terms of a “Minutes of Order” filed by the Advocates, and signed by the parties to the petition, without impleading the affected parties. Headnotes Considerations by the Court while passing an order in terms of “Minutes of Order” – Order passed by the Court based on the “Minutes of Order” is not a consent order, it is an order in invitum – Court must record brief reasons indicating the application of mind. Decision Date : 30-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4786/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AJAY ISHWAR GHUTE & ORS.versusMEHER K. PATEL & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1552024 INSC 353Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration This Hon’ble Court was considering a challenge to an Order of the High Court disposing of a writ petition in terms of a “Minutes of Order” filed by the Advocates, and signed by the parties to the petition, without impleading the affected parties. Headnotes Considerations by the Court while passing an order in terms of “Minutes of Order” – Order passed by the Court based on the “Minutes of Order” is not a consent order, it is an order in invitum – Court must record brief reasons indicating the application of mind.Decision Date :30-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4786/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC353,2025-06-13T22:42:11.991462 NEELAM GUPTA & ORS.versusRAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.,14-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3159/2019,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the impugned judgment is to be sustained in view of the indisputable or undisputed facts; whether the suit schedule property is the Joint Hindu Family property; whether the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit correct conclusion on assimilation of facts and appreciation of evidence; and whether the High Court was right in declining to accept the appellants’ contention that they perfected the title over the suit land by adverse possession. Headnotes† Adverse possession – Title to the Decision Date : 14-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3159/2019 | Direction Issue : Appeals dismissed. Contempt petition closed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEELAM GUPTA & ORS.versusRAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7082024 INSC 769Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the impugned judgment is to be sustained in view of the indisputable or undisputed facts; whether the suit schedule property is the Joint Hindu Family property; whether the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit correct conclusion on assimilation of facts and appreciation of evidence; and whether the High Court was right in declining to accept the appellants’ contention that they perfected the title over the suit land by adverse possession. Headnotes† Adverse possession – Title to theDecision Date :14-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3159/2019| Direction Issue :Appeals dismissed. Contempt petition closed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC769,2025-06-13T22:49:32.835281 THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7379/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents was barred by limitation; whether the burden of proof of ownership would lie on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession; whether the continued name of revenue records would confer title upon him; whether the plaint lacked/deliberately omitted necessary and material particulars to surpass the bar of limitation. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Suit for possession barred by limitation – Civil Suit filed by Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7379/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 24342024 INSC 518Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the suit for possession filed by the respondents was barred by limitation; whether the burden of proof of ownership would lie on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession; whether the continued name of revenue records would confer title upon him; whether the plaint lacked/deliberately omitted necessary and material particulars to surpass the bar of limitation. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Suit for possession barred by limitation – Civil Suit filed byDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7379/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC518,2025-06-13T22:49:38.965355 TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAHversusKAMAL DAYANI & ORS.,07-08-2024,DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 1106/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAH versus KAMAL DAYANI & ORS. - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 2352024 INSC 588 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court. However, of the said order, the petitioner was remanded to police custody during the currency of the aforesaid interim order. Present contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents-police officials and the ACJM. Respondents, if committed contempt of this Court’s order. Decision Date : 07-08-2024 | Case No : DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 1106/2024 | Direction Issue : Contempt petition listed for next date, SLPs disposed of | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TUSHARBHAI RAJNIKANTBHAI SHAHversusKAMAL DAYANI & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 2352024 INSC 588Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court. However, of the said order, the petitioner was remanded to police custody during the currency of the aforesaid interim order. Present contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents-police officials and the ACJM. Respondents, if committed contempt of this Court’s order.Decision Date :07-08-2024| Case No :DIARYNO AND DIARYYR No. 1106/2024| Direction Issue :Contempt petition listed for next date, SLPs disposed of| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC588,2025-06-13T22:47:09.579515 SALAM SAMARJEET SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR,22-08-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 294/2015,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SALAM SAMARJEET SINGH versus THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 8852024 INSC 647 HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI Issue for Consideration Can the executive instructions in form of a resolution of the Full Court (High Court) by prescribing minimum marks for interview, override statutory rules made under Article 234/309; whether the High Court’s decision frustrates the petitioner. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Just before the interview test, the Full Court of the High Court on 12.01.2015 decided to fix 40% as the cut-off for the viva-voce examination and the petitioner’s case is that this decision Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 294/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SALAM SAMARJEET SINGHversusTHE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL & ANR-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 8852024 INSC 647Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTIIssue for Consideration Can the executive instructions in form of a resolution of the Full Court (High Court) by prescribing minimum marks for interview, override statutory rules made under Article 234/309; whether the High Court’s decision frustrates the petitioner. Headnotes† Judicial Service – Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Just before the interview test, the Full Court of the High Court on 12.01.2015 decided to fix 40% as the cut-off for the viva-voce examination and the petitioner’s case is that this decisionDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 294/2015| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC647,2025-06-13T22:45:26.686749 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHARNAND SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.,10-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3674/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN 443 : 2024 INSC 509 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3674-3675 of 2023) 10 July 2024 [Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan,JJ.] Issue for Consideration The matters in the instant case can be categorized into two groups: compensation was enhanced to INR 449 per sq. yd.; and (ii) Civil Appeals preferred by NOIDA as against the enhanced compensation of INR 449 per sq. yd. granted to some of the landowners The following questions arise for Consideration: (i) Should compensation be enhanced, and if so, to what Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3674/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHARNAND SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 4432024 INSC 509Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN443 : 2024 INSC 509 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3674-3675 of 2023) 10 July 2024 [Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan,JJ.] Issue for Consideration The matters in the instant case can be categorized into two groups: compensation was enhanced to INR 449 per sq. yd.; and (ii) Civil Appeals preferred by NOIDA as against the enhanced compensation of INR 449 per sq. yd. granted to some of the landowners The following questions arise for Consideration: (i) Should compensation be enhanced, and if so, to whatDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3674/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC509,2025-06-13T22:49:09.931352 MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMIversusTHE STATE OF A.P.,10-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2845/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that the the appellant-Forest Decision Date : 10-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2845/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MIR MUSTAFA ALI HASMIversusTHE STATE OF A.P.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6402024 INSC 503Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration The question arose whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond all manner of doubt the fact that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant; and whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Prosecution case that the the appellant-ForestDecision Date :10-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2845/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC503,2025-06-13T22:49:37.715058 UNION OF INDIAversusM/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,21-03-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1891/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration It is the case of the respondent company herein that at the time of booking the consignments, from Baad to Hisar via Palwal, the notified chargeable distance for calculating freight as per the Local Distance Table was 444 km, and accordingly the respondent company time to time. However, subsequently, the appellant railways vide its letter dated 05.07.2005 changed the chargeable distance to 334 km in the revised Local Distance Table and the said revised table was to apply prospectively. The respondent’s case is that the very chargeable distance of Decision Date : 21-03-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1891/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.UNION OF INDIAversusM/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10512024 INSC 243Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration It is the case of the respondent company herein that at the time of booking the consignments, from Baad to Hisar via Palwal, the notified chargeable distance for calculating freight as per the Local Distance Table was 444 km, and accordingly the respondent company time to time. However, subsequently, the appellant railways vide its letter dated 05.07.2005 changed the chargeable distance to 334 km in the revised Local Distance Table and the said revised table was to apply prospectively. The respondent’s case is that the very chargeable distance ofDecision Date :21-03-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1891/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC243,2025-06-13T22:48:00.798061 KULDEEP KUMARversusU.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS,20-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2874/2024,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Result of the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation declared by the Presiding Officer in favour of the eighth respondent, if was contrary to law in view of the alleged electoral malpractices by him during Headnotes Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 – Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996 – Regulation 6, Clauses (9) to (13) – Election to the post of Decision Date : 20-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2874/2024 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KULDEEP KUMARversusU.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6932024 INSC 129Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Result of the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation declared by the Presiding Officer in favour of the eighth respondent, if was contrary to law in view of the alleged electoral malpractices by him during Headnotes Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 – Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996 – Regulation 6, Clauses (9) to (13) – Election to the post ofDecision Date :20-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2874/2024| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC129,2025-06-13T22:42:44.549687 "AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETYversusSHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST",30-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1405/2024,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETY versus SHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 10902024 INSC 73 ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Scope and extent of the contempt jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Headnotes Contempt – Article 215 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Exercise of contempt jurisdiction by High Court – Scope – Suit filed by Trust against Society, decreed by Trial Court directing delivery of possession of the suit premises to the Trust – Execution proceedings Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1405/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AMIT KUMAR DAS, JOINT SECRETARY, BAITANIK, A REGISTERED SOCIETYversusSHRIMATI HUTHEESINGH TAGORE CHARITABLE TRUST-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 10902024 INSC 73Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Scope and extent of the contempt jurisdiction exercised by a High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Headnotes Contempt – Article 215 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Exercise of contempt jurisdiction by High Court – Scope – Suit filed by Trust against Society, decreed by Trial Court directing delivery of possession of the suit premises to the Trust – Execution proceedingsDecision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1405/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC73,2025-06-13T22:47:01.456736 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR.,24-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 391/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 6772024 INSC 58 BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the report u/s.173(2) against other accused was filed within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance of the offence was taken by the special court before the consideration of the application of the respondents seeking default bail u/s.167(2). Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.167(2), s.173 Decision Date : 24-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 391/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusKAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 6772024 INSC 58Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to s.167(2), Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the report u/s.173(2) against other accused was filed within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance of the offence was taken by the special court before the consideration of the application of the respondents seeking default bail u/s.167(2). Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.167(2), s.173Decision Date :24-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 391/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC58,2025-06-13T22:47:21.960218 MUTHYALA SUNIL KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,09-07-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 864/2022,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration In the instant writ petitions, Petitioners-transporters and tour operators assailed the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax, allegedly, in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners of the Border Tax/Authorization Fee already realized by the State Authorities at the time of their vehicles entering the State. Headnotes† Inter-State transportation – All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023 – All-India Tourists Vehicles (Authorisation of Permit) Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 864/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MUTHYALA SUNIL KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 6342024 INSC 499Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration In the instant writ petitions, Petitioners-transporters and tour operators assailed the legality of different State Governments levying and collecting Authorization Fee/Border Tax, allegedly, in violation of All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023. Petitioners of the Border Tax/Authorization Fee already realized by the State Authorities at the time of their vehicles entering the State. Headnotes† Inter-State transportation – All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules, 2023 – All-India Tourists Vehicles (Authorisation of Permit)Decision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 864/2022| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC499,2025-06-13T22:50:24.729312 LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,09-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1943/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, dismissing the application of the Appellant seeking relief of Permanent Commissioning, granted by the AFT, Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically – Permanent Commissioning – Benefit of – Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons – Appellant- Short Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Crops, denied third opportunity for permanent Commission in view of amendment in 2013 – However, the Principle Bench of Decision Date : 09-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1943/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LT. COL. SUPRITA CHANDELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3812024 INSC 942Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, dismissing the application of the Appellant seeking relief of Permanent Commissioning, granted by the AFT, Principal Bench to the applicants therein, who were identically – Permanent Commissioning – Benefit of – Extension of benefit to similarly situated persons – Appellant- Short Commissioned Officer in Army Dental Crops, denied third opportunity for permanent Commission in view of amendment in 2013 – However, the Principle Bench ofDecision Date :09-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1943/2022| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC942,2025-06-13T22:47:22.870241 VANSHIKA YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,23-07-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 335/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VANSHIKA YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 9572024 INSC 553 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2024 examination was conducted by the National Testing Agency. The petitioners assert that a direction should be issued for convening a re-test on the ground that (i) there was a leakage of the there are systemic deficiencies in the modalities envisaged for the conduct of the examination. Headnotes† Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question paper – Systemic deficiencies: Held: The Court Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 335/2024 | Direction Issue : W.P(C)No. 335 of 2024 – Reasoned judgment to follow. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 381 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 398 of 2024 & Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 28729 of 2024 are dismissed. IA No. 146158 of 2024 & IA No. 146162 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 379 of 2024 are dismissed. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VANSHIKA YADAVversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 9572024 INSC 553Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2024 examination was conducted by the National Testing Agency. The petitioners assert that a direction should be issued for convening a re-test on the ground that (i) there was a leakage of the there are systemic deficiencies in the modalities envisaged for the conduct of the examination. Headnotes† Education – Examination – National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) 2024 – Leakage of the question paper – Systemic deficiencies: Held: The CourtDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 335/2024| Direction Issue :W.P(C)No. 335 of 2024 – Reasoned judgment to follow. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 381 of 2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 398 of 2024 & Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 28729 of 2024 are dismissed. IA No. 146158 of 2024 & IA No. 146162 of 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 379 of 2024 are dismissed.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC553,2025-06-13T22:47:57.927255 DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAINversusMARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS,20-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1480/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts of the case, withdrawal of resignation dated 25.03.2003 submitted by the appellant prior to the effective date, i.e., 24.09.2003 ought to have been permitted; whether the letter of the Management dated 08.04.2003 was final, binding and irrevocable and the rejection of the request for withdrawal of such resignation was in accordance with law and; in the facts of the case, what relief could be granted to the Appellant. Headnotes Service Law – Withdrawal of prospective resignation prior to the Decision Date : 20-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1480/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MRS. SUMAN V. JAINversusMARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 6172024 INSC 127Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether in the facts of the case, withdrawal of resignation dated 25.03.2003 submitted by the appellant prior to the effective date, i.e., 24.09.2003 ought to have been permitted; whether the letter of the Management dated 08.04.2003 was final, binding and irrevocable and the rejection of the request for withdrawal of such resignation was in accordance with law and; in the facts of the case, what relief could be granted to the Appellant. Headnotes Service Law – Withdrawal of prospective resignation prior to theDecision Date :20-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1480/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC127,2025-06-13T22:42:47.670209 SOMNATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,18-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1717/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who has committed excesses on individual in police custody? Headnotes Constitution of India – Article 142, 226 – Appellant verbally and physically assaulted in police custody – for 4 hours despite being granted bail – Sub- divisional Police Officer’s inquiry report found Respondent No. 2 responsible – Special Inspector General of Police imposed punishment of “strict warning” in departmental proceedings – High Court partly allowed Decision Date : 18-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1717/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SOMNATHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 10142024 INSC 232Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against a police officer who has committed excesses on individual in police custody? Headnotes Constitution of India – Article 142, 226 – Appellant verbally and physically assaulted in police custody – for 4 hours despite being granted bail – Sub- divisional Police Officer’s inquiry report found Respondent No. 2 responsible – Special Inspector General of Police imposed punishment of “strict warning” in departmental proceedings – High Court partly allowedDecision Date :18-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1717/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC232,2025-06-13T22:50:20.206402 K.C. KAUSHIK AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11711/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension. Headnotes† Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – Claimed parity with Lecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of pension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment of revised pension sought – Claims rejected – Writ petition filed – During pendency Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11711/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","K.C. KAUSHIK AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 17362024 INSC 803Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension. Headnotes† Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – Claimed parity with Lecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of pension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment of revised pension sought – Claims rejected – Writ petition filed – During pendencyDecision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11711/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC803,2025-06-13T22:48:57.183202 ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKHversusASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR.,07-11-2024,ARBITRATION PETITION No. 20/2019,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of the Shareholders Agreement between the parties. Whether the reference under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation be declined by examining whether the substantive claims of the petitioner are ex facie and hopelessly time barred. Headnotes† Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of Arbitrators – Jurisdiction of referral court – Scope of interference Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : ARBITRATION PETITION No. 20/2019 | Direction Issue : Petitions allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASLAM ISMAIL KHAN DESHMUKHversusASAP FLUIDS PVT. LTD. & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1082024 INSC 849Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of the Shareholders Agreement between the parties. Whether the reference under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation be declined by examining whether the substantive claims of the petitioner are ex facie and hopelessly time barred. Headnotes† Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – Appointment of Arbitrators – Jurisdiction of referral court – Scope of interferenceDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :ARBITRATION PETITION No. 20/2019| Direction Issue :Petitions allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC849,2025-06-13T22:48:00.275721 KARIKHO KRIversusNUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER,09-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4615/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration In the year 2019, appellant-KK an independent candidate emerged victorious in Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency. The issue arising for consideration is as to the validity of the High Court’s findings that grounds u/ss. of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were established, warranting invalidation of the election of KK. Headnotes Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 100(1)(b), 100(1) (d)(i), 123 – Election – Filing of nomination – Submission of material Decision Date : 09-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 4615/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KARIKHO KRIversusNUNEY TAYANG AND ANOTHER-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3942024 INSC 289Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE*, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration In the year 2019, appellant-KK an independent candidate emerged victorious in Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 44 Tezu (ST) Assembly Constituency. The issue arising for consideration is as to the validity of the High Court’s findings that grounds u/ss. of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were established, warranting invalidation of the election of KK. Headnotes Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss. 100(1)(b), 100(1) (d)(i), 123 – Election – Filing of nomination – Submission of materialDecision Date :09-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4615/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC289,2025-06-13T22:45:52.438272 SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,06-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3821/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in disturbing the custody of the child, aged one year and five months at the time of passing the order, by handing over the custody of the child to her father and paternal side relatives from the custody of her maternal – Art. 226 – Writ of Habeas Corpus under, seeking custody of minor – Minor child aged 11 months, in custody of maternal side relatives after the unatural death of her mother – Arrest of father in connection with mother’s death, however later released on bail – Decision Date : 06-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3821/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SOMPRABHA RANA & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 642024 INSC 664Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in disturbing the custody of the child, aged one year and five months at the time of passing the order, by handing over the custody of the child to her father and paternal side relatives from the custody of her maternal – Art. 226 – Writ of Habeas Corpus under, seeking custody of minor – Minor child aged 11 months, in custody of maternal side relatives after the unatural death of her mother – Arrest of father in connection with mother’s death, however later released on bail –Decision Date :06-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3821/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC664,2025-06-13T22:44:34.718457 "DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.",15-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 18802/2017,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the Resolution passed by the State Government based upon the recommendations by the State Backward Commission that in the list of Extremely Backward Classes, the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste be merged in the the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ mentioned at Serial No. Entry 20 so that they could get benefits of the Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 18802/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR VICHAR MANCH BIHAR, PATNAversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 7962024 INSC 528Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the Resolution passed by the State Government based upon the recommendations by the State Backward Commission that in the list of Extremely Backward Classes, the “Tanti-Tantwa” caste be merged in the the caste ‘Pan/Sawasi’ mentioned at Serial No. Entry 20 so that they could get benefits of the Scheduled Castes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 341 – Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and otherDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 18802/2017| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC528,2025-06-13T22:48:43.876747 RAGHUVEER SHARANversusDISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.,10-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2764/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for Evidence Act, 1872 – s.132 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – A criminal complaint was filed, the appellant was also examined as one of the witnesses of the respondent bank, wherein he admitted having changed the tenure of the Fixed Deposit from Decision Date : 10-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2764/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeal dismissed. Contempt petition disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAGHUVEER SHARANversusDISTRICT SAHAKARI KRISHI GRAMIN VIKAS BANK & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 3612024 INSC 681Coram : PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for Evidence Act, 1872 – s.132 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 319 – A criminal complaint was filed, the appellant was also examined as one of the witnesses of the respondent bank, wherein he admitted having changed the tenure of the Fixed Deposit fromDecision Date :10-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2764/2024| Direction Issue :Appeal dismissed. Contempt petition disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC681,2025-06-13T22:44:04.763923 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.versusVIRENDRA BAHADUR KATHERIA AND ORS.,15-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7799/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration If there was any discrepancy in the pay scales of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) of the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vis-à-vis the Headmasters of Junior Whether the SDI/ ABSA and DBSA were entitled to the higher pay scale of 7500- 12000 with effect from 01.07.2001 or whether it was appropriately granted to them from 01.12.2008 onwards. Headnotes† Service Law – Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Sub Deputy Inspector of Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7799/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.versusVIRENDRA BAHADUR KATHERIA AND ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 13212024 INSC 524Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration If there was any discrepancy in the pay scales of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) of the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vis-à-vis the Headmasters of Junior Whether the SDI/ ABSA and DBSA were entitled to the higher pay scale of 7500- 12000 with effect from 01.07.2001 or whether it was appropriately granted to them from 01.12.2008 onwards. Headnotes† Service Law – Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational (Sub Deputy Inspector ofDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7799/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC524,2025-06-13T22:48:48.615761 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHELLO HOME EDUCATION SOCIETY,11-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3659/2023,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus HELLO HOME EDUCATION SOCIETY - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4542024 INSC 33 VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Mere notings and in-principle approvals, if confers a vested right; in view of the change in policy decision and the amended 1981 Rules that the allotment of land would be made through auction and also included those cases where allotment was yet to be made, if justified in granting relief to the respondent society; and that the litigant who is not diligent, if could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Administrative law – Policy decision – Change in policy – Mere Decision Date : 11-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3659/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusHELLO HOME EDUCATION SOCIETY-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4542024 INSC 33Coram : VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Mere notings and in-principle approvals, if confers a vested right; in view of the change in policy decision and the amended 1981 Rules that the allotment of land would be made through auction and also included those cases where allotment was yet to be made, if justified in granting relief to the respondent society; and that the litigant who is not diligent, if could invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes Administrative law – Policy decision – Change in policy – MereDecision Date :11-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3659/2023| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC33,2025-06-13T22:47:58.920580 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusNIRAJ TYAGI & ORS,13-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 843/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - Telugu Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus NIRAJ TYAGI & ORS - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3112024 INSC 106 BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration Interim orders passed by the High Court staying the investigations of the FIRs and the Enforcement Directorate, if justified. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Powers of the High Court under – Banking financial institution sanctioned borrowers, however, the borrowers defaulted – Banking institution auctioned the property and sold the shares of the borrowers for the recovery of its dues – Registration of FIR by the borrowers against the Banking institution and its officers, and investigation by the Enforcement Decision Date : 13-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 843/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusNIRAJ TYAGI & ORS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3112024 INSC 106Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration Interim orders passed by the High Court staying the investigations of the FIRs and the Enforcement Directorate, if justified. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Powers of the High Court under – Banking financial institution sanctioned borrowers, however, the borrowers defaulted – Banking institution auctioned the property and sold the shares of the borrowers for the recovery of its dues – Registration of FIR by the borrowers against the Banking institution and its officers, and investigation by the EnforcementDecision Date :13-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 843/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC106,2025-06-13T22:44:47.853903 OMKAR RAMCHANDRA GONDversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,15-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10611/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, ARAVIND KUMAR, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant should be disqualified from obtaining admission under the PwD category for the MBBS Course merely because his disability is quantified at 44% /45%. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – MBBS course – Admission – PwD category – Appellant has speech and language disability and is diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation IN K/C/O Repaired Bilateral CLEFT of palate – Appellant appeared for the NEET (UG) 2024 and qualified the same – As required, appellant underwent Decision Date : 15-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10611/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.OMKAR RAMCHANDRA GONDversusTHE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 6732024 INSC 775Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, ARAVIND KUMAR, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant should be disqualified from obtaining admission under the PwD category for the MBBS Course merely because his disability is quantified at 44% /45%. Headnotes† Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – MBBS course – Admission – PwD category – Appellant has speech and language disability and is diagnosed with Hypernasality with Misarticulation IN K/C/O Repaired Bilateral CLEFT of palate – Appellant appeared for the NEET (UG) 2024 and qualified the same – As required, appellant underwentDecision Date :15-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10611/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC775,2025-06-13T22:49:17.324101 RAMNARESH @ RINKU KUSHWAH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS,20-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9628/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Appellants-meritorious reserved candidates, who had passed from the Government Schools and on their own merit were entitled to be selected against the Unreserved Government School (UR-GS) quota were denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota, application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. They were deprived admission in the Academic Session 2023-24 for MBBS Course against the UR-GS category. High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. Decision Date : 20-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9628/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAMNARESH @ RINKU KUSHWAH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9162024 INSC 611Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Appellants-meritorious reserved candidates, who had passed from the Government Schools and on their own merit were entitled to be selected against the Unreserved Government School (UR-GS) quota were denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota, application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. They were deprived admission in the Academic Session 2023-24 for MBBS Course against the UR-GS category. High Court whether justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.Decision Date :20-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9628/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC611,2025-06-13T22:45:57.044128 S.P. PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,21-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6186/2018,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals. Headnotes† Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulations for the Air Force – Decision Date : 21-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6186/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","S.P. PANDEYversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 23142024 INSC 804Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant-Airman, was charged for “Violation of good order and Air Force Discipline” and “Use of insubordinate language to a superior officer”. An order of admonition was passed on 18.05.2010 against the appellant by the Officiating Commanding of ‘Admonition’ passed against the appellant vide order dated 18.01.2011. Not satisfied with the order of Armed Forces Tribunal, appellant demanded compensation by filing the present appeals. Headnotes† Air Force Act, 1950 - Regulations for the Air Force –Decision Date :21-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6186/2018| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC804,2025-06-13T22:48:55.301519 THE STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD.,02-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7874/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration Definition of Purchase Price under sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. High Court whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal wherein it held that the tax and value purchases on which no tax in the assessment could not be included in the aggregate of taxable turnover of purchases within the State of Gujarat for the purpose of reduction of tax credit. Headnotes† Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – ss.2(18), (32), 11(3 (b) – Purchase Price – Turnover of Decision Date : 02-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7874/2024 | Direction Issue : Appeals dismissed, Transfer Cases allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 GUJARATversusM/S AMBUJA CEMENT LTD.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 342024 INSC 572Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration Definition of Purchase Price under sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. High Court whether justified in upholding the order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal wherein it held that the tax and value purchases on which no tax in the assessment could not be included in the aggregate of taxable turnover of purchases within the State of Gujarat for the purpose of reduction of tax credit. Headnotes† Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – ss.2(18), (32), 11(3 (b) – Purchase Price – Turnover ofDecision Date :02-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7874/2024| Direction Issue :Appeals dismissed, Transfer Cases allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC572,2025-06-13T22:47:38.738274 M/S SITARAM ENTERPRISESversusPRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN,09-09-2024,CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 196/2024,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 SITARAM ENTERPRISES versus PRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 4142024 INSC 685 J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Eviction decree was passed against the respondent-tenant (contemnor). Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by him vide order dtd. 06.06.2023 and he was granted nine months time expiring the suit premises subject to filing of undertaking/affidavit. Undertaking/affidavit was filed belatedly and the contemnor continued to litigate filing Review Petitions and applications seeking extension of time which were dismissed. He deliberately did not appear in the Court despite specific Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 196/2024 | Direction Issue : Contempt Petitions disposed of. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 SITARAM ENTERPRISESversusPRITHVIRAJ VARDICHAND JAIN-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 4142024 INSC 685Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Eviction decree was passed against the respondent-tenant (contemnor). Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by him vide order dtd. 06.06.2023 and he was granted nine months time expiring the suit premises subject to filing of undertaking/affidavit. Undertaking/affidavit was filed belatedly and the contemnor continued to litigate filing Review Petitions and applications seeking extension of time which were dismissed. He deliberately did not appear in the Court despite specificDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 196/2024| Direction Issue :Contempt Petitions disposed of.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC685,2025-06-13T22:44:28.682168 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASHOK KUMAR SHARMA,18-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 290/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA - [2024] 7 S.C.R. 11752024 INSC 564 SANDEEP MEHTA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the order passed by the tribunal setting aside the dismissal of the charged officer. Headnotes† Administrative law – Disciplinary proceedings – Mandatory compliances by the disciplinary authority – On facts, Disciplinary enquiry held and seven out of the eight charges proved against the charged officer – Issuance of notice to the charged officer – Thereafter, the charged officer dismissed from service – Challenge to – Tribunal set aside the dismissal order – Said order Decision Date : 18-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 290/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusASHOK KUMAR SHARMA-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11752024 INSC 564Coram : SANDEEP MEHTA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in upholding the order passed by the tribunal setting aside the dismissal of the charged officer. Headnotes† Administrative law – Disciplinary proceedings – Mandatory compliances by the disciplinary authority – On facts, Disciplinary enquiry held and seven out of the eight charges proved against the charged officer – Issuance of notice to the charged officer – Thereafter, the charged officer dismissed from service – Challenge to – Tribunal set aside the dismissal order – Said orderDecision Date :18-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 290/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC564,2025-06-13T22:48:30.830648 CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARDversusTARSEM LAL,07-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1788/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD versus TARSEM LAL - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3712024 INSC 119 B.V. NAGARATHNA Issue for Consideration Whether a notification issued by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board calling for applications from both Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes confer any benefit on the respondent (who belonged to the Schedule Tribes community as recognised in the State of Rajasthan and years) when there is no Presidential Order u/Art. 342 of the Constitution of India issued with regard to Scheduled Tribes insofar as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned. Headnotes Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 – Decision Date : 07-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1788/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARDversusTARSEM LAL-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3712024 INSC 119Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNAIssue for Consideration Whether a notification issued by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board calling for applications from both Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes confer any benefit on the respondent (who belonged to the Schedule Tribes community as recognised in the State of Rajasthan and years) when there is no Presidential Order u/Art. 342 of the Constitution of India issued with regard to Scheduled Tribes insofar as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned. Headnotes Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 –Decision Date :07-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1788/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC119,2025-06-13T22:46:04.785671 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSHILPA JAIN & ORS.,05-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1565/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court is correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR filed against Respondents. Headnotes Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 482 – Whether High Court proceeded on false premise that the Suit Property State of Madhya Pradesh – Consequently proceeded to quash the FIR against Respondents: Held: The Trial Court categorically found that the Suit Property belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh while dismissing the Civil Suit – This finding was upheld by the High Court – The facts Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1565/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 MADHYA PRADESHversusSHILPA JAIN & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3722024 INSC 278Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court is correct in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR filed against Respondents. Headnotes Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 482 – Whether High Court proceeded on false premise that the Suit Property State of Madhya Pradesh – Consequently proceeded to quash the FIR against Respondents: Held: The Trial Court categorically found that the Suit Property belonged to the State of Madhya Pradesh while dismissing the Civil Suit – This finding was upheld by the High Court – The factsDecision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1565/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC278,2025-06-13T22:46:57.202924 M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.,08-11-2024,REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1565/2022,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose, whether the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction; whether the suit instituted was barred by limitation; and whether the suit for specific performance must be decreed. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVII r.1 – Review of judgments of Supreme Court – Suit fo specific performance – Decision Date : 08-11-2024 | Case No : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1565/2022 | Direction Issue : Review Petitions allowed. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 6672024 INSC 861Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose, whether the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction; whether the suit instituted was barred by limitation; and whether the suit for specific performance must be decreed. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVII r.1 – Review of judgments of Supreme Court – Suit fo specific performance –Decision Date :08-11-2024| Case No :REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1565/2022| Direction Issue :Review Petitions allowed.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC861,2025-06-13T22:47:59.870215 "SANJAY KUNDUversusREGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS",12-01-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 550/2024,Disposed off,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SANJAY KUNDU versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 4422024 INSC 43 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an email from complainant, addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court suo motu registered a Criminal Writ Petition pursuant The High Court directed that the petitioner herein, who is holding the post of DGP, and the SP, Kangra should be moved to any other post to ensure that a fair investigation takes place. The petitioner was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor was he heard before the above order was Decision Date : 12-01-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 550/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SANJAY KUNDUversusREGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 4422024 INSC 43Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The proceedings before the High Court were initiated on an email from complainant, addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court suo motu registered a Criminal Writ Petition pursuant The High Court directed that the petitioner herein, who is holding the post of DGP, and the SP, Kangra should be moved to any other post to ensure that a fair investigation takes place. The petitioner was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor was he heard before the above order wasDecision Date :12-01-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 550/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC43,2025-06-13T22:47:50.630177 JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS,06-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1753/2024,Dismissed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,"Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHERversusBADRI NATH AND OTHERS-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1232024 INSC 86Issue for Consideration Exemption of pre-emption as granted vide notification dated 08.10.1985, if available to the urban immovable property on which right of pre-emption was sought to be exercised by the tenants. Headnotes Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – ss. 16, 8(2), 3(1), (3) – vests in an urban immovable property – Tenants were in the property from the year 1949 onwards where the rolling mill had been set up – Property was an urban immovable property, located in a municipal area of Jagadhri – Owners of the property sold the property to theDecision Date :06-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1753/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC86,2025-06-13T22:46:24.544379 GAUTAM KUMAR DASversusNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS,20-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3447/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of custody of the minor child to the father, the only natural guardian. Headnotes† Custody – Claim of – Appellant-father, only surviving biological parent seeking custody of the minor daughter from the alleged unlawful custody wife just ten days after the birth of their daughter and thereafter, his father due to Covid-19 – Due to the loss, the father handed over the custody of his minor daughter to his sister-in-law as an interim arrangement, however, his son who was relatively older was with him – Decision Date : 20-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3447/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.GAUTAM KUMAR DASversusNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 4512024 INSC 610Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of custody of the minor child to the father, the only natural guardian. Headnotes† Custody – Claim of – Appellant-father, only surviving biological parent seeking custody of the minor daughter from the alleged unlawful custody wife just ten days after the birth of their daughter and thereafter, his father due to Covid-19 – Due to the loss, the father handed over the custody of his minor daughter to his sister-in-law as an interim arrangement, however, his son who was relatively older was with him –Decision Date :20-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3447/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC610,2025-06-13T22:45:51.849220 AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHODversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.,29-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 478/2024,Dismissed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ગુજરાતી - Gujarati नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 10832024 INSC 63 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused convicted u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had claimed mismatch of signatures on the cheque in question. His application for comparison of the signature as appearing on the cheque through the handwriting expert was rejected by trial court. justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant u/s.391, CrPC for taking additional evidence at appellate stage and seeking a direction to obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.118, 138 – Code of Criminal Decision Date : 29-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 478/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHODversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 10832024 INSC 63Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAIIssue for Consideration Appellant-accused convicted u/s.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had claimed mismatch of signatures on the cheque in question. His application for comparison of the signature as appearing on the cheque through the handwriting expert was rejected by trial court. justified in dismissing the application filed by the appellant u/s.391, CrPC for taking additional evidence at appellate stage and seeking a direction to obtain the opinion of the handwriting expert. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.118, 138 – Code of CriminalDecision Date :29-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 478/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC63,2025-06-13T22:47:14.948259 SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,10-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2012,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing accused no. 1 u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 324 – Murder – dangerous weapon or means – Right of private defence, if applicable – On facts, morning incident wherein quarrel between the complainant and accused on account of blocking the way and accused persons hurled abuses to her – In the evening, the complainant informed her father Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUBHASH @ SUBANNA & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3282024 INSC 294Coram : SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting and sentencing accused no. 1 u/s. 302, and accused no. 2 and 4 u/ss. 324 and 326 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 324 – Murder – dangerous weapon or means – Right of private defence, if applicable – On facts, morning incident wherein quarrel between the complainant and accused on account of blocking the way and accused persons hurled abuses to her – In the evening, the complainant informed her fatherDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 328/2012| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC294,2025-06-13T22:45:05.005337 RAM BALAK SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.,01-05-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1627/2016,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration In view of the bar imposed u/s. 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the order of the Consolidation Authority confirming the title of the appellant over the suit land and directing for recording his name in the record to be reversed or ignored by the Civil Court. Headnotes Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – s. 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court – Order of the Consolidation Authority confirming the title of the appellant over the suit land, liable Decision Date : 01-05-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1627/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAM BALAK SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 360Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration In view of the bar imposed u/s. 37 of the Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the order of the Consolidation Authority confirming the title of the appellant over the suit land and directing for recording his name in the record to be reversed or ignored by the Civil Court. Headnotes Bihar Consolidation of Upholdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – s. 37 – Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court – Order of the Consolidation Authority confirming the title of the appellant over the suit land, liableDecision Date :01-05-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1627/2016| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC360,2025-06-13T22:41:56.265755 MANOJ KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,20-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2679/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. MANOJ KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 4092024 INSC 126 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration The appellant sought appointment as a primary school teacher. The issue arising for consideration in the present case relates the allocation of marks for additional qualifications, for which 10 marks had been prescribed. Headnotes Service Law – Recruitment – additional qualifications – An Institute issued an advertisement in March 2016 calling applications for appointment to the post of primary school teachers – For the allocation of marks, additional qualifications 10 marks had been prescribed – The appellant herein is aggrieved Decision Date : 20-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2679/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANOJ KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 4092024 INSC 126Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration The appellant sought appointment as a primary school teacher. The issue arising for consideration in the present case relates the allocation of marks for additional qualifications, for which 10 marks had been prescribed. Headnotes Service Law – Recruitment – additional qualifications – An Institute issued an advertisement in March 2016 calling applications for appointment to the post of primary school teachers – For the allocation of marks, additional qualifications 10 marks had been prescribed – The appellant herein is aggrievedDecision Date :20-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2679/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC126,2025-06-13T22:43:03.701290 TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS.versusRAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.,09-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6557/2022,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS. versus RAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 5002024 INSC 945 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14 – Clarity and certainity in interpretation: Held: This Court noticed that while following Tulsamma, in Thota Sesharathamma, Masilamani Mudaliar and Shakuntala Devi have made passing observations about the discordant note in the case of Karmi, Bhura and Gumpha but they have not been clearly and categorically overruled – Perhaps this is the reason why the subsequent decisions consistently Decision Date : 09-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6557/2022 | Direction Issue : Matter referred to Chief Justice for constituting appropriate Bench | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. & ORS.versusRAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5002024 INSC 945Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Headnotes† Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14 – Clarity and certainity in interpretation: Held: This Court noticed that while following Tulsamma, in Thota Sesharathamma, Masilamani Mudaliar and Shakuntala Devi have made passing observations about the discordant note in the case of Karmi, Bhura and Gumpha but they have not been clearly and categorically overruled – Perhaps this is the reason why the subsequent decisions consistentlyDecision Date :09-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6557/2022| Direction Issue :Matter referred to Chief Justice for constituting appropriate Bench| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC945,2025-06-13T22:47:21.447526 KALINGA @ KUSHALversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI,20-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 622/2013,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. KALINGA @ KUSHAL versus STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 3912024 INSC 124 BELA M. TRIVEDI Issue for Consideration Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed as reliable and the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent for arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Headnotes Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Evidentiary value – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons – Decision Date : 20-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 622/2013 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KALINGA @ KUSHALversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR HUBLI-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 3912024 INSC 124Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDIIssue for Consideration Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant-accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for his conviction thereon for the murder of his brother-PW-1’s son; whether the testimony of PW-1 could be termed as reliable and the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent for arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Headnotes Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Evidentiary value – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons –Decision Date :20-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 622/2013| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC124,2025-06-13T22:43:13.676742 M/S REWA TOLLWAY P. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.,19-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8985/2013,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration In view of the subsequent change of policy by the state legislature in light of larger public interest, the appellants were required to pay stamp duty on the Concession Agreement executed under the Build, Operate & Transfer (BOT) Scheme. Plea of the appellants that previous executive decision that the agreement would not require stamp duty, but was to be executed only on stamp paper of Rs.100/-, the appellants entered into the agreement with legitimate expectation that no stamp duty was required to be paid. Whether the appellants had any enforceable legal Decision Date : 19-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8985/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 REWA TOLLWAY P. LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 11292024 INSC 539Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration In view of the subsequent change of policy by the state legislature in light of larger public interest, the appellants were required to pay stamp duty on the Concession Agreement executed under the Build, Operate & Transfer (BOT) Scheme. Plea of the appellants that previous executive decision that the agreement would not require stamp duty, but was to be executed only on stamp paper of Rs.100/-, the appellants entered into the agreement with legitimate expectation that no stamp duty was required to be paid. Whether the appellants had any enforceable legalDecision Date :19-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8985/2013| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC539,2025-06-13T22:48:24.908741 KIRAN JYOT MAINIversusANISH PRAMOD PATEL,15-07-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2915/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 15-07-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2915/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 itsDecision Date :15-07-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2915/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC530,2025-06-13T22:48:45.325450 AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SETH & ANR.,19-01-2024,MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 190/2024,Unknown,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. AXIS BANK LIMITED versus NAREN SETH & ANR. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11832024 INSC 105 VIKRAM NATH Issue for Consideration Application was filed by the applicant-appellant seeking clarification of the judgment reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Judgment reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581, corrected to an extent creditor” referred in para 20 of the judgment to be read as “secured creditor”. Case Law Cited Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Seth & Anr., [2023] 14 SCR 581 – Corrected to an extent. List of Acts Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Limitation Act, 1963 List of Decision Date : 19-01-2024 | Case No : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 190/2024 | Bench : 1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.AXIS BANK LIMITEDversusNAREN SETH & ANR.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11832024 INSC 105Coram : VIKRAM NATHIssue for Consideration Application was filed by the applicant-appellant seeking clarification of the judgment reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581. Headnotes Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Judgment reported in [2023] 14 SCR 581, corrected to an extent creditor” referred in para 20 of the judgment to be read as “secured creditor”. Case Law Cited Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Seth & Anr., [2023] 14 SCR 581 – Corrected to an extent. List of Acts Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Limitation Act, 1963 List ofDecision Date :19-01-2024| Case No :MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 190/2024| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC105,2025-06-13T22:47:39.413081 DR. VIJAY DIXIT & ORS.versusPAGADAL KRISHNA MOHAN & ORS.,22-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1970/2020,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 22-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1970/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 appealsDecision Date :22-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1970/2020| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC627,2025-06-13T22:45:27.565787 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusOFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI,05-08-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 348/2023,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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) Decision Date : 05-08-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 348/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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)Decision Date :05-08-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 348/2023| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC578,2025-06-13T22:47:35.774528 "RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRARversusDR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND ORS.",06-08-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 22278/2011,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration In the Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011, the respondents herein are the Research Assistants, who were designated as Lecturers and later re-designated were deprived of the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Whether by re-designating Research Assistants as Lecturers and thereafter as Assistant Professors, they could be granted the benefit of CAS. In the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 30963/2018, the respondents herein Decision Date : 06-08-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 22278/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIKANER, THROUGH ITS REGISTRARversusDR. ZABAR SINGH SOLANKI AND ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1752024 INSC 581Coram : HIMA KOHLI*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration In the Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No. 22278/2011 and 22813/2011, the respondents herein are the Research Assistants, who were designated as Lecturers and later re-designated were deprived of the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Whether by re-designating Research Assistants as Lecturers and thereafter as Assistant Professors, they could be granted the benefit of CAS. In the Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 30963/2018, the respondents hereinDecision Date :06-08-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 22278/2011| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC581,2025-06-13T22:47:33.250886 "COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR -IIversusM/S MIRAJ PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.",08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 143/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 143/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 asDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 143/2010| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC470,2025-06-13T22:51:17.706223 MRINMOY MAITYversusCHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS,18-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5027/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Writ court, if justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the approval granted in favour of the appellant for starting LPG distributorship. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art 226 – Exercise of discretionary powers laches, effect – On facts, four years after the allotment of LPG distributorship in favour of the appellant, and on acceptance of the alternate land offered by the appellant and permitting him to construct the godown and the showroom, the unsuccessful bidder challenged the decision of the Decision Date : 18-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5027/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MRINMOY MAITYversusCHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5062024 INSC 314Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Writ court, if justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the approval granted in favour of the appellant for starting LPG distributorship. Headnotes Constitution of India – Art 226 – Exercise of discretionary powers laches, effect – On facts, four years after the allotment of LPG distributorship in favour of the appellant, and on acceptance of the alternate land offered by the appellant and permitting him to construct the godown and the showroom, the unsuccessful bidder challenged the decision of theDecision Date :18-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5027/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC314,2025-06-13T22:44:29.182478 VEENA GUPTA & ANRversusCENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS.,30-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1865/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VEENA GUPTA & ANR versus CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 11852024 INSC 89 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the impugned orders passed by National Green Tribunal – order arising out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding the appellants guilty and directing payment of compensation; and order of dismissal of the appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given opportunity before adverse order was passed against him, were not sustainable. Headnotes Practice and Procedure – Opportunity of hearing to affected party – National Green Tribunal’s recurrent engagement in unilateral decision Decision Date : 30-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1865/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VEENA GUPTA & ANRversusCENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 11852024 INSC 89Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the impugned orders passed by National Green Tribunal – order arising out of an ex parte order in suo motu proceedings holding the appellants guilty and directing payment of compensation; and order of dismissal of the appellant No.2 alleging that he had not been given opportunity before adverse order was passed against him, were not sustainable. Headnotes Practice and Procedure – Opportunity of hearing to affected party – National Green Tribunal’s recurrent engagement in unilateral decisionDecision Date :30-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1865/2022| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC89,2025-06-13T22:46:48.796313 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS.versusM/S SAFARI RETREATS PRIVATE LTD. & ORS.,03-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2948/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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, Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2948/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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,Decision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2948/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC756,2025-06-13T22:49:47.099236 DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.,23-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3114/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in declining to quash and set aside the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, against the appellants- company and its office bearers, for offence punishable u/ss. 406 and 420 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420 and 120B of trust and cheating – Private complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 in the court of Magistrate against the appellants for the offence punishable u/ss.406, 420 and 120B, alleging that certain amount was due and payable to him by the appellants towards the sale of horse grains and oats Decision Date : 23-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3114/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LTD. & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 6702024 INSC 626Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in declining to quash and set aside the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, against the appellants- company and its office bearers, for offence punishable u/ss. 406 and 420 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420 and 120B of trust and cheating – Private complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 in the court of Magistrate against the appellants for the offence punishable u/ss.406, 420 and 120B, alleging that certain amount was due and payable to him by the appellants towards the sale of horse grains and oatsDecision Date :23-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3114/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC626,2025-06-13T22:45:15.959449 IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURESversus,13-11-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 295/2022,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 13-11-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 295/2022 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 processDecision Date :13-11-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 295/2022| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC866,2025-06-13T22:47:53.006534 ANOOP M. AND OTHERSversusGIREESHKUMAR T.M. AND OTHERS ETC.,04-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12173/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 – Decision Date : 04-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12173/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishമലയാളം - Malayalamਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 –Decision Date :04-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12173/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC828,2025-06-13T22:48:50.654894 M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISESversusKAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER,09-04-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 5583/2022,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 09-04-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 5583/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 ofDecision Date :09-04-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 5583/2022| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC288,2025-06-13T22:45:50.521357 ASIM AKHTARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.,18-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4247/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the victim (respondent no.2)-PW-1, her was recorded – Respondent no.2 filed an application u/s.319 CrPC for summoning the father and mother of the accused-appellant – Thereafter, the above three prosecuting witnesses did not appear before the trial Court for cross-examination and insisted for deciding application u/s.319 Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4247/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ASIM AKHTARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9112024 INSC 794Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the victim (respondent no.2)-PW-1, her was recorded – Respondent no.2 filed an application u/s.319 CrPC for summoning the father and mother of the accused-appellant – Thereafter, the above three prosecuting witnesses did not appear before the trial Court for cross-examination and insisted for deciding application u/s.319Decision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4247/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC794,2025-06-13T22:49:02.009580 STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.,06-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 664/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co- accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused armed with pistol in her death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main Decision Date : 06-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 664/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 10392024 INSC 154Coram : SURYA KANT*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co- accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused armed with pistol in her death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the mainDecision Date :06-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 664/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC154,2025-06-13T22:46:26.691688 PARVIN KUMAR JAINversusANJU JAIN,10-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14277/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the parties were married and have a son born from their wedlock, however, the realtionship soured and they have been living separately for more than two decades. The main issue between the parties all these years, since separation, is the quantum of appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Quantum of maintenance – Permanent alimony – The respondent’s application for enhanced interim maintenance rested on her assertion of significant changes in circumstances since the last Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14277/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.PARVIN KUMAR JAINversusANJU JAIN-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 5432024 INSC 961Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration In the instant case, the parties were married and have a son born from their wedlock, however, the realtionship soured and they have been living separately for more than two decades. The main issue between the parties all these years, since separation, is the quantum of appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Quantum of maintenance – Permanent alimony – The respondent’s application for enhanced interim maintenance rested on her assertion of significant changes in circumstances since the lastDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14277/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC961,2025-06-13T22:47:15.190465 THIRUMOORTHYversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,22-03-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTA Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was vitiated on account of non-adherence to of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Headnotes Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Despite the appellant-accused having been found to be a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on Decision Date : 22-03-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.THIRUMOORTHYversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 12282024 INSC 247Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, SANDEEP MEHTAIssue for Consideration Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was vitiated on account of non-adherence to of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Headnotes Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Despite the appellant-accused having been found to be a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) onDecision Date :22-03-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC247,2025-06-13T22:47:41.880934 RAMA KT. BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS.versusMD. MAHIM ALI & ORS.,21-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3500/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court in second appeal wherein it created a new case for the party, framed the issues and decided them without following the procedure contemplated u/Ord. XLI. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedures, – Appeals from appellate decree – Procedure contemplated u/Ord. XLI – Compliance – High Court in second appeal framed additional substantial questions of law, which were not raised by any of the parties before the courts below and allowed the appeal without giving any Decision Date : 21-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3500/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAMA KT. BARMAN (DIED) THR. LRS.versusMD. MAHIM ALI & ORS.-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7272024 INSC 644Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court in second appeal wherein it created a new case for the party, framed the issues and decided them without following the procedure contemplated u/Ord. XLI. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedures, – Appeals from appellate decree – Procedure contemplated u/Ord. XLI – Compliance – High Court in second appeal framed additional substantial questions of law, which were not raised by any of the parties before the courts below and allowed the appeal without giving anyDecision Date :21-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3500/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC644,2025-06-13T22:45:48.922741 DHANRAJ ASWANIversusAMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.,09-09-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2501/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his involvement in a Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Accused already in judicial custody in connection with one case, if can apply for anticipatory bail in a different case – Maintainability of such anticipatory bail applications – Divergent opinions expressed by different High Courts: Held: An Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2501/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.DHANRAJ ASWANIversusAMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 2572024 INSC 669Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his involvement in a Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Accused already in judicial custody in connection with one case, if can apply for anticipatory bail in a different case – Maintainability of such anticipatory bail applications – Divergent opinions expressed by different High Courts: Held: AnDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2501/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC669,2025-06-13T22:44:18.183242 BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,05-02-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2888/2023,Case Partly allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1112024 INSC 82 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration The capital punishment awarded to the petitioner-convict for the conviction u/s. 376 AB, IPC was not confirmed and it was commuted to imprisonment for life, which, going by the provisions thereunder, means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s question is whether the commutation of capital punishment to sentence of life imprisonment requires further interference. Headnotes Sentence/Sentencing – Modification of sentence – Allegation that petitioner-convict took 7 year old girl to a temple and raped her – Trial Court Decision Date : 05-02-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2888/2023 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARANversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1112024 INSC 82Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration The capital punishment awarded to the petitioner-convict for the conviction u/s. 376 AB, IPC was not confirmed and it was commuted to imprisonment for life, which, going by the provisions thereunder, means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s question is whether the commutation of capital punishment to sentence of life imprisonment requires further interference. Headnotes Sentence/Sentencing – Modification of sentence – Allegation that petitioner-convict took 7 year old girl to a temple and raped her – Trial CourtDecision Date :05-02-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2888/2023| Disposal Nature :Case Partly allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC82,2025-06-13T22:46:36.956716 SOMJEET MALLICKversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS,14-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4190/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, that as per agreement between the parties, the Truck/Trailor was rented to the accused-respondents for plying for 21 months at monthly rent but after payment of first month’s rent, the rent was not paid despite assurances – Chargesheet filed and cognizance was taken by CJM while the Decision Date : 14-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4190/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SOMJEET MALLICKversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 8932024 INSC 772Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, that as per agreement between the parties, the Truck/Trailor was rented to the accused-respondents for plying for 21 months at monthly rent but after payment of first month’s rent, the rent was not paid despite assurances – Chargesheet filed and cognizance was taken by CJM while theDecision Date :14-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4190/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC772,2025-06-13T22:49:29.639199 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.,30-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3391/2011,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 applies to the facts of the present case; whether the state government has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on policies Entry 91 of List I r/w Entry 44 of List III; whether the 1952 Act requires the purchase of insurance stamps from and payment of stamp duty to the Rajasthan government for insurance policies issued within the state; whether, in the facts of the present case, the appellant is liable to pay stamp Decision Date : 30-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3391/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 2412024 INSC 358Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 applies to the facts of the present case; whether the state government has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on policies Entry 91 of List I r/w Entry 44 of List III; whether the 1952 Act requires the purchase of insurance stamps from and payment of stamp duty to the Rajasthan government for insurance policies issued within the state; whether, in the facts of the present case, the appellant is liable to pay stampDecision Date :30-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3391/2011| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC358,2025-06-13T22:42:20.081747 KHALSA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER,03-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 10999/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants inter-alia seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari praying for quashing “The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017” dated 17th July 2017. The issues which arises for consideration are: Whether out a differential treatment to a single entity is valid in law or not; whether the Impugned Act is liable to be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness. Headnotes† Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Whether an enactment for giving out a differential treatment to a Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 10999/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KHALSA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 4452024 INSC 751Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants inter-alia seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari praying for quashing “The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017” dated 17th July 2017. The issues which arises for consideration are: Whether out a differential treatment to a single entity is valid in law or not; whether the Impugned Act is liable to be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness. Headnotes† Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Whether an enactment for giving out a differential treatment to aDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 10999/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC751,2025-06-13T22:49:41.880267 HARSHAD GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH,01-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4080/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. HARSHAD GUPTA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - [2024] 10 S.C.R. 7012024 INSC 776 SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The Judge who had convicted the appellant was transferred post conviction, before the appellant could be heard on the quantum of sentence and a new Judge was posted in his place. Appellant relying on Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C sought direction from the High Court to the the case, including on the question of conviction. High Court whether justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and directing the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. Decision Date : 01-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4080/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.HARSHAD GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 7012024 INSC 776Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The Judge who had convicted the appellant was transferred post conviction, before the appellant could be heard on the quantum of sentence and a new Judge was posted in his place. Appellant relying on Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C sought direction from the High Court to the the case, including on the question of conviction. High Court whether justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and directing the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.Decision Date :01-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4080/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC776,2025-06-13T22:49:57.154999 SAHIL BHARGAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.,09-09-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19953/2024,Unknown,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SAHIL BHARGAVA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. - [2024] 9 S.C.R. 4082024 INSC 699 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the fixation of the fee for the undergraduate medical degree course offered by college. Headnotes† Education/Educational Institutions – Medical admission – Undergraduate medical degree course – Students granted admission in 2018 to the medical UG course and completed the same in 2023 – At the time of admission, fee was Rs five lakhs p.a. for the All India quota seats and Rs four lakhs p.a. for the State quota seats subject to the final decision in the writ petitions pending Decision Date : 09-09-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19953/2024 | Direction Issue : Special Leave Petition disposed of. | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SAHIL BHARGAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 4082024 INSC 699Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the fixation of the fee for the undergraduate medical degree course offered by college. Headnotes† Education/Educational Institutions – Medical admission – Undergraduate medical degree course – Students granted admission in 2018 to the medical UG course and completed the same in 2023 – At the time of admission, fee was Rs five lakhs p.a. for the All India quota seats and Rs four lakhs p.a. for the State quota seats subject to the final decision in the writ petitions pendingDecision Date :09-09-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 19953/2024| Direction Issue :Special Leave Petition disposed of.| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC699,2025-06-13T22:44:25.701871 M/S D. KHOSLA AND COMPANYversusTHE UNION OF INDIA,07-08-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 812/2014,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Arbitrator passed award granting interest for two periods-(i) Pre- award period, from the date of completion of the work up to the date of the award @ 12% per annum (simple interest); and (ii) Post- award, from the date of the award till the date of its of the court decree @ 15% per annum. Whether interest was payable on interest or whether 15% interest per annum awarded would be on the principal sum award plus 12% per annum interest on it for the pre-award period. Headnotes† Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.29, 17 – Interest Act, Decision Date : 07-08-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 812/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 D. KHOSLA AND COMPANYversusTHE UNION OF INDIA-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 1132024 INSC 587Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Arbitrator passed award granting interest for two periods-(i) Pre- award period, from the date of completion of the work up to the date of the award @ 12% per annum (simple interest); and (ii) Post- award, from the date of the award till the date of its of the court decree @ 15% per annum. Whether interest was payable on interest or whether 15% interest per annum awarded would be on the principal sum award plus 12% per annum interest on it for the pre-award period. Headnotes† Arbitration Act, 1940 – ss.29, 17 – Interest Act,Decision Date :07-08-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 812/2014| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC587,2025-06-13T22:47:27.451488 KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,27-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3522/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) of the PMLA to the applicant being a well educated and accomplished woman, who has remained Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Council. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, treatment under s.45 proviso – Entitlement – Applicant-well educated and accomplished woman, has remained Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Council, was one of the chief conspirators in the entire conspiracy relating to formulation and implementation of new Excise Policy Decision Date : 27-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3522/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7172024 INSC 632Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) of the PMLA to the applicant being a well educated and accomplished woman, who has remained Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Council. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, treatment under s.45 proviso – Entitlement – Applicant-well educated and accomplished woman, has remained Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Council, was one of the chief conspirators in the entire conspiracy relating to formulation and implementation of new Excise PolicyDecision Date :27-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3522/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC632,2025-06-13T22:45:11.883448 RAM NATHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.,21-02-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 472/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and ss.272 and 273 of the Penal Code, 1860; whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar that after coming into force of the FSSA w.e.f 29th July 2010, it would have an overriding effect on other food related laws, including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and ss. 272, 273, IPC, challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012 is correct. Headnotes Food Safety and Decision Date : 21-02-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 472/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAM NATHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 7432024 INSC 138Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and ss.272 and 273 of the Penal Code, 1860; whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar that after coming into force of the FSSA w.e.f 29th July 2010, it would have an overriding effect on other food related laws, including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and ss. 272, 273, IPC, challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012 is correct. Headnotes Food Safety andDecision Date :21-02-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 472/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC138,2025-06-13T22:42:31.095655 JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusMB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS.,08-01-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6503/2022,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. versus MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS. - [2024] 1 S.C.R. 9092024 INSC 23 BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration State Commission held that the tariffs offered by the L-4 and L-5 bidders were not aligned to the prevailing market prices. In appeal by L-5, APTEL held that the State Commission had to necessarily adopt the tariff and had no power the tariff was aligned to market prices. Impugned judgment of the High Court relying on the said judgment of the APTEL and the earlier orders of this Court concluded that applying the test of “filling the bucket”, the procurers were bound to take supply from the respondent No.1 at the Decision Date : 08-01-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6503/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.versusMB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED & ORS.-[2024] 1 S.C.R. 9092024 INSC 23Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration State Commission held that the tariffs offered by the L-4 and L-5 bidders were not aligned to the prevailing market prices. In appeal by L-5, APTEL held that the State Commission had to necessarily adopt the tariff and had no power the tariff was aligned to market prices. Impugned judgment of the High Court relying on the said judgment of the APTEL and the earlier orders of this Court concluded that applying the test of “filling the bucket”, the procurers were bound to take supply from the respondent No.1 at theDecision Date :08-01-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6503/2022| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC23,2025-06-13T22:48:11.153589 P.J. DHARMARAJversusCHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.,06-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14029/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the claim of the appellant seeking retirement age as sixty five years. Headnotes† Service law – Retirement age – Age of superannuation, enhancement to 65 years – Appellant appointed as Director in CSIIT, affiliated with University State of Telangana – At the time of issuance of the appointment letter, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education-AICTE and University Grants Commission-UGC Regulations was sixty years – Subsequently, the regulations were revised and the age Decision Date : 06-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14029/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.P.J. DHARMARAJversusCHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 3742024 INSC 938Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the claim of the appellant seeking retirement age as sixty five years. Headnotes† Service law – Retirement age – Age of superannuation, enhancement to 65 years – Appellant appointed as Director in CSIIT, affiliated with University State of Telangana – At the time of issuance of the appointment letter, the age of superannuation according to the All India Council For Technical Education-AICTE and University Grants Commission-UGC Regulations was sixty years – Subsequently, the regulations were revised and the ageDecision Date :06-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14029/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC938,2025-06-13T22:47:28.081272 MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS.versusSHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.,10-04-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9642/2010,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Appellants if had easementary right of the way over the land owned by the respondents i.e. the disputed rasta. Appellants’ reliance upon the evidence of their Power of Attorney holder/Manager of the property (PW-1) to prove their easementary right disputed rasta, if proper. Headnotes Easements Act, 1882 – ss.4, 13, 15 – “Easementary right” – Easementary right by prescription or necessity – When not proved: Held: ‘Easement’ u/s.4 is a right which the owner or occupier of a land possesses for Decision Date : 10-04-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9642/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MANISHA MAHENDRA GALA & ORS.versusSHALINI BHAGWAN AVATRAMANI & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 3572024 INSC 293Coram : PANKAJ MITHAL*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Appellants if had easementary right of the way over the land owned by the respondents i.e. the disputed rasta. Appellants’ reliance upon the evidence of their Power of Attorney holder/Manager of the property (PW-1) to prove their easementary right disputed rasta, if proper. Headnotes Easements Act, 1882 – ss.4, 13, 15 – “Easementary right” – Easementary right by prescription or necessity – When not proved: Held: ‘Easement’ u/s.4 is a right which the owner or occupier of a land possesses forDecision Date :10-04-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9642/2010| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC293,2025-06-13T22:44:47.903632 RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHAversusGURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS,23-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 7946/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Suit for partition of the joint property was filed by the appellant- plaintiff. High Court whether justified in passing the impugned judgment holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 liable to render any accounts. Headnotes† Suit – Rendition of accounts by co-sharers – Defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19, if were liable to render accounts: Held: Yes – Admittedly, defendant No.3(a) had rented out a portion of the property and collected rent Decision Date : 23-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 7946/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHAversusGURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 14172024 INSC 552Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Suit for partition of the joint property was filed by the appellant- plaintiff. High Court whether justified in passing the impugned judgment holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 liable to render any accounts. Headnotes† Suit – Rendition of accounts by co-sharers – Defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19, if were liable to render accounts: Held: Yes – Admittedly, defendant No.3(a) had rented out a portion of the property and collected rentDecision Date :23-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 7946/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC552,2025-06-13T22:48:01.931809 SHIVANI TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.,05-04-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1957/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL* Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, and their consequential enlargement on bail, in an acid attack case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal, and on victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court suspended the sentence Decision Date : 05-04-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1957/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SHIVANI TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 362024 INSC 343Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL*Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, and their consequential enlargement on bail, in an acid attack case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal, and on victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court suspended the sentenceDecision Date :05-04-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1957/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC343,2025-06-13T22:46:39.752423 M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusRAMBHA DEVI & ORS.,06-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘Transport Decision Date : 06-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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 BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusRAMBHA DEVI & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 5412024 INSC 840Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration (i) Whether a driver holding a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license (for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of less than 7,500 kgs) as per Section 10(2)(d), which specifies ‘Light a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without obtaining specific authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act, specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class; (ii) whether the second part of Section 3(1) which emphasizes the necessity of a driving license for a ‘TransportDecision Date :06-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 841/2018| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC840,2025-06-13T22:48:18.075409 VELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) AND ANR.,06-01-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2852/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA Issue for Consideration The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34, s. 304 Part II – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, when – Political animosity between two groups led to the murder of the deceased – Prosecution witnesses corroborating incident of accused A 1 stopping an auto, dragging the deceased to the house of A-4, and the other accused-A2, A4 Decision Date : 06-01-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2852/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabiతెలుగు - TeluguDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) AND ANR.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 87Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAIssue for Consideration The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34, s. 304 Part II – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, when – Political animosity between two groups led to the murder of the deceased – Prosecution witnesses corroborating incident of accused A 1 stopping an auto, dragging the deceased to the house of A-4, and the other accused-A2, A4Decision Date :06-01-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2852/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC87,2025-06-13T22:48:12.770369 THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.versusM/S TRIBRO AD BUREAU & ORS.,16-10-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 11117/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Issue for Consideration The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of the Decision Date : 16-10-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 11117/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesFlip viewPDF","THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.versusM/S TRIBRO AD BUREAU & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 13812024 INSC 784Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAHIssue for Consideration The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of theDecision Date :16-10-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 11117/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC784,2025-06-13T22:49:16.202013 ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.,06-05-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 251/2016,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutionality of the Rules-Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 and Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respectively; whether the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce, in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in All India Judges (2002) which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission; whether the prescription of Decision Date : 06-05-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 251/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.ABHIMEET SINHA & ORS.versusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA & ORS.-[2024] 6 S.C.R. 5302024 INSC 381Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutionality of the Rules-Bihar Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1951 and Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 stipulating minimum qualifying marks in the viva voce test as a part of the selection criteria District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respectively; whether the prescription of minimum marks for viva voce, in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in All India Judges (2002) which accepted certain recommendations of the Shetty Commission; whether the prescription ofDecision Date :06-05-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 251/2016| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC381,2025-06-13T22:41:40.283121 SUBODH KUMAR SINGH RATHOURversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.,09-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 6741/2024,Case Allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Scope of judicial review of the actions of the State in the matters relating to contract/tender disputes under writ jurisdiction; whether the action on the part of the respondent in cancelling the tender was amenable to the High Court; if so, whether the said action could be termed as arbitrary or unfair and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Contract/tender disputes – Judicial review – Scope – Tender awarded to the appellant on Public-Private Decision Date : 09-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 6741/2024 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUBODH KUMAR SINGH RATHOURversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 5322024 INSC 486Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Scope of judicial review of the actions of the State in the matters relating to contract/tender disputes under writ jurisdiction; whether the action on the part of the respondent in cancelling the tender was amenable to the High Court; if so, whether the said action could be termed as arbitrary or unfair and in consequence of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Contract/tender disputes – Judicial review – Scope – Tender awarded to the appellant on Public-PrivateDecision Date :09-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 6741/2024| Disposal Nature :Case Allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC486,2025-06-13T22:50:05.108642 YASH TUTEJA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,08-04-2024,WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 153/2023,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN 591 : 2024 INSC 301 Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 153 of 2023) 08 April 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to the Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under the meaning of clause (y) of sub-section (1) of s. 2 of PMLA.` Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of s. 2 – Scheduled Offence – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120B – Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on the basis Decision Date : 08-04-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 153/2023 | Direction Issue : WP(Crl) Nos. 153/2023 and 217/2023 disposed of. WP(Crl) No. 208/2023 partly allowed WP(Crl) No. 216/2023 allowed. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.YASH TUTEJA & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 4 S.C.R. 5912024 INSC 301Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN591 : 2024 INSC 301 Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 153 of 2023) 08 April 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to the Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under the meaning of clause (y) of sub-section (1) of s. 2 of PMLA.` Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of s. 2 – Scheduled Offence – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120B – Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on the basisDecision Date :08-04-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 153/2023| Direction Issue :WP(Crl) Nos. 153/2023 and 217/2023 disposed of. WP(Crl) No. 208/2023 partly allowed WP(Crl) No. 216/2023 allowed.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC301,2025-06-13T22:46:21.200795 VARAD BALWANT VASANT & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,29-04-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 255/2024,Dismissed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi नेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. VARAD BALWANT VASANT & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 5332024 INSC 459 D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Re-scheduling of two papers of Chartered Accountant Examination sought in the wake of General Elections of 2024. In view of the obligation cast upon every citizen to exercise their franchise, whether the examination schedule will cause eligible to exercise their franchise and enrolled for the examination. Headnotes Education/Educational Institutions – Chartered Accountancy – Examination – Re-scheduling of two papers sought – Phase- wise polling during the 2024 General Elections was scheduled to take Decision Date : 29-04-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 255/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.VARAD BALWANT VASANT & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 5332024 INSC 459Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Re-scheduling of two papers of Chartered Accountant Examination sought in the wake of General Elections of 2024. In view of the obligation cast upon every citizen to exercise their franchise, whether the examination schedule will cause eligible to exercise their franchise and enrolled for the examination. Headnotes Education/Educational Institutions – Chartered Accountancy – Examination – Re-scheduling of two papers sought – Phase- wise polling during the 2024 General Elections was scheduled to takeDecision Date :29-04-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 255/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC459,2025-06-13T22:42:30.007045 SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,18-10-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1234/2017,Disposed off,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides. Headnotes† Child Marriage – Guidelines issued for effective implementation of the Prohibition of Decision Date : 18-10-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1234/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 15132024 INSC 790Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides. Headnotes† Child Marriage – Guidelines issued for effective implementation of the Prohibition ofDecision Date :18-10-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1234/2017| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC790,2025-06-13T22:48:57.657189 "HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS.versusCANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.",08-07-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 8829/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the present suit (claiming title and possession over the suit land) as filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred under Section 11 CPC on principle of res judicata inasmuch as there was no adjudication of the rights of the co-defendants previous suit with regard to the suit land and the issue therein was not directly or indirectly and substantially the same as in the present suit. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11 – Res judicata – Rights of co-defendants – The title suit no.9/89 of the Decision Date : 08-07-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 8829/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.HAR NARAYAN TEWARI (D) THR. LRS.versusCANTONMENT BOARD, RAMGARH CANTONMENT & ORS.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 292024 INSC 467Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the present suit (claiming title and possession over the suit land) as filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred under Section 11 CPC on principle of res judicata inasmuch as there was no adjudication of the rights of the co-defendants previous suit with regard to the suit land and the issue therein was not directly or indirectly and substantially the same as in the present suit. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.11 – Res judicata – Rights of co-defendants – The title suit no.9/89 of theDecision Date :08-07-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 8829/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC467,2025-06-13T22:50:45.619476 SIDDIQUEversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.,19-11-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4625/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SIDDIQUE versus STATE OF KERALA & ANR. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 8222024 INSC 877 BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – FIR against the appellant u/ss.376, 506, IPC – Application seeking anticipatory bail rejected by High Court – Challenge to: Held: years the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 – Further, though she had also posted a post on facebook in 2018 making allegations against about 14 people, including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse, however, she did not go to the Justice Hema Committee Decision Date : 19-11-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4625/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SIDDIQUEversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 8222024 INSC 877Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – FIR against the appellant u/ss.376, 506, IPC – Application seeking anticipatory bail rejected by High Court – Challenge to: Held: years the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 – Further, though she had also posted a post on facebook in 2018 making allegations against about 14 people, including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse, however, she did not go to the Justice Hema CommitteeDecision Date :19-11-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4625/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC877,2025-06-13T22:47:49.367788 JAGDISH PRASAD SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS,08-08-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1635/2013,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SANDEEP MEHTA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The Accountant General, State of Bihar, raised an objection dated 28.01.2003, regarding the promotion accorded to the appellant on 10.03.1991 with a further remark that the promotion given to the appellant on 10.03.1991 would become ineffective after 01.01.1996 in view of and, thus, the pay scale of the appellant would have to be revised and reduced to match that of the lower post, i.e., the Marketing Officer from the post of Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO). Headnotes† Service Law – Decision Date : 08-08-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1635/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.JAGDISH PRASAD SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 3772024 INSC 591Coram : SANDEEP MEHTA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The Accountant General, State of Bihar, raised an objection dated 28.01.2003, regarding the promotion accorded to the appellant on 10.03.1991 with a further remark that the promotion given to the appellant on 10.03.1991 would become ineffective after 01.01.1996 in view of and, thus, the pay scale of the appellant would have to be revised and reduced to match that of the lower post, i.e., the Marketing Officer from the post of Senior Selection Grade, Marketing Officer-cum-Assistant District Supply Officer (ADSO). Headnotes† Service Law –Decision Date :08-08-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1635/2013| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC591,2025-06-13T22:47:01.582328 MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,12-08-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 520/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant under s.353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be sustained without proving assault and use of criminal force. Headnotes† Indian Penal Code – s.353 IPC – Complaint against appellant filed 500/- as illegal gratification – Trap proceedings organised – Appellant charged for offences under ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with ss.201 and 353 IPC – Special Judge, Sagar convicted appellant for offence u/s.353 IPC and sentenced him Decision Date : 12-08-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 520/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKERversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 9352024 INSC 600Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant under s.353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be sustained without proving assault and use of criminal force. Headnotes† Indian Penal Code – s.353 IPC – Complaint against appellant filed 500/- as illegal gratification – Trap proceedings organised – Appellant charged for offences under ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with ss.201 and 353 IPC – Special Judge, Sagar convicted appellant for offence u/s.353 IPC and sentenced himDecision Date :12-08-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 520/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC600,2025-06-13T22:46:32.652811 RAVI AGRAWALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER,20-08-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 706/2020,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. RAVI AGRAWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER - [2024] 8 S.C.R. 7882024 INSC 648 B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGH Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the issue that if the amendment to s.80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be given retrospective effect. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80DD (as amended) – Deduction in respect of maintenance including medical treatment of a – As per amendment to s.80DD, on attaining the age of 60 years or more by an individual subscriber or a member of an HUF, the payment or deposit to the scheme envisaged u/s.80DD can be discontinued and the monetary benefit which would have accumulated can be made use of – Decision Date : 20-08-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 706/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.RAVI AGRAWALversusUNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER-[2024] 8 S.C.R. 7882024 INSC 648Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGHIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the issue that if the amendment to s.80DD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be given retrospective effect. Headnotes† Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80DD (as amended) – Deduction in respect of maintenance including medical treatment of a – As per amendment to s.80DD, on attaining the age of 60 years or more by an individual subscriber or a member of an HUF, the payment or deposit to the scheme envisaged u/s.80DD can be discontinued and the monetary benefit which would have accumulated can be made use of –Decision Date :20-08-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 706/2020| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC648,2025-06-13T22:45:49.739723 CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER,07-05-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2411/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) Whether the words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably; (iii) What is the time period to file an appeal u/s. 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed u/s. 15 of the Act; (iv) Whether all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Decision Date : 07-05-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2411/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHERversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 7612024 INSC 387Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) Whether the words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably; (iii) What is the time period to file an appeal u/s. 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed u/s. 15 of the Act; (iv) Whether all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals,Decision Date :07-05-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2411/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC387,2025-06-13T22:41:25.235928 SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS.versusBAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS.,07-02-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1776/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English मराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS. versus BAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS. - [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1652024 INSC 90 VIKRAM NATH, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether Appellant No.1 was entitled to the protection of ss.3 and 4, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; whether the holding the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2 as not carried for want of the requisite votes is tenable. Headnotes Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, Decision Date : 07-02-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1776/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS.versusBAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS.-[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1652024 INSC 90Coram : VIKRAM NATH, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether Appellant No.1 was entitled to the protection of ss.3 and 4, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; whether the holding the No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2 as not carried for want of the requisite votes is tenable. Headnotes Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act,Decision Date :07-02-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1776/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC90,2025-06-13T22:46:11.498194 K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.,03-10-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4113/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Despite the dispute involved having predominantly overtures of a civil dispute and the matter having been compromised between the parties, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed by the accused persons including the appellants chargesheet. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420, 409, 467, 468, 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing – Of criminal cases having predominantly civil character Decision Date : 03-10-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4113/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 6502024 INSC 750Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Despite the dispute involved having predominantly overtures of a civil dispute and the matter having been compromised between the parties, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed by the accused persons including the appellants chargesheet. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420, 409, 467, 468, 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing – Of criminal cases having predominantly civil characterDecision Date :03-10-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4113/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC750,2025-06-13T22:49:55.785853 SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS.versusSHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14807/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58-60, 65 – Suit filed by the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff, if was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected at the threshold: Held: Yes – The right to sue Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14807/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS.versusSHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14452024 INSC 1025Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in affirming the order of the trial Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint being barred Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58-60, 65 – Suit filed by the Respondent No.1-Plaintiff, if was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected at the threshold: Held: Yes – The right to sueDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14807/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1025,2025-07-15T19:16:43.103076 CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANKversusDOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.,19-12-2024,No. 7298/2022,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of s.5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.5(7), 5(8) – ‘Financial creditors’ – Guarantee as financial debt – Requirement of occurrence of default – 1st respondent-bank claims to be a direct lender and secured financial creditor of reliance RITL- Corporate debtor – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by National Company Law Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 7298/2022 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","CHINA DEVELOPMENT BANKversusDOHA BANK Q.P.S.C. & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20432024 INSC 1029Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Whether the appellants can be classified as ‘Financial Creditors’ within the meaning of s.5(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.5(7), 5(8) – ‘Financial creditors’ – Guarantee as financial debt – Requirement of occurrence of default – 1st respondent-bank claims to be a direct lender and secured financial creditor of reliance RITL- Corporate debtor – Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process initiated by National Company LawDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 7298/2022| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1029,2025-07-15T19:16:43.679472 GIRIYAPPA & ANR.versusKAMALAMMA & ORS.,19-12-2024,No. 30804/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"GIRIYAPPA & ANR. versus KAMALAMMA & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 20952024 INSC 1043 J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration When can the protection u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be granted in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act 1882 – s.53A – Protection of s.53A is available subject to certain to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence – Exception must be strictly construed – High Court committed no error in impugned judgment and order – SLP dismissed: Held: Respondents Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 30804/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","GIRIYAPPA & ANR.versusKAMALAMMA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20952024 INSC 1043Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration When can the protection u/s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be granted in a suit filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act 1882 – s.53A – Protection of s.53A is available subject to certain to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence – Exception must be strictly construed – High Court committed no error in impugned judgment and order – SLP dismissed: Held: RespondentsDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 30804/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1043,2025-07-15T19:16:44.148440 ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,19-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5581/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Headnotes† CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – Appeals Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5581/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14362024 INSC 1039Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Headnotes† CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – AppealsDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5581/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1039,2025-07-15T19:16:44.598162 MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.,19-12-2024,No. 14803/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. In other words, whether the suit would be governed by 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.58 and Art.65 – Original Plaintiff-K instituted suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property – Trial Court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiffs were the Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14803/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MALLAVVA AND ANRversusKALSAMMANAVARA KALAMMA (SINCE DEAD) BY LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 18842024 INSC 1021Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration Whether the original suit filed by the plaintiffs even after the amendment of the plaint at the stage of first appeal seeking possession of the suit property could be said to be time barred. In other words, whether the suit would be governed by 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – Art.58 and Art.65 – Original Plaintiff-K instituted suit seeking relief of declaration and injunction in respect of suit property – Trial Court while dismissing the suit held that the plaintiffs were theDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14803/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1021,2025-07-15T19:16:45.110422 SHAMBHU DEBNATHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.,19-12-2024,No. 5579/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE 2083 : 2024 INSC 1032 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his 20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered: Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail – Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 5579/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SHAMBHU DEBNATHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20832024 INSC 1032Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE2083 : 2024 INSC 1032 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his 20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered: Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail –Decision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 5579/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1032,2025-07-15T19:16:45.706999 BIJOY KUMAR MONIversusPARESH MANNA & ANR.,19-12-2024,No. 5556/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The dishonoured cheque in question was signed by respondent- accused, in his capacity as Director and Authorised Signatory of the Company Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on the account maintained by the Company with Standard Chartered Bank. By the impugned order, the High punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that in absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the respondent-accused was not maintainable; whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order is the question for Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 5556/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","BIJOY KUMAR MONIversusPARESH MANNA & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 19462024 INSC 1024Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The dishonoured cheque in question was signed by respondent- accused, in his capacity as Director and Authorised Signatory of the Company Shilabati Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on the account maintained by the Company with Standard Chartered Bank. By the impugned order, the High punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 holding that in absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, the complaint against the respondent-accused was not maintainable; whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned order is the question forDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 5556/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1024,2025-07-15T19:16:46.101181 DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER,19-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5542/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 – The complainant filed and her parents-in-law (appellants) u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 – The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR before the High Court – The said application was Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5542/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15332024 INSC 1019Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 – The complainant filed and her parents-in-law (appellants) u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 – The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR before the High Court – The said application wasDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5542/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1019,2025-07-15T19:16:46.674894 SUGIRTHAversusGOWTHAM,19-12-2024,No. 14833/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether a child can be made to travel 300 kms to enable the father to exercise visitation rights to the child. Headnotes† Matrimonial disputes between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have company of both parents – Interest of the and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – Though the child was in the care of the father for only 2 months after his birth, it would not compromise the right of the father to visit Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14833/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SUGIRTHAversusGOWTHAM-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20892024 INSC 1036Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether a child can be made to travel 300 kms to enable the father to exercise visitation rights to the child. Headnotes† Matrimonial disputes between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have company of both parents – Interest of the and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – Though the child was in the care of the father for only 2 months after his birth, it would not compromise the right of the father to visitDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14833/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1036,2025-07-15T19:16:47.095125 ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.,19-12-2024,No. 14805/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVAN Issue for Consideration The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – s.154(1)(e) and s.97 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.18 – The Appellate Court vide order dated 20.04.1993 passed in Title Appeal No. 59/1990 held that the appellant herein was entitled to a decree for Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14805/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","ABDUL REJAK LASKARversusMAFIZUR RAHMAN & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 19112024 INSC 1023Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, R MAHADEVANIssue for Consideration The High Court held that the s.154(1)(e) of the the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 bars the civil court from exercising its jurisdiction; whether the High Court committed any error in taking view that the suit filed by the appellant herein was barred u/s.154(1)(e) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – s.154(1)(e) and s.97 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XX, r.18 – The Appellate Court vide order dated 20.04.1993 passed in Title Appeal No. 59/1990 held that the appellant herein was entitled to a decree forDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14805/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1023,2025-07-15T19:16:47.655562 DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusPRITHVI RAJ SINGH,19-12-2024,No. 14830/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree. Headnotes† Requirement of filing separate application for condonation of delay while seeking decree – Not mandatory: Held: Requiring a party to mandatorily file an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, to seek restoration of ex-parte decree under Or.IX R.13 and Section 151 CPC, is a hyper technical view – Endorsing such a view would effectively Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14830/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusPRITHVI RAJ SINGH-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 20752024 INSC 1030Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree. Headnotes† Requirement of filing separate application for condonation of delay while seeking decree – Not mandatory: Held: Requiring a party to mandatorily file an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, to seek restoration of ex-parte decree under Or.IX R.13 and Section 151 CPC, is a hyper technical view – Endorsing such a view would effectivelyDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14830/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1030,2025-07-15T19:16:48.302575 HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.,19-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5273/2008,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the Respondent organization had the locus to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC); (ii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations, which is the exclusive statutory domain of the (iii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest to be charged by banks from their credit card holders for their failure to make full payment on the due date, at the behest of the Reserve Bank of India & unilaterally direct banks/non-banking financial Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5273/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD.versusAWAZ & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14822024 INSC 1044Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration (i) Whether the Respondent organization had the locus to approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC); (ii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to interfere with banking operations, which is the exclusive statutory domain of the (iii) Whether the NCDRC had the jurisdiction to fix a maximum ceiling rate of interest to be charged by banks from their credit card holders for their failure to make full payment on the due date, at the behest of the Reserve Bank of India & unilaterally direct banks/non-banking financialDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5273/2008| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1044,2025-07-15T19:16:48.811525 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusKASHIF,19-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5544/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of: Held: While Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5544/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAUversusKASHIF-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 14062025 INSC 1045Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of: Held: WhileDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5544/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2025INSC1045,2025-07-15T19:16:49.381793 NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD.versusFEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS,19-12-2024,No. 14826/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration The issue concerned a challenge to collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by provisions enumerated in Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between Appellant-NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), the Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS); The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, in Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14826/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD.versusFEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 19972024 INSC 1027Coram : SURYA KANT*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration The issue concerned a challenge to collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by provisions enumerated in Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between Appellant-NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), the Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS); The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, inDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 14826/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1027,2025-07-15T19:16:49.960866 PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNEversusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.,19-12-2024,No. 56230/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDAL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation. Headnotes† Condemnation of unscrupulous from one forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive and meritless pleas Decision Date : 19-12-2024 | Case No : No. 56230/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","PANDURANG VITHAL KEVNEversusBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 21132024 INSC 1051Coram : J.K. MAHESHWARI*, RAJESH BINDALIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court rightly disallowed Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and rejected the second review petition in light of Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation. Headnotes† Condemnation of unscrupulous from one forum to another despite the issue being well-settled through reasoned orders – A stark example of blatant misuse and abuse of the judicial process – Forum shopping by filing repetitive and meritless pleas in Supreme Court and High Court – Repetitive and meritless pleasDecision Date :19-12-2024| Case No :No. 56230/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1051,2025-07-15T19:16:50.481121 M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR.versusCENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS,18-12-2024,No. 14735/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR. versus CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 21022024 INSC 1048 VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration Whether District Magistrate’s order prohibiting sale of 'aromatic tincture of cardamom' on the ground of it containing a high level of alcohol was correct and in accordance with the statutory framework of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) – District Magistrate (DM), Agra issued orders prohibiting sale of “alcohol mixed tinctures” – Drug Inspector acted on said orders and prevented Appellants from selling “aromatic tincture of cardamom” on the ground that it was an Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14735/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","M/S BHAGWATI MEDICAL HALL & ANR.versusCENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION & ORS-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 21022024 INSC 1048Coram : VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration Whether District Magistrate’s order prohibiting sale of 'aromatic tincture of cardamom' on the ground of it containing a high level of alcohol was correct and in accordance with the statutory framework of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) – District Magistrate (DM), Agra issued orders prohibiting sale of “alcohol mixed tinctures” – Drug Inspector acted on said orders and prevented Appellants from selling “aromatic tincture of cardamom” on the ground that it was anDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :No. 14735/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1048,2025-07-15T19:16:14.653921 P. MANIKANDANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.,18-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5478/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – The Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/ss.364A Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5478/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","P. MANIKANDANversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15532024 INSC 1007Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – The Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/ss.364ADecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5478/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1007,2025-07-15T19:16:44.412788 BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRS.versusMADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE,18-12-2024,No. 14816/2024,Unknown,JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE Issue for Consideration (1) Whether the Respondent was guilty of medical negligence in the post-operative care of the Appellant; (2) Whether the Appellant's actions (changing his own bandage) contributed to the infection and absolved the Respondent Act, 1986 – Medical Negligence – Failed Cataract Surgery – Loss of Vision – Post-Operative Care – Expert Medical Opinion favouring the Appellant considered – No evidence available on record to shift the blame to Appellant: Held: The Appellant underwent Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : No. 14816/2024 | Bench : JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","BHERULAL BHIMAJI OSWAL(D) BY LRS.versusMADHUSUDAN N. KUMBHARE-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 18752024 INSC 1035Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALEIssue for Consideration (1) Whether the Respondent was guilty of medical negligence in the post-operative care of the Appellant; (2) Whether the Appellant's actions (changing his own bandage) contributed to the infection and absolved the Respondent Act, 1986 – Medical Negligence – Failed Cataract Surgery – Loss of Vision – Post-Operative Care – Expert Medical Opinion favouring the Appellant considered – No evidence available on record to shift the blame to Appellant: Held: The Appellant underwentDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :No. 14816/2024| Bench :JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1035,2025-07-15T19:16:45.091180 RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA,18-12-2024,TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 278/2023,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PANKAJ MITHAL Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties breakdown of marriage. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13, 13B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.25 – Transfer petition – Transfer of divorce petition – Dissolution of marriage – Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 278/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 13552024 INSC 1014Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA*, PANKAJ MITHALIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the petitioner-wife is entitled to the transfer of the divorce petition; and whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers u/Art. 142(1) of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce to the parties breakdown of marriage. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142(1) – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – ss.13, 13B – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.25 – Transfer petition – Transfer of divorce petition – Dissolution of marriage –Decision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No. 278/2023| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1014,2025-07-15T19:16:45.548418 MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.,18-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5491/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition u/s.482, Cr. PC on the ground that since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition was Procedure, 1973-s.482 – Subsequent petition under – Maintainability – Order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s.138 against appellants – In appeal, the sentence of the the appellants suspended and was granted bail however, directed to deposit 20% of Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5491/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12732024 INSC 1046Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition u/s.482, Cr. PC on the ground that since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition was Procedure, 1973-s.482 – Subsequent petition under – Maintainability – Order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s.138 against appellants – In appeal, the sentence of the the appellants suspended and was granted bail however, directed to deposit 20% ofDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5491/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1046,2025-07-15T19:16:46.158615 CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATIONversusM/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY,08-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 9486/2019,Reference answered,5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows a Decision Date : 08-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 9486/2019 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered | Bench : 5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATIONversusM/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 21732024 INSC 857Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration a) Whether an appointment process which allows a party who has an interest in the dispute to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator, or arbitrators and mandate that the other party select their arbitrator from the panel is valid in law; b) Whether the principle of equal treatment of parties applies at the stage of the appointment of arbitrators; and c) Whether an appointment process in a public-private contract which allows aDecision Date :08-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 9486/2019| Disposal Nature :Reference answered| Bench :5 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC857,2025-10-22T07:45:10.714090 SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.,12-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 2845/2015,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Appellants are entitled to specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by one Sushila Devi was valid and enforceable; whether such execution could be proved by a General Power of Attorney of pardanashin status, illiteracy and old age affected the validity of the sale; whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act; whether plaintiffs were in possession and whether consideration had been paid; whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing to Decision Date : 12-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 2845/2015 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23752024 INSC 865Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Appellants are entitled to specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990. Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.1990 executed by one Sushila Devi was valid and enforceable; whether such execution could be proved by a General Power of Attorney of pardanashin status, illiteracy and old age affected the validity of the sale; whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act; whether plaintiffs were in possession and whether consideration had been paid; whether plaintiffs were always ready and willing toDecision Date :12-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 2845/2015| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC865,2025-10-22T07:45:13.072987 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.versusOM PARKASH,13-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 4393/2010,Appeal(s) allowed,1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,Unknown,"Englishहिन्दी - HindiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.versusOM PARKASH-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23692024 INSC 870Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting relief to the employee by setting aside his termination for abandonment of service despite the employee's failure to disclose his subsequent employment and the procedural compliance by the employer under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of 1960. Headnotes† Regulation 39(4)(iii), LIC Staff Regulations, 1960 – Abandonment of Service – The regulation deems an employee to have abandoned service if absent for 90 consecutive days without intimation – Employee absented himself without informing theDecision Date :13-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 4393/2010| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :1 JudgeSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC870,2025-10-22T07:45:14.050541 IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASHversusABC,06-11-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1294/2020,Disposed off,3 JudgesFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Supreme Court laid down guidelines that State authorities must adhere to while removing illegal encroachments in relation to road widening projects. Headnotes† Petitioner’s letter regarding alleged illegal demolition of his house converted into suo moto Certain portion of Petitioner’s house came to be notified as a part of road widening project (NH No. 370) in 2012 – Project sanctioned in 2018 – Petitioner directed between June 2019 to 6 September 2019 through Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) to remove his illegal Decision Date : 06-11-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1294/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 3 JudgesFlip viewPDF","IN RE: MANOJ TIBREWAL AKASHversusABC-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23482024 INSC 863Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Supreme Court laid down guidelines that State authorities must adhere to while removing illegal encroachments in relation to road widening projects. Headnotes† Petitioner’s letter regarding alleged illegal demolition of his house converted into suo moto Certain portion of Petitioner’s house came to be notified as a part of road widening project (NH No. 370) in 2012 – Project sanctioned in 2018 – Petitioner directed between June 2019 to 6 September 2019 through Munadi announcement (by beat of drums) to remove his illegalDecision Date :06-11-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1294/2020| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :3 JudgesFlip viewPDF",2024INSC863,2025-10-22T07:45:14.052759 SONAM LAKRAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.,14-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12326/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"English हिन्दी - Hindi Disclaimer Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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. SONAM LAKRA versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. - [2024] 11 S.C.R. 23622024 INSC 901 SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Whether the removal of an elected female Sarpanch from office by administrative officials was warranted. Headnotes† Administrative officials misusing their authority for removal of an elected female Sarpanch from office on false and untenable grounds – Blatant Held: Appellant is an elected Sarpanch and has undertaken several measures towards the development of the village – Delay in execution of certain construction works unjustly attributed to the Appellant leading to her removal from office – Appellant sought relief from higher Decision Date : 14-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12326/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","Englishहिन्दी - HindiDisclaimerDue care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version. 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.SONAM LAKRAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23622024 INSC 901Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Whether the removal of an elected female Sarpanch from office by administrative officials was warranted. Headnotes† Administrative officials misusing their authority for removal of an elected female Sarpanch from office on false and untenable grounds – Blatant Held: Appellant is an elected Sarpanch and has undertaken several measures towards the development of the village – Delay in execution of certain construction works unjustly attributed to the Appellant leading to her removal from office – Appellant sought relief from higherDecision Date :14-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12326/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC901,2025-10-22T07:45:15.100171 STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusTHE CONSORTIUM OF MR. MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR. FLORIAN FRITSCH & ANR.,07-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 5023/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment which was to be made under the Resolution Plan, within 180 days from the of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2024, the terms of the Resolution Plan and the provisions of law; In other words, whether the impugned order of the NCLAT allowing the adjustment of the PBG in lieu of payment of the first tranche could be said to be perverse; Whether the Decision Date : 07-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 5023/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusTHE CONSORTIUM OF MR. MURARI LAL JALAN AND MR. FLORIAN FRITSCH & ANR.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 20392024 INSC 852Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) could have been adjusted against the first tranche payment which was to be made under the Resolution Plan, within 180 days from the of the order of this Court dated 18.01.2024, the terms of the Resolution Plan and the provisions of law; In other words, whether the impugned order of the NCLAT allowing the adjustment of the PBG in lieu of payment of the first tranche could be said to be perverse; Whether theDecision Date :07-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 5023/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC852,2025-10-22T07:45:15.791034 RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusRAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.,14-11-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 3034/2012,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROL Issue for Consideration Whether the deed executed, which gave rise to the present property dispute, was a gift deed or a deed of settlement; Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) Determination of whether an instrument is Gift Deed or Deed of Settlement – Held, the instrument in the case is Deed of Settlement – The consideration need not Decision Date : 14-11-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 3034/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","RAMACHANDRA REDDY (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusRAMULU AMMAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 23292024 INSC 868Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SANJAY KAROLIssue for Consideration Whether the deed executed, which gave rise to the present property dispute, was a gift deed or a deed of settlement; Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Headnotes† Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122 – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(24) Determination of whether an instrument is Gift Deed or Deed of Settlement – Held, the instrument in the case is Deed of Settlement – The consideration need notDecision Date :14-11-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 3034/2012| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC868,2025-10-22T07:45:16.705423 DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.,11-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14293/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS. versus PRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 21232024 INSC 1049 PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) – Order 7 Rule 11 – In 2017, appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 on grounds of fraud – Trial Court dismissed suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC Decision Date : 11-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14293/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 21232024 INSC 1049Coram : PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Whether a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, filed within three years from the date of knowledge as alleged in the plaint, can be dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that it Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) – Order 7 Rule 11 – In 2017, appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 04.12.2004 on grounds of fraud – Trial Court dismissed suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPCDecision Date :11-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14293/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1049,2025-10-22T07:45:22.230314 CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR.versusP. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.,10-12-2024,CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 688/2021,Unknown,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMAR Issue for Consideration Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or Decision Date : 10-12-2024 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 688/2021 | Direction Issue : Matter listed for reporting compliance. | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANR.versusP. RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 12872024 INSC 957Coram : M.M. SUNDRESH*, ARAVIND KUMARIssue for Consideration Whether orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022 and 19.03.2024 passed by this Court has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents/contemnors. Headnotes† Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Order – to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’ – It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom – It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide orDecision Date :10-12-2024| Case No :CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 688/2021| Direction Issue :Matter listed for reporting compliance.| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC957,2025-10-22T07:45:22.400436 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN.M. RAUT & ORS.,12-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14380/2024,Disposed off,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus N.M. RAUT & ORS. - [2024] 12 S.C.R. 15172024 INSC 1042 SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008, and the financial upgradations granted under the MACPS. Headnotes† Service Law – Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Modified Financial upgradation – Non-functional financial upgradation – Counting of, to determine eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACPS – On implementation of the Revised Rules, some of the respondents working as Pharmacists in the Ordnance Factory, and Decision Date : 12-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14380/2024 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusN.M. RAUT & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 15172024 INSC 1042Coram : SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMARIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2008, and the financial upgradations granted under the MACPS. Headnotes† Service Law – Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Modified Financial upgradation – Non-functional financial upgradation – Counting of, to determine eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACPS – On implementation of the Revised Rules, some of the respondents working as Pharmacists in the Ordnance Factory, andDecision Date :12-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14380/2024| Disposal Nature :Disposed off| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1042,2025-10-22T07:45:22.542224 CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.,13-12-2024,CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 158/2024,Directions issued,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration The present petitions sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 issuance of Sale Certificate of the Secured Asset (belonging to respondent no.1-Borrower) to the petitioner-auction purchaser; Respondent no.4 ‘Greenscape IT Park LLP’ and its director, i.e., respondent no.2 were the subsequent transferee/third party purchaser and respondent Decision Date : 13-12-2024 | Case No : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 158/2024 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.-[2024] 12 S.C.R. 16182024 INSC 978Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA*, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration The present petitions sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents/alleged contemnors for wilful disobedience of the final judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5542-5543 issuance of Sale Certificate of the Secured Asset (belonging to respondent no.1-Borrower) to the petitioner-auction purchaser; Respondent no.4 ‘Greenscape IT Park LLP’ and its director, i.e., respondent no.2 were the subsequent transferee/third party purchaser and respondentDecision Date :13-12-2024| Case No :CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 158/2024| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC978,2025-10-22T07:45:22.783321 AMAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL,12-12-2024,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5234/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 12-12-2024 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5234/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 suchDecision Date :12-12-2024| Case No :CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5234/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1040,2025-10-22T07:45:23.391422 ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOORversusNATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY,16-12-2024,SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2819/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 16-12-2024 | Case No : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2819/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 SectionDecision Date :16-12-2024| Case No :SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2819/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC986,2025-10-22T07:45:24.851073 ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ETC.versusGEETANJALI TIWARI (PANDEY) & ORS. ETC. ETC.,18-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 12411/2024,Appeal(s) allowed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 12411/2024 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 theDecision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 12411/2024| Disposal Nature :Appeal(s) allowed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC1003,2025-10-22T07:45:25.090709 RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHERversusU.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.,17-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 allowedDecision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC990,2025-10-22T07:45:25.254249 NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusM/S S.A. BUILDERS LTD.,17-12-2024,CIVIL APPEAL No. 1878/2024,Dismissed,2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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 Decision Date : 17-12-2024 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 1878/2024 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Bench : 2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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 andDecision Date :17-12-2024| Case No :CIVIL APPEAL No. 1878/2024| Disposal Nature :Dismissed| Bench :2 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC988,2025-10-22T07:45:27.054035 IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.,18-12-2024,WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995,Directions issued,3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF,"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’ Decision Date : 18-12-2024 | Case No : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Bench : 3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF","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’Decision Date :18-12-2024| Case No :WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202/1995| Disposal Nature :Directions issued| Bench :3 JudgesSplit viewHTML viewFlip viewPDF",2024INSC997,2025-10-22T07:45:27.599288