English

मराठी - Marathi
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.

CHALASANI UDAYA SHANKAR AND OTHERS
 versus
M/S. LEXUS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 235
2024 INSC 671
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 523
2024 INSC 841
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


RAMJI LAL BAIRWA & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 641
2024 INSC 846
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

SUKHPAL SINGH
 versus
NCT OF DELHI
-
[2024] 6 S.C.R. 315
2024 INSC 385
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
 versus
BIBHU PRASAD ACHARYA, ETC.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 510
2024 INSC 843
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL & ORS.
 versus
VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY & ANR.
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 1128
2024 INSC 75
Coram : 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 Judge
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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 A.K. SARKAR & CO. & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 356
2024 INSC 186
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

MOHD. ABDUL SAMAD
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1236
2024 INSC 506
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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. 288
2024 INSC 104
Coram : 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 Judge
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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. 203
2024 INSC 347
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SUNNY @ SANTOSH DHARMU BHOSALE
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1440
2024 INSC 878
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

SHAHID ALI
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 377
2024 INSC 191
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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.

KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA
 versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 606
2024 INSC 285
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

मराठी - Marathi
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.

VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKAR
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 753
2024 INSC 788
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

BALASAHEB KESHAWRAO BHAPKAR & ORS.
 versus
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 730
2024 INSC 525
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

PRADEEP KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 306
2024 INSC 21
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

SRI DATTATRAYA
 versus
SHARANAPPA
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 121
2024 INSC 586
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL
 versus
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 87
2024 INSC 13
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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 RANA @ KOKA & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 756
2024 INSC 543
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

MAMIDI ANIL KUMAR REDDY
 versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 252
2024 INSC 101
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

SANDEEP
 versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 769
2024 INSC 771
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SATYENDRA SINGH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1634
2024 INSC 873
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

NAEEM
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 36
2024 INSC 169
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

GOVIND KUMAR SHARMA & ANR
 versus
BANK OF BARODA & ORS
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 633
2024 INSC 326
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

GURDEV SINGH BHALLA
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 319
2024 INSC 22
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

BHUPATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 322
2024 INSC 295
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

മലയാളം - Malayalam
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.

KUNHIMUHAMMED@KUNHEETHU
 versus
THE STATE OF KERALA
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 392
2024 INSC 937
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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 DELHI
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 178
2024 INSC 464
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND ANOTHER
 versus
VIJAYKUMAR V. IYER AND OTHERS
-
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 140
2024 INSC 15
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

RAKESH RANJAN SHRIVASTAVA
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 438
2024 INSC 205
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

PERIYASAMY
 versus
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 747
2024 INSC 212
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ଓଡ଼ିଆ - Odia
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.

TARINA SEN
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 417
2024 INSC 752
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

VIKAS CHANDRA
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1223
2024 INSC 261
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

 नेपाली - Nepali
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.

SARDAR RAVI INDER SINGH & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 127
2024 INSC 472
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


AKANKSHA ARORA
 versus
TANAY MABEN
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 954
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

मराठी - Marathi
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.

MANIK MADHUKAR SARVE & ORS.
 versus
VITTHAL DAMUJI MEHER & ORS.
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 753
2024 INSC 636
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


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.

ARVIND KEJRIWAL
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2363
2024 INSC 512
Coram : 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 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.