English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

MALLAPPA
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 1
2021 INSC 290
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Deceased was allegedly assaulted with a club – Prosecution case primarily based on evidence of PW5 (deceased’s wife) – Trial court acquitted accused-appellant as well as the co-accused – Acquittal of appellant reversed – Held: On facts, evidence of PW5 cannot be accepted in full – There were contradictions in PW5’s deposition as regards her having seen appellant at the spot of occurrence – PW5 was not a witness to actual act of assault – As a witness, she did not inspire
 Decision Date :
 07-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1993/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

BOOTA SINGH & OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 180
2021 INSC 256
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, K.M. JOSEPH
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 42 & 43 – Governing provisions, if s.42 or s.43 – Non-compliance of s.42 – Secret information received by PW-4 (S.I.) that accused- appellants were selling poppy straw in a vehicle – with fellow officials – Accused-appellants found sitting in a Jeep – Notice served u/s.50 – Search led to recovery of poppy straw – Trial court convicted appellants u/s.15 rejecting their plea of acquittal on ground of non-compliance of s.42 – The trial court held
 Decision Date :
 16-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 421/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN
 versus
HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS.
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 529
2021 INSC 408
Coram : S. ABDUL NAZEER
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: ss. 14, 13(2) and 13(13) – Taking of possession of secured asset by the secured creditor – Tenant restraining from taking possession of the secured asset – Protection of tenant and the landlord – On facts, grant of financial facility to borrowers by the respondent Bank – Credit facility secured by way of mortgage of property-secured asset in favour of the Bank – Accounts of borrower declared as non-performing assets – Issuance of notice u/s.
 Decision Date :
 17-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 843/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

JAIKAM KHAN
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 767
2021 INSC 896
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Criminal Law – Murder – Interested and related witnesses – Deceased had four sonsincluding the appellant--accused No.1 and P.W.1-–Six persons were murdered at different places in thehouse, witnessed by P.W.1- and P.W.2- (P.W.1-’s brother-in-law) – One was killed verandah, two inroom and one was killed in a room upstairs –Appellants--accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 convicted for offence punishable u/ss.302/34 IPC and sentenced to death – Accused No.2 was acquitted– On appeal, held: Both P.W.1- and P.W.2- are witnesses, who are closely related to
 Decision Date :
 15-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 434/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 | Direction Issue :
 Allowing the appeals filed by accused persons while dismissing that of the P.W-1, the Court

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

K. P. NATARAJAN & ANR.
 versus
MUTHALAMMAL & ORS.
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 350
2021 INSC 337
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or.XXXII, r.3 – Suit for specific performance filed by the petitioner – Respondents-defendants after having entered appearance through counsel, remained ex parte – In the plaint, the third defendant represented by the next friend (minor’s father) – Petitioners had filed along with the plaint, an application under Or. XXXII, r.3 for appointing second respondent (minor’s father) as guardian – Petitioner had also sought alternate relief, a decree for refund of the money
 Decision Date :
 16-07-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2492/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

 THE STATE OF KERALA
 versus
MAHESH
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 964
2021 INSC 195
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, KRISHNA MURARI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 – Appeal against grant of bail – Accused-respondent was accused of a heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor aged about 30 years – Incident alleged to have taken place in the presence of victim’s father – His bail Bail application moved before High Court was, however, allowed within 10/12 days of dismissal of bail application by Sessions Court – State filed appeal against the grant of bail – Held: In the impugned order, High Court did not advert to any error in the reasoning of Sessions
 Decision Date :
 19-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 343/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

FAKHREY ALAM
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1000
2021 INSC 183
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.167 – Default bail – FIR against appellant under provisions of IPC, Arms Act and the UAPA Act –Appellant, if entitled to default bail under s.167(2) CrPC in the facts of the case – Held: Entitled – s.167 CrPC provides for which the investigation should be completed, depending upon the nature of offences – Since, liberty is a Constitutional right, time periods are specified in default of which the accused will have a right to default bail, a valuable right – On facts, FIR was filed against
 Decision Date :
 15-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 319/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

JAYAMMA & ANR
 versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 11
2021 INSC 287
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r/w 34 – Allegation that on account of previous dispute between the parties, accused with the intention to kill the victim went to her house, doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze – Acquittal by the trial court – However, the High Court on basis of of the police officer who recorded the dying declaration and the doctor who endorsed the mental fitness of the victim to make such statement, convicted the accused u/s. 302 r/w 34 and imposed life imprisonment – On appeal, held: Conviction of the accused cannot be upheld only on the basis
 Decision Date :
 07-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 758/2010
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 163
2021 INSC 481
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and s.304 – Prosecution case that Sub-Inspector (SI) motioned a truck, driven by the accused/ appellant, to stop – Instead of applying brakes, the accused tried to speed away, upon which SI boarded the truck from its left side – It was alleged that that he would get killed – Nevertheless, SI boarded the truck – Appellant pushed him, as a result of which SI fell off the truck and he was run over by the rear wheels of the truck – SI died – Appellant fled with the truck – However, later he was arrested and charged
 Decision Date :
 15-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 856/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

APARNA BHAT & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 479
2021 INSC 192
Coram : A.M. KHANWILKAR
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Bail condition – Accused guilty of sexual offence – Rakhi tying as a condition for bail, propriety – Imposing conditions that implicitly tend to condone or diminish the harm caused by the accused and have the effect of potentially exposing the survivor to secondary trauma The law does not permit or countenance such conduct, where the survivor can potentially be traumatized many times over or be led into some kind of non- voluntary acceptance, or be compelled by the circumstances to accept and condone behavior what is a serious offence – Using rakhi tying as
 Decision Date :
 18-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 329/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

LAKHVIR SINGH ETC
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 269
2021 INSC 30
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Object of legislation – Held: To give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment – Thus, increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful and self-reliant deleterious effects of jail life is what is sought to be subserved. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s.6 – Appellants were convicted by trial court for offence under s.397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years each – High Court dismissed the appeal against
 Decision Date :
 19-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 47/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 332
2021 INSC 719
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code, 1860: s.307 r/w s.34 – Grievous injuries on vital parts of the body – Prosecution case was that appellant no.1 stabbed PW-7 with a dagger in her ribs and appellant no.2 stabbed PW-8 with a dagger on right side of his stomach and on left ribs – Trial for offence under s.307 r/w s.34 – High Court upheld the order of conviction – On appeal, held: There was no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses particularly PW7 and PW8 who were injured eye-witnesses – It was not the case of appellants-accused that the
 Decision Date :
 12-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1316/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA
 versus
M.R VIJAYABHASKAR & ORS.
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 196
2021 INSC 286
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Constitution of India: Arts. 32, 226, 19(1)(a), 19(2) – Freedom of the media to report court proceedings – High Court made certain oral remarks attributing responsibility to the Election Commission-EC for the present surge of cases of COVID-19, due to their failure to implement COVID-19 related protocol during the elections – Oral remarks were ‘EC is singularly responsible for the second wave of Covid-19 and that the EC should be put up for murder charges” – Said remarks though not part of
 Decision Date :
 06-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 1767/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

PARVATI DEVI
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 711
2021 INSC 911
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304B and 201 r/w s. 34 – Dowry death – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased daughter of informant (PW-3) was married to A-1 – Within few months of marriage, A-1, his father (A-2) and his mother (A-3) started harassing motor cycle – They threatened the victim that if the demand was not fulfilled then they would throw her out of matrimonial home and get A-1 married to someone else – Similar message was conveyed to PW-3 by his son-in-law (PW-2) with whom A-1 had raised the issue of insufficient dowry
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 574/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

GOVINDAN
 versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 515
2021 INSC 915
Coram : R. SUBHASH REDDY
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Sentence / Sentencing – Quantum of punishment – Appellant convicted by trial court u/s.304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years – Conviction and sentence confirmed by High Court – Issue before Supreme Court limited to quantum of punishment to quantum of sentence, it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, whether the assault was pre-meditated and pre-planned or not, etc. – In the present case, there was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the complainant’s family members were claiming
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1665/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAM VIJAY SINGH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2021 FEBRUARY 25, 2021
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 566
2021 INSC 120
Coram : R.F. NARIMAN
*
, HEMANT GUPTA, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Importance/reliability of ossification test – When a person is around 18 years of age, the ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of with law – However, when a person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age – When the ossification test cannot yield trustworthy and reliable results, such test cannot be made a basis to determine the age of the person concerned
 Decision Date :
 25-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 175/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANR
 versus
P. BALASUBRAMANIAN M.A. NO. 364 OF 2021 IN
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 679
Coram : N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Addition/deletion of words – By judgment dated 10.02.2021, direction by this Court to the Registry to transfer the amount of Rs.11,20,000/- along with interest accrued thereupon to the complainant-respondent – However, said amount of Rs.11,20,000/- was lying in a non-interest earning account with the designated Bank – In view thereof, the words “along with interest accrued thereupon” are deleted – Issuance of direction to the Registry to transfer the said amount to the
 Decision Date :
 24-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 364/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

RAM RATAN
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 866
2021 INSC 912
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.392, 397 – Appellant along with other two accused was convicted u/ss.392, 397 r/w s.11/13, MPDVPK Act, 1981 – On appeal, held: Complainant narrated in detail the manner in which he was woken up by the accused while hut and the demand for money that was made by brandishing the firearm – Motorcycle and mobile which was stolen were recovered – Appellant participated in the offence of committing robbery as the motorcycle was recovered at his instance – His conviction u/s.392 by trial court
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1333/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

SIVASANKARAN
 versus
SANTHIMEENAL
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 169
2021 INSC 467
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Hindu Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Subsequent conduct – Continued allegations and litigative proceedings – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Parties living separately from the date of marriage for almost 20 years – Appellant-husband had remarried after court – Held: The marriage never took off from the first day and was never consummated – Continuing acts of respondent-wife amounted to cruelty even if the same had not arisen as a cause prior to institution of the divorce petition – Her conduct showed disintegration of
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4984/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA
 versus
THE STATE OF U. P. & ANR.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 219
2021 INSC 470
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summons purporting to invoke power u/s.319 CrPC – Challenge to – Murder – Deposition of second respondent that her husband (deceased) was murdered by his employer (the appellant) with the help of his friends – Deceased Application on behalf of prosecution invoking s.319 CrPC – Sessions Judge held that power u/s.319 CrPC has to be invoked and ordered to summon the appellant – Order upheld by High Court – Held: The statement of law as regards the standards fixed for invoking power u/s.319 CrPC
 Decision Date :
 13-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 990/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

GURU DUTT PATHAK
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 573
2021 INSC 285
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302/34 – Four accused – Acquittal by Trial Court – During pendency of State’s appeal before High Court, accused no. 1 to 3 died – Reversal of acquittal of fourth accused by High Court – Appeal against conviction – Held: Prosecution established and proved by prosecution by leading evidence that the incident had taken place on the road near Primary Pathshala – The dead body was recovered from the road near the Pathshala and blood stained clothes were also recovered from that place – Thus prosecution proved the
 Decision Date :
 06-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 502/2015
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

DEVILAL AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 592
2021 INSC 118
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, K.M. JOSEPH, INDIRA BANERJEE
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 r/w 34 – Appellants convicted u/ss.302 r/w 34, sentenced to life imprisonment – Affirmed by High Court – On appeal, held: FIR was rightly relied upon by the courts below as dying declaration of FIR itself referred to the presence of PW1 (wife of deceased) and PW2 (sister- in-law of the deceased) – Testimony of both these witnesses disclosed that the appellants opened an assault on victim which led to his death – Recoveries of the weapons in question viz., lathi, sword and
 Decision Date :
 25-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 989/2007
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

MURALI
 versus
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 201
2021 INSC 2
Coram : N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.320 – Compounding of offence under ss.307, 324 – Prosecution case was that fifteen years ago, over a volleyball match, verbal altercation took place between victim-injured and original accused no.3 and 5 who after sometime cornered the victim along him – Appellant-M struck the victim on his head with a hockey stick and appellant-R tied to kill him by giving a neck blow with sharp edged object and in the process, left hand of the victim and the thumb and finger of his right hand got severed – Trial court held appellant-M guilty
 Decision Date :
 05-01-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 24/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

আ·চিক - Garo
हिन्दी - Hindi
খসি - Khasi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ - Santali
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

PATRICIA MUKHIM
 versus
STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 65
2021 INSC 213
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.153A and 505(1)(c) – Brutal attack on non-tribals in State of Meghalaya with iron rods and sticks – Attackers allegedly belonged to tribal community of Meghalaya – Facebook post uploaded by Appellant, alleged to be intentionally made for promoting State – Prima facie case made out u/ss.153A and 505(1)(c) or not – Held: Close scrutiny of the Facebook post uploaded by appellant indicate that her agony was directed against the apathy shown by the CM, Meghalaya, DGP and the DorbarShnong of the area in not taking any action against
 Decision Date :
 25-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 141/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANR
 versus
P. BALASUBRAMANIAN
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 668
2021 INSC 72
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: ss. 118 and 139 – Presumption as to negotiable instruments – Presumption in favour of holder – Held: Once the signature of an accused on the cheque/ negotiable instrument are established, then clauses become operative – In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him – Presumptions raised u/ss. 118, 139 are rebuttable in nature – A probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of
 Decision Date :
 10-02-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 123/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
தமிழ் - Tamil

 Disclaimer

								Due care and caution has been taken by the Editorial Section, Supreme Court of India to provide complete and accurate information in the English version.
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools.
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.

						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India.

						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text.
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.

						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.

GULAB
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 678
2021 INSC 852
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, A.S. BOPANNA, VIKRAM NATH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Exhortation to co-accused who fired fatal shot – Common intention – Appellant convicted u/ s.302 r/w s.34 while the co-accused (since deceased) was convicted u/s.302; sentenced to imprisonment for held: Prosecution not required to prove that there was an elaborate plan between the accused to kill the deceased or a plan was in existence for a long time – A common intention to commit the crime is proved if the accused by their words or action indicate their assent to join in the
 Decision Date :
 09-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 81/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND OTHERS
 versus
M/S. COMMERCIAL STEEL LIMITED
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 660
2021 INSC 441
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, HIMA KOHLI
 Constitution of India – Ar.226 – Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 – s.107 – The case of Revenue that in the guise of an inter-State sale, the respondent was attempting to sell the goods in the local SGST and CGST – An order of detention was issued and a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance –The respondent paid tax and penalty, following which the goods and the conveyance were released –Writ petition was filed by the respondent – The High Court
 Decision Date :
 03-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5121/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

 THE STATE OF ODISHA
 versus
BANABIHARI MOHAPATRA AND ANR.
-
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 612
2021 INSC 85
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, HEMANT GUPTA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss.302/201 r/w s.34 – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased was found dead in shop of accused with a swollen belly and deep burn injury on right foot and blood was oozing out of his mouth and nostrils – In by complainant-wife of the deceased, she had stated that on the fateful day, the first accused-respondenthad come to her house and told her that the deceased was lying motionless and not responding to calls and thereafter younger son of first accused also came and gave similar information –
 Decision Date :
 12-02-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1156/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

RAMAWATAR
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 499
2021 INSC 664
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI
 Constitution of India: Art.142 – Prosecution case was that there was property dispute between the two neighbours appellant and complainant – Complaint was filed under SC/ST Act against the appellant that he abused complainant with repeated reference to her caste – Courts under SC/ST Act – In the instant appeal, complainant filed an application for compromise – Held: The record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties – Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was civil/property dispute
 Decision Date :
 25-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1393/2011
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

বাংলা - Bengali
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.

BRIJESH KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 995
2021 INSC 197
Coram : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
*
, AJAY RASTOGI
 Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Counsel for the Petitioner in this matter was appointed as amicus curiae for the Petitioner – He brought attention to the Court that in this, as well as other matters he was appointed as amicus curiae, he was only provided with the judgment and the trial Court judgment preceding it, severely hampering effective representation – Held: This, from the frequent grievances raised by advocates appearing, seems to be reflective of a general practice, particularly in criminal matters – This practice only serves to
 Decision Date :
 22-03-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 773/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
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.

PARUBAI
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 135
2021 INSC 393
Coram : HEMANT GUPTA
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 436 – Murder – Fire incident at mid-night wherein house of appellant and her family engulfed in flames – Appellant-second wife came out of the house unscathed, whereas the first wife and her two children caught by flames and two of them died later by the courts below, though her husband and her mother-in-law acquitted by the trial court – On appeal, held: Links in the chain of circumstances is necessary to be established for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Mere suspicion would not be sufficient, unless the
 Decision Date :
 10-08-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1154/2018
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
 versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 100
2021 INSC 260
Coram : S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Criminal trials: Draft Rules for expeditious and fair criminal trials – Implementation of – Suo motu proceeding under Art. 32 – This of deficiencies occurring in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in criminal proceedings as well as in the disposal of criminal cases, leading to prolonged proceedings – Also that there were inadequacies in the practices and rules of High Courts, and
 Decision Date :
 20-04-2021
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 01/2017
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
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.

SONU @ SUBHASH KUMAR
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 137
2021 INSC 134
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Second respondent lodged FIR against the appellant alleging that appellant developed friendship with her and assured that he would marry her – Appellant and second respondent developed physical relationship for about one and a half appellant expressed disinclination to marry her – Charge sheet filed against appellant under s.376 IPC – s.482 application filed by appellant for quashing the charge-sheet – High Court dismissed the application with direction that appellant may move trial court to seek
 Decision Date :
 01-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 233/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Leave Granted & Allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

SANDEEP KHAITAN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR NATIONAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD.
 versus
JSVM PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 122
2021 INSC 268
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, K.M. JOSEPH
 COURT REPORTS [2021] 4 S.C.R. [2021] 4 S.C.R. 122 122 SANDEEP KHAITAN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL FOR NATIONAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS JSVM PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2021) APRIL 22, 2021 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ] Insolvency and Bankruptcy NCLT admitted application u/s. 7 IBC against one NPIL and subsequently appellant was appointed as Resolution Professional – Appellant alleging that the respondent-operational creditor, transferred Rs 32.50 lakhs from the Corporate Debtor’s bank account without the appellant’s
 Decision Date :
 22-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 447/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
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.

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
 versus
LOVE KUSH MEENA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1192
2021 INSC 208
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 Service Law: Appointment for post of constable – Disqualification for appointment – Advertisement provided for disqualification clause that only those candidates would be qualified to appear who have not been convicted for offence of moral turpitude, violent activities acquitted by court – Respondent-candidate was found ineligible since in a criminal case under ss.302, 323, 341, 34 IPC, he was not acquitted honourably but was acquitted on benefit of doubt – High Court held in favour of respondent – Appeal by employer-State – Held: The
 Decision Date :
 24-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3894/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.