English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES
 versus
KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 255
2024 INSC 288
Coram : ANIRUDDHA BOSE
*
, SANJAY KUMAR
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if so, whether the respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of s. 118/139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Headnotes – ss. 118/139 – Dishonour of cheque – Sum involved therein, if advanced in discharge of a legally enforceable debt – Raising of presumption u/s. 139 – Complaint by partnership firm alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent no. 1 on the ground of
 Decision Date :
 09-04-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 5583/2022
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

ASIM AKHTAR
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 911
2024 INSC 794
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Whether there is a mandate to decide the application u/s. 319 CrPC before cross-examination of other witnesses. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the victim (respondent no.2)-PW-1, her was recorded – Respondent no.2 filed an application u/s.319 CrPC for summoning the father and mother of the accused-appellant – Thereafter, the above three prosecuting witnesses did not appear before the trial Court for cross-examination and insisted for deciding application u/s.319
 Decision Date :
 18-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4247/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

STATE OF PUNJAB
 versus
GURPREET SINGH & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1039
2024 INSC 154
Coram : SURYA KANT
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co- accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused armed with pistol in her death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main
 Decision Date :
 06-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 664/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

THIRUMOORTHY
 versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 1228
2024 INSC 247
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, SANDEEP MEHTA
 Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was vitiated on account of non-adherence to of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Headnotes Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.3, 9, 15, 18, 19 – Despite the appellant-accused having been found to be a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on
 Decision Date :
 22-03-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
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.

DHANRAJ ASWANI
 versus
AMAR S. MULCHANDANI & ANR.
-
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 257
2024 INSC 669
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his involvement in a Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Accused already in judicial custody in connection with one case, if can apply for anticipatory bail in a different case – Maintainability of such anticipatory bail applications – Divergent opinions expressed by different High Courts: Held: An
 Decision Date :
 09-09-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2501/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN
 versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 111
2024 INSC 82
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration The capital punishment awarded to the petitioner-convict for the conviction u/s. 376 AB, IPC was not confirmed and it was commuted to imprisonment for life, which, going by the provisions thereunder, means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s question is whether the commutation of capital punishment to sentence of life imprisonment requires further interference. Headnotes Sentence/Sentencing – Modification of sentence – Allegation that petitioner-convict took 7 year old girl to a temple and raped her – Trial Court
 Decision Date :
 05-02-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2888/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Case Partly allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SOMJEET MALLICK
 versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 893
2024 INSC 772
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, MANOJ MISRA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, that as per agreement between the parties, the Truck/Trailor was rented to the accused-respondents for plying for 21 months at monthly rent but after payment of first month’s rent, the rent was not paid despite assurances – Chargesheet filed and cognizance was taken by CJM while the
 Decision Date :
 14-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4190/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

HARSHAD GUPTA
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 701
2024 INSC 776
Coram : SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
 Issue for Consideration The Judge who had convicted the appellant was transferred post conviction, before the appellant could be heard on the quantum of sentence and a new Judge was posted in his place. Appellant relying on Sections 353 and 354, Cr.P.C sought direction from the High Court to the the case, including on the question of conviction. High Court whether justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant and directing the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.
 Decision Date :
 01-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4080/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA
 versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 717
2024 INSC 632
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the grant of the benefit of the proviso to s.45(1) of the PMLA to the applicant being a well educated and accomplished woman, who has remained Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Council. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, treatment under s.45 proviso – Entitlement – Applicant-well educated and accomplished woman, has remained Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Council, was one of the chief conspirators in the entire conspiracy relating to formulation and implementation of new Excise Policy
 Decision Date :
 27-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3522/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

RAM NATH
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 743
2024 INSC 138
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration Interplay between the provisions of Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) and ss.272 and 273 of the Penal Code, 1860; whether the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. & Anr v. State of Uttar that after coming into force of the FSSA w.e.f 29th July 2010, it would have an overriding effect on other food related laws, including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and ss. 272, 273, IPC, challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 476-478 of 2012 is correct. Headnotes Food Safety and
 Decision Date :
 21-02-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 472/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

SHIVANI TYAGI
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 36
2024 INSC 343
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
*
 Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to suspension of sentence of life imprisonment of the convicted persons, and their consequential enlargement on bail, in an acid attack case. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 – Suspension of sentence pending appeal, and on victim at the hands of the accused persons – Victim suffered 30-40 percent burn injuries resulting in total disfigurement of her face – Conviction of the accused persons u/ss. 307/149 and 326A/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court suspended the sentence
 Decision Date :
 05-04-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1957/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi
తెలుగు - Telugu

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

VELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERS
 versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) AND ANR.
-
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1
2024 INSC 87
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Issue for Consideration The courts below, if justified in convicting the four accused u/ss. 302/34 IPC and imposing sentence for life for committing murder of the victim. Headnotes Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34, s. 304 Part II – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, when – Political animosity between two groups led to the murder of the deceased – Prosecution witnesses corroborating incident of accused A 1 stopping an auto, dragging the deceased to the house of A-4, and the other accused-A2, A4
 Decision Date :
 06-01-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2852/2023
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

YASH TUTEJA & ANR.
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 591
2024 INSC 301
Coram : ABHAY S. OKA
*
, UJJAL BHUYAN
 591 : 2024 INSC 301 Yash Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 153 of 2023) 08 April 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to the Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement under the meaning of clause (y) of sub-section (1) of s. 2 of PMLA.` Headnotes Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Clause (y) of sub-Section (1) of s. 2 – Scheduled Offence – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 120B – Complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on the basis
 Decision Date :
 08-04-2024
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 153/2023

 | Direction Issue :
 WP(Crl) Nos. 153/2023 and 217/2023 disposed of. WP(Crl) No. 208/2023 partly allowed WP(Crl) No. 216/2023 allowed.

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SIDDIQUE
 versus
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
-
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 822
2024 INSC 877
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – FIR against the appellant u/ss.376, 506, IPC – Application seeking anticipatory bail rejected by High Court – Challenge to: Held: years the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 – Further, though she had also posted a post on facebook in 2018 making allegations against about 14 people, including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse, however, she did not go to the Justice Hema Committee
 Decision Date :
 19-11-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4625/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

MAHENDRA KUMAR SONKER
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 935
2024 INSC 600
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant under s.353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be sustained without proving assault and use of criminal force. Headnotes† Indian Penal Code – s.353 IPC – Complaint against appellant filed 500/- as illegal gratification – Trap proceedings organised – Appellant charged for offences under ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with ss.201 and 353 IPC – Special Judge, Sagar convicted appellant for offence u/s.353 IPC and sentenced him
 Decision Date :
 12-08-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 520/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

हिन्दी - Hindi
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 761
2024 INSC 387
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, RAJESH BINDAL
 Issue for Consideration (i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) Whether the words ‘Children’s Court’ and ‘Court Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably; (iii) What is the time period to file an appeal u/s. 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed u/s. 15 of the Act; (iv) Whether all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals,
 Decision Date :
 07-05-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2411/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi

 Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

K. BHARTHI DEVI AND ANR.
 versus
STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.
-
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 650
2024 INSC 750
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Despite the dispute involved having predominantly overtures of a civil dispute and the matter having been compromised between the parties, whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed by the accused persons including the appellants chargesheet. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420, 409, 467, 468, 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(1)(d), 13(2) – Quashing – Of criminal cases having predominantly civil character
 Decision Date :
 03-10-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4113/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1436
2024 INSC 1039
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Headnotes† CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – Appeals
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5581/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


SHAMBHU DEBNATH
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2083
2024 INSC 1032
Coram : VIKRAM NATH
*
, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE
 2083 : 2024 INSC 1032 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his 20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered: Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail –
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
  No. 5579/2024

 |  Bench :
  Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHER
 versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1533
2024 INSC 1019
Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
*
, K.V. VISWANATHAN
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 – The complainant filed and her parents-in-law (appellants) u/ss.498-A, 312, 313 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 – The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside of the FIR before the High Court – The said application was
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5542/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
 versus
KASHIF
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1406
2025 INSC 1045
Coram : BELA M. TRIVEDI
*
, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
 Issue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole – It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Nature of: Held: While
 Decision Date :
 19-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5544/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


P. MANIKANDAN
 versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1553
2024 INSC 1007
Coram : C.T. RAVIKUMAR
*
, SANJAY KAROL
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right u/Art.20(ii) of the Constitution of India. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.20(ii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.386 – The Trial Court held appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/ss.364A
 Decision Date :
 18-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5478/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


MUSKAN ENTERPRISES & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1273
2024 INSC 1046
Coram : DIPANKAR DATTA
*
, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
 Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition u/s.482, Cr. PC on the ground that since the earlier petition had been withdrawn without liberty obtained to apply afresh, the subsequent petition was Procedure, 1973-s.482 – Subsequent petition under – Maintainability – Order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable u/s.138 against appellants – In appeal, the sentence of the the appellants suspended and was granted bail however, directed to deposit 20% of
 Decision Date :
 18-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5491/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


AMAR SARDAR
 versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1267
2024 INSC 1040
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Whether High Court considered the evidence on record independently thereby by the Fast Track Court: Held: While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is exercising its appellate jurisdiction – It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such
 Decision Date :
 12-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5234/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


ANKUSH VIPAN KAPOOR
 versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1743
2024 INSC 986
Coram : B.V. NAGARATHNA
*
, N KOTISWAR SINGH
 Issue for Consideration Whether the NIA can investigate only the same accused who is present in the NIA investigation qua Scheduled Offences and for non-scheduled offence by virtue of Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency, 2008; In other words, can the accused person who, although not being investigated for any Scheduled Offences could be investigated by NIA because there exists a link between the two namely, Scheduled and non-scheduled offences, thereby connecting every co-accused; Whether, the expression “the accused” in Section
 Decision Date :
 16-12-2024
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 2819/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


RAJENDRA KUMAR BARJATYA AND ANOTHER
 versus
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.
-
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1320
2024 INSC 990
Coram : J.B. PARDIWALA
*
, R MAHADEVAN
 Issue for Consideration Respondent Nos.5 (original allottee of the plot) and 6 (Respondent No.5’s power of attorney) without any approval from the competent authority, unauthorizedly constructed commercial shops on the subject property which was residential in nature and sold Impugned order passed by High Court ordering demolition and directing criminal as well as departmental action against the erring officials. Headnotes† Illegal/Unauthorized constructions – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.83 – High Court allowed
 Decision Date :
 17-12-2024
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 14604/2024
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Split view
HTML view
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.