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.

MASSIMILANO LATORRE AND OTHERS
 versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 527
2021 INSC 306
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307, 427 and 34 – United Nationals Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) – Annex VII – On 15.02.2012, two fishermen who were onboard the boat registered in India, were fired at from a passing ship (an Italian vessel) due to died – FIR was registered – Two Italian Marines- Petitioner no.1 & 2 were apprehended by the police – A writ petition was filed by the Marines before the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the State and the Circle Inspector of Police – Meanwhile, the
 Decision Date :
 15-06-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 20370/2012
 | Disposal Nature :
 Disposed off

 | Direction Issue :
 Proceedings disposed of with directions

 |  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.

HARI SHANKAR AGGARWAL
 versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1005
2021 INSC 176
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, HEMANT GUPTA
 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss.7/16 – Offence under – Cognizance taken against appellant by Courts below – If justified – Case of appellant that he was not a nominee of the firm / company in question and there being no allegation against him, no against him – Held: As per s.17 of the Act, notice u/s.17(2) is contemplated by company to Local Health Authority in such form and in such manner as prescribed that it has nominated such Director or Manager as a person who is responsible along with written consent of such Director
 Decision Date :
 10-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 297/2021
 | 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.

SWAATI NIRKHI & ORS.
 versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 905
2021 INSC 171
Coram : ASHOK BHUSHAN
*
, INDU MALHOTRA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.406, 177 – Trial pending in Delhi – Transfer petition seeking transfer to Prayagraj, U.P. – Allowed ex-parte – Complainant filed application for recall thereof – Dismissed – Review Petition – Allowed, ex-parte the transfer petition – De-novo hearing – Held: In a criminal case, the place of inquiry and trial has to be by the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the crime was allegedly committed as provided by s.177 – In the present case, cause of action as per the averments in the
 Decision Date :
 09-03-2021
 | Case No :
 TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 262/2018
 | 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.

TRIYAMBAK S. HEGDE
 versus
SRIPAD
-
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 189
2021 INSC 529
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, A.S. BOPANNA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss. 118 and 139 – The case of the appellant was that the respondent approached him to sell his house – Pursuant to which an agreement dated 06.06.1996 was executed by the respondent while receiving the advance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- out of the Subsequently, appellant found that the house was in respondent’s father’s name and the respondent had no authority to sell the same – Appellant demanded return of Rs.3,50,000/- – The respondent instead of paying the entire amount, issued a cheque for sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
 Decision Date :
 23-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 849/2011
 | 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.

VINOD DUA
 versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
-
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 1071
2021 INSC 304
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, VINEET SARAN
 Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Quashing of FIR under – On facts, FIR against petitioner-renowned journalist u/ss. 124-A, 505, 501, 268 for some statements made by him in his talk show on social media about handling of the Covid Pandemic; and that the Prime Minister has used deaths violence against the government and the Prime Minister, and creating panic amongst the public and disturbing the public peace by trying to spread false information – Petition u/Art. 32 by the petitioner for quashing of FIR and seeking directions for protection of journalists
 Decision Date :
 03-06-2021
 | Case No :
 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 154/2020
 | 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
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.

SATBIR SINGH & ANOTHER
 versus
STATE OF HARYANA
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 269
2021 INSC 301
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860: s. 304B – Dowry death – Conviction under – Prosecution case that the victim committed suicide by setting herself ablaze just after one year of her marriage and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing less dowry by the offences u/s. 304B and 306 with 7 years and 5 years rigorous imprisonment respectively – High Court upheld the order of the trial court – On appeal, held: Prosecution was able to successfully prove that the death of the victim due to burn injuries took place within one year of her
 Decision Date :
 28-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1735/2010
 | 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.

SUMETI VIJ
 versus
M/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 266
2021 INSC 172
Coram : INDU MALHOTRA
*
, AJAY RASTOGI
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Order placed by the accused-appellant – Delivered – Cheque issued by the appellant in the name of complainant-respondent – Returned on presentation with a note of “insufficient funds” in the – Notices sent by respondent – Neither responded to nor any payment made within the statutory period – Complaints filed by the respondent u/s.138 – Finding of acquittal returned by Trial Court – Reversed by High Court – Held: Appellant has only recorded her
 Decision Date :
 09-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 292/2021
 | 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.

IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC
 versus
.
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 268
2021 INSC 302
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 COVID-19 pandemic: Suo Motu writ petition – Cognizance of the Management of the Covid -19 pandemic during the second wave –Gradual recession of the second wave – In view thereof, Central Government’s Liberalised Vaccination Policy, vaccine distribution, vaccine procurement process, and the augmentation of vaccine availability, taken up – With respect to the vaccine distribution between different age-groups, the policy of the Central Government conducting free
 Decision Date :
 31-05-2021
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  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.

NATHU SINGH
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 599
2021 INSC 300
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail – Propriety of protective order after dismissal of anticipatory bail application – High Court while dismissing anticipatory bail application of the respondents-accused granted them 90 days to surrender before trial court them protection from coercive action for the said period – Aggrieved by such relief, instant appeal filed by the complainant – Held: A Court, be it a Sessions Court or a High Court, in certain special facts and circumstances may decide to grant anticipatory bail for a limited period
 Decision Date :
 28-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 522/2021
 | 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.

PRITI SARAF & ANR.
 versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 577
2021 INSC 177
Coram : INDU MALHOTRA
*
, AJAY RASTOGI
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope and ambit of – Commercial transaction – FIR against respondent no.2 and one more person u/ss.420, 406 and 34 IPC – High Court quashed all the criminal proceedings – On appeal, held: To exercise powers u/s.482, the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet – At that stage, High Court not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness – Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical
 Decision Date :
 10-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 296/2021
 | 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 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
 versus
M/S TEXMO INDUSTRIES
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1010
2021 INSC 167
Coram : INDIRA BANERJEE, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Employee State Insurance Act, 1948 – s.2(22) and s.2(24) – Whether ‘wages’, as defined in s.2(22) of the ESI Act would include Conveyance Allowance paid by a Company to its employees – Held: From the definition of wages in s.2(22), it is includes remunerative payments, but does not include compensatory payments – Travelling allowance including the value of travelling concession has expressly been excluded from the definition of wages, as also any payment made to an employee to reimburse or compensate for special expenses
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 811/2021
 | 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.

NAGABHUSHAN
 versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 595
2021 INSC 159
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Indian Penal Code, 1860 – s.300(fourthly); ss.498A, 302 r/w 34 – Dowry death – Dying declaration – Accused persons acquitted by trial Court – Acquittal of appellant-accused reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: There are two dying declarations, Exhibit P5 has been proved that the deceased was set ablaze by pouring kerosene on her – Prosecution is successful in proving that the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased – Act of the accused falls in clause fourthly of s.300 – Merely because thereafter he might have tried to
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 443/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Dismissed

 |  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.

ALKA KHANDU AVHAD
 versus
AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA & ANR.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 633
2021 INSC 164
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 r/w S.141 – Complaint filed against appellant – High Court refused to quash the same – On appeal, held: Dishonoured cheque was issued by original accused no.1-husband of the appellant – It was drawn on his bank account and was neither the signatory to the cheque nor the dishonoured cheque was drawn from her bank account – Account in question was not a joint account – s.138 does not speak about the joint liability – Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 258/2021
 | 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.

KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS.
 versus
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 550
2021 INSC 160
Coram : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
*
, R. SUBHASH REDDY
 COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R. KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2021) MARCH 08, 2021 [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND R. SUBHASH REDDY JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C – Alleging offences u/ss. that occurred in the year 2012 – Magistrate issued process against the appellants – Confirmed by Sessions Judge – Appellants’ petition for quashing the orders of Magistrate and the Sessions Judge dismissed – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In the complaint
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 283/2021
 | 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.

UNION OF INDIA
 versus
PRATEEK SHUKLA
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 570
2021 INSC 165
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s. 37 – Complaint u/s.8,9A,25A,23 and 29 of the Act – Alleging that the respondent was part of an international drug syndicate involved in diversion of a controlled substance – Bail granted by High Court – Appeal to Held: The bail was granted without applying legal norms provided u/s. 37 – The reasons for granting bail do not reflect application of mind to the seriousness of the offence involved – Bail liable to be cancelled. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Ex facie, there has been no
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 284/2021
 | 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
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.

GIRRAJ
 versus
KIRANPAL AND ANR ETC
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 229
2021 INSC 161
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Bail: Grant of bail – By High Court – To the five respondent-accused charged under provisions of IPC and Arms Act – On the ground of parity with the co-accused who was already granted bail by the High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail – by Supreme Court – Since the bail granted to the present respondent-accused was on the ground of parity, their bail also liable to be cancelled – However, the respondents are granted one more opportunity to apply for bail before High Court, subject to their surrendering pursuant
 Decision Date :
 08-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 286/2021
 | 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.

RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY
 versus
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 986
2021 INSC 153
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Blanket order of protection from arrest – Sustainability of – The High Court stayed all the proceedings in a suit OS No. 274 of 2014 and directed the District Collector, to submit report in respect fabrication of the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2014 in the said suit – The District Collector conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the High Court, stating that the decree as well as the judgment were fabricated and no such decree was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
 Decision Date :
 05-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 274/2021
 | 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
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.

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
 versus
K. SHOBANA ETC. ETC.
-
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1164
2021 INSC 154
Coram : SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
*
, DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY
 Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – s.27(f) – Reservation for appointment – Manner of filling up the seats – Direct recruitment – Post Graduate Assistants in Chemistry – 356 posts notified wherein and 43 current vacancies) were available for Most Backward Class (MBC) and Denotified Community (DNC) candidates – Provisional selection list published – Meritorious candidates under the MBC quota were appointed in the MBC/DNC quota against the backlog vacancies – Challenged
 Decision Date :
 05-03-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 3745/2020
 | 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.

PRASHANT SINGH RAJPUT
 versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 161
2021 INSC 645
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439 – Anticipatory bail in murder case – FIR and the statements under ss. 161 and 164 indicated a specific role in the crime to the two respondents – High Court granted anticipatory bail to the two respondents – Challenge against – anticipatory bail ignored material aspects including nature and gravity of the offence and specific allegations against the respondents – Hence sufficient case made out for cancelling anticipatory bail granted by High Court. Bail: Challenge to an order granting bail and application
 Decision Date :
 08-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1202/2021
 | 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.

ACHHAR SINGH
 versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 243
2021 INSC 289
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – Exercise of power by the High Court under – On facts, the High Court convicted two accused-appellants for offences u/s. 452, 326 and 323 and u/ss. 302 and 452 IPC, respectively, setting aside trial court – Interference with – Held: High Court rightly interfered with the perverse findings of the trial court and prevented miscarriage of justice by convicting the appellants – High Court went through the consistent evidence against some of the accused which were
 Decision Date :
 07-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1140/2010
 | 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.

LOCHAN SHRIVAS
 versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 809
2021 INSC 882
Coram : L. NAGESWARA RAO
*
, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Penal Code 1860: ss.363, 366, 376(2)(i), 377, 201, 302 and 376A – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the minor daughter of complainant was found missing – They went in search for her but she was not found anywhere – When they came back home, PW-3 told who was neighbour had said that if they would allow him to conduct worship, he could find the child in an hour – They agreed and after the worship, appellant informed them that the child was tied and kept inside the sack in the bushes – PW-1 informed police and on suspicion,
 Decision Date :
 14-12-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 499/2018
 | 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.

M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED
 versus
MANOJ GOEL
-
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 432
2021 INSC 637
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss. 138, 139 – Parallel prosecutions arising from a single transaction u/s.138 – Impermissibility of – Dishonour of cheques – First set of complaints filed – Compromise – cheques issued pursuant to the compromise deed also dishonoured – Second complaint filed – Both the complaints if can be pursued simultaneously – Held: No – A settlement agreement effaces the original complaint – Non-compliance of the terms of the settlement
 Decision Date :
 08-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1068/2021
 | 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.

GURMEET SINGH
 versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 153
2021 INSC 299
Coram : N.V. RAMANA
*
, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.304-B – Death of married woman after she consumed poison in her matrimonial home – Conviction of appellant-husband by Courts below – Challenge to – Held: On facts, not acceptable – Death was caused within seven years of marriage in inspiring testimony of deceased’s father (PW4) about continuing harassment meted out to deceased on account of dowry – Prosecution having satisfied the necessary ingredients u/s.304B IPC, the presumption u/s.113-B, Evidence Act took full effect, which was not rebutted by the
 Decision Date :
 28-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1731/2010
 | 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.

VELLADURAI
 versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 187
2021 INSC 477
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 r/w s.4(b) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act – Abetment to suicide – Mere harassment without any positive action on part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to offence u/s.306 IPC and died – Appellant had quarrel with his wife on the incident date – But no material on record that appellant played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide – On the contrary, even appellant also had tried to
 Decision Date :
 14-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 953/2021
 | 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.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR
 versus
AKASHDEEP MORYA & ANR.
-
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 723
2021 INSC 485
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH
*
, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Service Law – Judicial Service – Involvement in criminal case – Appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Respondent was found not deserving to be appointed for the said post in view of his antecedents – Held: Post of a judicial officer at hierarchy involves applying the most exacting standards – In the absence of an honourable acquittal, the alleged involvement of an officer in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system – In the present case, in two cases, the respondent was charge-sheeted for offences
 Decision Date :
 16-09-2021
 | Case No :
 CIVIL APPEAL No. 5733/2021
 | 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
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.

SANJAY KUMAR RAI
 versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 143
2021 INSC 292
Coram : N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397 – Criminal revision – Judicial Magistrate declined to discharge appellant in a case u/ ss.504 and 506 IPC – Criminal revision against the order turned down by High Court on ground of lack of jurisdiction u/s.397 CrPC while citing a case – On appeal, held: The High Court apparently under-appreciated the decision in Asian Resurfacing case – One may say so at least for two reasons – Firstly, the said case dealt with a challenge to charges framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA)
 Decision Date :
 07-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 472/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 | Direction Issue :
 Matter remanded to High Court

 |  Bench :
 3 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.


English

ગુજરાતી - Gujarati
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: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881
 versus
.
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 257
2021 INSC 257
Coram : S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, A.S. BOPANNA, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: s. 138 – Expeditious trial/ disposal of cases u/s. 138 – Pendency of matters u/s. 138 at various levels, having adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases – the situation – Suo Motu Writ Petition – Issuance of notice to Union of India, Registrar Generals of the High Courts, Director Generals of Police of the States and Union Territories, Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority, Reserve Bank of India and Indian
 Decision Date :
 16-04-2021
 | Case No :
 SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2/2020
 | Disposal Nature :
 Directions issued

 |  Bench :
 5 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.

NASIB SINGH
 versus
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
-
[2021] 13 S.C.R. 566
2021 INSC 642
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss. 386, 223 – Power of appellate court to direct retrial – Scope of – Held: Appellate Court may direct a retrial only in ‘exceptional’ circumstances to avert a miscarriage Mere lapses in the investigation are not sufficient to warrant a direction for re-trial – Only if the lapses are so grave so as to prejudice the rights of the parties, a retrial can be directed – On facts, two FIR’s relating to the offences in the same transaction, one arising
 Decision Date :
 08-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1051/2021
 | 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.

SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR & ANR.
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 630
2021 INSC 298
Coram : DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
 Sentence/Sentencing: Sentences to run concurrently or consecutively – Duty of Court of first instance to specify – Held: It is legally obligatory upon the court of first instance while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment terms as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively – If the Court of first instance does not specify the concurrent running of sentences, the inference, primarily, is that the Court intended such sentences to run consecutively, though, the Court of first instance
 Decision Date :
 25-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 526/2021
 | 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.

UTTAR PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
 versus
CG POWER AND INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED AND ANR.
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 37
2021 INSC 294
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, INDIRA BANERJEE
 Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996: s. 3(1), (2) – Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 – rr. 3 and 4 (1)-(4) – Building and Other Construction and Condition of Service) Act, 1996 – s. 2 (1)(d), (g) and (i) – Levy of cess on cost of construction incurred by builders – Respondent no. 1-contractor entered into an agreement with UPPTCL for construction of 765/ 400 KV Substations, split into four contracts –
 Decision Date :
 12-05-2021
 | Case No :
 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 8630/2020
 | 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.

MANOJ MISHRA @ CHHOTKAU
 versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
-
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 707
2021 INSC 640
Coram : M.R. SHAH
*
, A.S. BOPANNA
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 366, 376-D, 506 – Appellant alongwith other accused persons convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 366, 376-D, 506 and s.4, POCSO Act – Held: Evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence establish the charge of rape – However, charge of gang evidence – Thus, conviction by the trial court, confirmed by High Court u/s.376-D is modified – Appellant is convicted u/s.376 and sentenced for the period undergone – Fine and default sentence imposed by the trial court, unaltered – Conviction u/s.506 is set aside
 Decision Date :
 08-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167/2021
 | 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.

NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
 versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
-
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1044
2021 INSC 253
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Blanket interim orders of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during pendency of u/Art.226 – Impermissibility of – Held: Police has the statutory right and duty to investigate into a cognizable offence – Save in exceptional cases, the Court should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences – When the investigation is in progress and the
 Decision Date :
 13-04-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 330/2021
 | 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.

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANR.
 versus
THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ T. H. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ANR.
-
[2021] 13 S.C.R. 364
2021 INSC 643
Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
*
, VIKRAM NATH, B.V. NAGARATHNA
 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – s.13(2) r/w s.13(1)(e) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.109 – Central Bureau of Investigation (Crime) Manual 2005 – Constitution of India – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Corruption cases – Preliminary enquiry if mandatory before registering an FIR – FIR registered against first respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax on the basis of “source information” for allegedly possessing assets
 Decision Date :
 08-10-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1045/2021
 | 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.

GAUTAM NAVLAKHA
 versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
-
[2021] 5 S.C.R. 87
2021 INSC 295
Coram : UDAY UMESH LALIT
*
, K.M. JOSEPH
 Constitution of India: Art.21 – House arrest – When a citizen is placed on house arrest, which has the effect of depriving him of any freedom, it will not only be custody but it would involve depriving him of the fundamental freedoms unless such freedoms are specifically protected undergoing a house arrest and in the teeth of an absolute prohibition, in the facts of the case forbidding him from moving outside his home, the hallmark of custody described in the case of incarceration is equally present – The right under Art.21 is undoubtedly available to citizens
 Decision Date :
 12-05-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 510/2021
 | 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.

ALI AHMAD
 versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
-
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 565
2021 INSC 723
Coram : K.M. JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.389 – Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of accused on bail – Second respondent-accused was convicted by trial court under s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Pending appeal, High Court allowed application filed under Held: With the introduction of the first proviso to s.389, the law giver has stipulated a particular procedure to be followed in a matter of releasing a person who stands convicted of serious offences as are indicated thereunde – Every law is intended to be followed – In the impugned
 Decision Date :
 12-11-2021
 | Case No :
 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1374/2021
 | Disposal Nature :
 Appeal(s) allowed

 |  Bench :
 2 Judges
Flip view
PDF

Instruction: Analyze this Supreme Court judgment.

Output: Analysis provided.