diff --git "a/phase1/eval/escr_sample.jsonl" "b/phase1/eval/escr_sample.jsonl"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/phase1/eval/escr_sample.jsonl"
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{"case_name": "Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma v The State of Bihar", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 735", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 108"], "cnr": "ESCR010004822024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["BELA M. TRIVEDI", "SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA"], "author_judge": "BELA M. TRIVEDI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-09-25", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1031/2015", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Penal Code, 1860."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_108_125", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Issue arose as regards sustainablility of the findings of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34 IPC; as also the approach of the High Court, if in line with the settled law for reversing an acquittal into conviction. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 and 364/34 – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Abduction and murder of woman over a property dispute – Factum of her death discovered in furtherance of written report lodged by informant and brother- in-law of the victim – Conviction and sentence of accused nos. 1-5 of the commission of offences u/ss. 302/34 and 364/34, however acquittal of accused nos. 6 and 7 of all the charges – High Court upheld the conviction of accused nos. 1-5, as also convicted accused nos. 6 and 7 of the commission of offences u/ss. 364/34 and 302/34 – Sustainability:", "held": ": Offence of murder is entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence and in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must give out an inescapable conclusion of guilt – Prosecution case is far from meeting that standard – Mere presence of certain make-up articles cannot be a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim was residing in the said house, especially when another woman was admittedly residing there – No material whatsoever could be found at the house to directly indicate that the deceased as also the informant were residing there – Prosecution failed to examine even one cohabitant to prove the said fact – Evidence of the eye witnesses declared as wholly unreliable including on the aspect of time of death – Thus, no reason to doubt the post mortem report and the findings therein – Prosecution case full of glaring doubts as * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 109 Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma v. The State of Bihar regards abduction – Although, the post mortem report indicates that the death of the deceased was unnatural and the commission of murder cannot be ruled out, however no direct evidence to prove the commission of murder by the accused persons – Link of causation between the accused persons and the alleged offence conspicuously missing – Circumstantial evidence emanating from the facts surrounding the offence of abduction, such as the testimonies of eye witnesses, failed to meet the test of proof and cannot be termed as proved in the eyes of law – No inference could be drawn from it to infer the commission of the offence u/s. 302 by the accused persons – Also motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration – Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone – Thus, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Reasonable doubts are irreconcilable and strike at the foundation of the prosecution’s case – Furthermore, approach of the High Court in reversing the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 not in line with the settled law pertaining to reversal of acquittals – High Court took a cursory view of the matter and reversed the acquittal without arriving at any finding of illegality or perversity or impossibility of the trial court’s view or non-appreciation of evidence by the trial tourt – Thus, the appellants to be acquitted of all the charges – Findings of conviction arrived at by the courts below not sustainable and set aside. [Paras 28- 32, 34-37] Judicial deprecation – High Court’s observation that the make- up articles found in the house could not have belonged to the widow lady as there was no need for her to put on make-up being a widow: Held: Said observation not only legally untenable but also highly objectionable – Sweeping observation of this nature not commensurate with the sensitivity and neutrality expected from a court of law, specifically when the same is not made out from any evidence on record. [Para 27]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran", "citations": ["[2007] 3 SCR 507 : (2007) 3 SCC 755"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka", "citations": ["[2007] 2 SCR 630 : (2007) 4 SCC 415"], "treatment": "relied-on"}, {"name": "Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana", "citations": ["[2009] 6 SCR 982 : (2009) 12 SCC 351"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Kashiram v. State of M.P", "citations": ["[2001] 4 Supp. SCR 110\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 263 : (2002) 1 SCC 71"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Labh Singh v. State of Punjab", "citations": ["(1976) 1 SCC 181"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Suratlal v. State of M.P", "citations": ["(1982) 1 SCC 488"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Rai Saheb & Ors. v. State of Haryana", "citations": ["(1994) Supp.1 SCC 74"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Sanjeev v. State of H.P", "citations": ["(2022) 6 SCC 294 – referred to."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "V. Vincent Velankanni v The Union of India and Others", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 748", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 126"], "cnr": "ESCR010004832024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SANDEEP MEHTA", "R MAHADEVAN"], "author_judge": "SANDEEP MEHTA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-09-30", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 8617/2013", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_126_149", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Whether the seniority of the appellant is to be reckoned from the date of induction/initial appointment or as per the date of promotion/ confirmation in the skilled grade. Headnotes† Service Law – Promotion – Seniority – Date of induction – Date of promotion – The GO dated 24.12.2002 issued by the Ordinance Factory Board placed on record clarifies the position regarding counting of seniority by laying down that seniority will be counted from the date of promotion to skilled grade and not from the date of induction/entry/promotion in semi- skilled grade – However, the appellant has placed reliance on GO dated 04.08.2015, the rule position qua the fixation of seniority has been restored to be governed by OM dated 04.11.1992, according to which the relevant date for fixation of seniority would be the date of initial appointment and not the date of upgradation/promotion to the skilled grade:", "held": ": The clarification issued vide GO dated 04.08.2015 does not operate retrospectively as it is specifically provided in the said GO that “henceforth”, the seniority in respect of Industrial Establishments will be governed by the relevant clause of OM dated 04.11.1992 – It is trite law that an Office Memorandum/ Government Order cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until there is an express provision to make its effect retrospective or that the operation thereof is retrospective by necessary implication – If a Government Order is treated to be in the nature of a clarification of an earlier Government Order, it may be made applicable retrospectively – Conversely, if a subsequent Government Order is held to be a modification/amendment of the earlier Government Order, its application would be prospective as retrospective application thereof would result in withdrawal of * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 127 V. Vincent Velankanni v. The Union of India and Others vested rights which is impermissible in law and the same may also entail recoveries to be made – In the instant case, the subsequent GO dated 04.08.2015 cannot be read simply as a clarification and therefore cannot be made applicable retrospectively – The said GO has substantively modified the position governing seniority in the Industrial Establishments by reviving the earlier OM dated 04.11.1992, and supersedes the orders/circulars dated 24.12.2002 and 13.01.2003, which were holding the field over more than a decade – Therefore, giving retrospective effect to the GO dated 04.08.2015 would have catastrophic effect on the seniority of the entire cadre – As much water has flown under the bridge and retrospective application of the GO issued in 2015 would open floodgates of litigation and would disturb the seniority of many employees causing them grave prejudice and heartburn as it would disturb the crystallized rights regarding seniority, rank and promotion which would have accrued to them during the intervening period – This Court is of the view that applicability of the Government Order dated 04.08.2015 cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant as its operation is clearly prospective. [Paras 41, 42, 43, 50, 51]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Pawan Pratap Singh and Others v. Reevan Singh and Others", "citations": ["[2011] 2 SCR 831 : (2011) 3 SCC 267"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Sonia v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others", "citations": ["[2007] 8 SCR 883 : (2007) 10 SCC 627"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others v. Dr. Manu and Another", "citations": ["[2023] 7 SCR 366 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza v. Union of India and Others", "citations": ["(1976) 1 SCC 599"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "R.S. Makashi and Others v. I.M. Menon and Others", "citations": ["[1982] 2 SCR 69 : (1982) 1 SCC 379"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "K.R. Mudgal and Others v. R.P. Singh and Others", "citations": ["[1986] 3 SCR 993 : (1986) 4 SCC 531"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "B.S. Bajwa and Another v. State of Punjab and Others", "citations": ["[1997] Supp. 6 SCR 451 : (1998) 2 SCC 523 – relied on. BSNL v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy [2011] 14 SCR 502 : (2011) 9 SCC 510"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra", "citations": ["[1990] 2 SCR 900 : (1990) 2 SCC 715"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Suresh Chandra Jha v. State of Bihar and Others", "citations": ["[2006] Supp. 8 SCR 831 : (2007) 1 SCC 405"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur and Others", "citations": ["[1999] Supp. 3 SCR 323 : (1999) 8 SCC 287"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others", "citations": ["[1999] Supp. 4 SCR 302 : (1999) 9 SCC 596"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 613 – referred to. 128\b", "citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports"], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Rama Devi v The State of Bihar and Others", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 755", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1313"], "cnr": "ESCR010006352024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SANJIV KHANNA", "SANJAY KUMAR", "R MAHADEVAN"], "author_judge": "SANJIV KHANNA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-03", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2623/2014", "disposition": "partly_allowed", "acts": ["Penal Code, 1860", "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Arms Act, 1959."], "sections": ["s.34"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1313_1343", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 307, read with s.34 – Murder of an MLA and his bodyguard – Respondents convicted by Trial Court – Conviction reversed by High Court – Challenge to:", "held": ": In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 r/w Section 34 proved and established beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court affirmed and restored – However, benefit of doubt given to other accused persons as there is no direct ocular evidence implicating them and the charge of conspiracy is not substantiated, their acquittal upheld – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 42-45] FIR – Delay in forwarding the copy to magistrate – When not fatal: Held: The incident took place in the night of 13.06.1998 – 14.06.1998 being a Sunday, the FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional magistrate on 15.06.1998 – Thus, the delay in forwarding the copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate was explained – Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution unless the accused demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case – If the investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on record to show that the accused were named and pinpointed, *Author 1314\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates the accused – The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is an external check against ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR – Further, if the court finds the witnesses to be truthful and credible, the lack of a cogent explanation for the delay may not be regarded as detrimental. [Para 30] Evidence – Non-recovery of vehicles and weapons used in the offence – Effect on credibility of eyewitnesses, if any: Held: The ocular version of the witnesses should not be disregarded solely because the weapon used in the crime and the vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or seized by the police – On facts, the failure of the police to recover the vehicles and the weapons is not sufficient to undermine the credibility of the eyewitness accounts or the corroborative evidence regarding the cause of the homicidal deaths of both the deceased. [Para 27] Evidence – Witness with criminal background – Courts to exercise caution but, evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground of criminal background: Held: Criminal background of a witness necessitates that the courts approach their evidence with caution – The testimony of a witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene of the offence – In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, the testimony of members from either side is admissible and relevant – If the court is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness of such testimony, it may be considered – Courts assess the broader context to determine if there is sufficient corroboration, as long as there are no valid reasons to discredit the evidence – The crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and whether their testimony is credible – If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be relied upon – Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the grounds of criminal background. [Para 20] Evidence – Presence of eyewitness (PW-1) at the place of occurrence (hospital) proven, however there was [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1315 Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others non- compliance with hospital and prison protocols – Reliance on testimony of PW-1, if proper – MLA and his bodyguard were murdered in the hospital where the former was admitted for treatment while in judicial custody – PW-1 did not seek prior permission from the court or jail authorities nor did he make any entry in the hospital register while visiting the deceased MLA in the hospital: Held: Fardbeyan (Exhibit-50) and the ocular evidence of PW-24 and PW25, establish the presence of PW-1 and other visitors in the hospital – Once the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is proven, their testimony, if credible and truthful, should not be dismissed solely based on non-compliance with hospital and prison protocols – Further, the reasoning given by the High Court to disregard and doubt the eyewitness account of PW-1, on the premise that he ought to have been the informant because he is the brother-in-law of the deceased MLA and was present at the hospital at the time of occurrence, is conjectural and unfounded – Any person can be an informant of a case, and the police may also register a case on their own – The rationale of the High Court for dismissing the testimony of PW-1 is fundamentally flawed. [Para 15] Evidence – Testimony of hostile witness – Maxims – falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus – Inapplicability: Held: Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions of this country – This maxim does not occupy the status of rule of law – It is merely a rule of caution which involves the question of the weight of evidence that a court may apply in the given set of circumstances – Evidence of a hostile witness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude versions that support the prosecution – Rather, the testimony of the hostile witness is to be subjected to close scrutiny, enabling the court to separate truth from falsehood, exaggerations and improvements – Only reliable evidence should be taken into consideration – The court is not denuded of its power to make an appropriate assessment – The entire testimony of a hostile witness is discarded only when the judge, as a matter of prudence, finds the witness wholly discredited, warranting the exclusion of the evidence in toto – The creditworthy portions of the testimony should be considered for the purpose of evidence in the case. [Paras 16, 22] 1316\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Deep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana", "citations": ["(1969) 3 SCC 890"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan", "citations": ["(2016) 2 SCC 607"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh", "citations": ["[2008] 11 SCR 561 : (2008) 11 SCC 640"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "State of U.P. v. Farid Khan and Others", "citations": ["(2005) 9 SCC 103"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu", "citations": ["[2010] 10 SCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh and Others", "citations": ["[2016] 7 SCR 713 : (2017) 11 SCC 195"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others", "citations": ["[2011] 10 SCR 823 : (2011) 9 SCC 115 – relied on."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v The State of Bihar and Others", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 763", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1344"], "cnr": "ESCR010006362024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["BELA M. TRIVEDI", "SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA"], "author_judge": "BELA M. TRIVEDI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-04", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11030/2024", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015", "Bihar Water Resources Department 1346\b [2024] 10 S.C.R", "Digital Supreme Court Reports Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017", "All-India Council of Technical Education Act 1987."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1344_1358", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Despite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the conclusion of the appointment process, the State Government sought to scrap the entire process and undertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules. Whether this amounted to effectively changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules. Headnotes† Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2015 – Bihar Water Resources Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2017 – Recruitment – Appointment process – Bihar Technical Service Commission invited applications for vacancies to the post of Junior Engineer across various state departments vide Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 – The applications of the private respondents herein were found ineligible by the BTSC on the ground that their institutions were not approved by the All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) – Writ petitions were filed – After various orders of the High Court, a Final Select List was prepared on 19.12.2022, put under sealed cover and permission of the Court was sought by filing an interlocutory application – However, application was adjourned after Court was informed that the State Government was contemplating a review of the entire process – Later on 25.01.2023, decision was taken by the State Government inter alia to cancel the entire appointment process under the Advertisement and to initiate approval for the amended Rules: * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1345 Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others", "held": ": In the instant case, despite the preparation of the Final Select List which signals the conclusion of the appointment process, the State Government seeks to scrap the entire process and undertake a fresh appointment process under the New Rules – In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to effectively changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is impermissible and deprives the candidates of their legitimate right of consideration under the previous Rules – The High Court in the impugned order has abruptly and without assigning reasons and without adjudicating any issues involved in the writ petitions, disposed of the same, recording the statement made by the counsel for the State, and permitted the State to amend Rules in question – Since, the entire recruitment process was concluded as per the extant Rules till the selection list was declared on 02.04.2022, which has not been specifically set aside by the High Court, and since the AICTE has also continued its stand that its approval is not necessary for the private institutions, and since the order dated 19.04.2022 (in which the first Select List was partly set aside) has attained finality, the interest of justice would be met if the State/Commission is directed to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates in respect of the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 – Hence, it is directed that a fresh selection list for the vacancies advertised in the Advertisement dated 08.03.2019 be prepared of the meritorious candidates in compliance with the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the High Court – The Fresh Select List shall also include those meritorious candidates who were otherwise eligible but were declared ineligible solely on account of the 2017 amendment to the Rules i.e., on account of their institute not being recognised by the AICTE, and all similarly placed successful candidates. [Paras 26, 27, 29]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Bharathidasan University & Anr. v. AICTE & Ors", "citations": ["[2001] Supp. 3 SCR 253 : (2001) 8 SCC 676"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das", "citations": ["[2020] 9 SCR 925 : (2021) 12 SCC 80"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "The Chairman SBI & Anr. v. M.J. James", "citations": ["[2021] 7 SCR 373 : (2022) 2 SCC 301"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr", "citations": ["[2008] 2 SCR 1025 : (2008) 3 SCC 512 – referred to."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Renjith K.G. & Others v Sheeba", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 773", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1359"], "cnr": "ESCR010006372024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PANKAJ MITHAL", "R MAHADEVAN"], "author_judge": "PANKAJ MITHAL", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-14", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 8315/2014", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Code of Civil Procedure, 1908", "Limitation Act, 1963."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1359_1370", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Whether a pendente lite transferee, a stranger to the suit can file application under Order XXI Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking re-delivery after dispossession. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXI, r.99 – Predecessor of the respondents, a pendente lite transferee was dispossessed from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit, if could file application under Or. XXI, r.99 against dispossession:", "held": ": Yes �� Under Or.XXI, r.99, where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application complaining of such dispossession – A third party to the decree has a right to approach the Court even after dispossession of the immovable property, which he was occupying – Predecessor of the respondents not a party to the suit was dispossessed from the property in execution of the decree passed in the suit and therefore, he who is purported to be a stranger to the decree can adjudicate his claim of independent right, title and interest in the decretal property as per Or.XXI, r.99 – “any person” not a party to the suit or a stranger to the suit can seek re-delivery after being dispossessed – The term “stranger” would cover within its ambit, a pendente lite transferee, who has not been impleaded – Once an application under Or.XXI, r.99 is filed, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to consider all the rival claims including the right, title and interest of the parties under Or.21, r.101 – High Court rightly set aside the order passed in the execution petition and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration leaving all the issues including the independent * Author 1360\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports right, title or interest claimed by the respondents in the property in question, to be adjudicated – No illegality in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference. [Paras 14-16, 19] Limitation – Decree passed in suit for partition – Limitation for execution – Respondent argued that the decree passed on 09.03.1970 was engrossed on the stamp paper on 19.11.1990, the execution petition for delivery of possession of the property filed only on 13.03.1991 was time-barred and the High Court rightly allowed the applications filed by the predecessor of the respondents seeking re-delivery of possession inter alia contending that the execution petition was time barred: Held: As regards the limitation for execution of a decree passed in the suit for partition, time begins to run from the date of final decree and not from the date on which it is engrossed on the stamp paper – High Court rightly set aside the order passed in the execution petition and remanded the matter to the trial court. [Paras 16, 19]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Chiranji Lal (D) by LRs. v. Hari Das (D) by Lrs", "citations": ["[2005] Supp. 1 SCR 359 : (2005) 10 SCC 746"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Sriram Housing Finance & Investment (India) Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust", "citations": ["(2022) 15 SCC 176 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 794 – relied on."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "IDBI Bank Ltd. v Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 780", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1371"], "cnr": "ESCR010006472024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PANKAJ MITHAL", "R MAHADEVAN"], "author_judge": "PANKAJ MITHAL", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-16", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11115/2024", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1371_1380", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Whether there was any default on part of the respondents-auction purchasers in depositing the balance auction amount within the time prescribed pursuant to the auction sale so as to attract Rule 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and allow the appellant-Bank to cancel the auction which had already been confirmed. Headnotes† Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 – r.9(4), (5) – When not applicable:", "held": ": The period to deposit the balance sale consideration under r.9(4) is not absolute/sacrosanct and is extendable with the consent in writing of the parties – r.9(4) will only come into play when there is default on part of the party i.e. the auction purchaser to deposit the amount and will not apply where there is no default or that the default, if any, lies upon the auctioneer i.e. appellant-Bank in the present case – Respondents were always ready and willing to deposit the balance auction amount, no material on record to justify non-acceptance of the balance sale consideration from the respondents within 15 days of the confirmation of the sale – Silence on part of the appellant in either immediately revoking the sale confirmation or refusing to extend the time as sought by the respondents, impliedly amounted to extension of time in writing with consent – Reason for the non-issuance of the sale certificate was solely attributable to it – Since there were no latches, negligence or default on part of the respondents in offering to deposit the balance auction amount, non-deposit of the said amount within the stipulated period would not be fatal within the meaning of sub-Rules (4) and (5) of r.9 – Unilateral cancellation * Author 1372\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of the auction sale without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the respondents was per se in violation of the principles of natural justice and was illegal – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, High Court did not commit any error in holding that the appellant-Bank erred in cancelling the auction sale and in directing to issue sale certificate/register the sale deed in favour of the respondents after getting the balance auction amount deposited within four weeks. [Paras 18-22] Practice and Procedure – Appellant-Bank cancelled the auction sale vide communication dated 24.12.2019 without referring to the default, if any, by the respondents in depositing the balance auction amount as per r.9(4) – Said plea was taken by the appellant for the first time through the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition filed by the respondents-auction purchasers before the High Court – Impermissibility: Held: Validity of an order can only be adjudged on the basis of the reasoning contained in the order and the said reasoning cannot be supplemented in any manner much less by means of a counter affidavit or a supplementary affidavit when the parties have entered into a litigation – Parties cannot raise new pleas not contained in the order impugned while assailing the correctness or the validity of such an order – Thus, the appellant-Bank was not entitled to raise the plea of default u/r.9(4) through the counter affidavit. [Para 12]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Union Bank of India v. Rajat Infrastructure Private Limited and 14 Others", "citations": ["[2023] 14 SCR 666 : (2023) 10 SCC 232 – held inapplicable. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner and Ors. [1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. Sreenivasulu and Ors", "citations": ["[2022] 16 SCR 1108 :(2023) 2 SCC 168"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. Ikbal and Ors", "citations": ["[2013] 8 SCR 532 : (2013) 10 SCC 83 – relied on."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. v M/s Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 784", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1381"], "cnr": "ESCR010006382024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["VIKRAM NATH", "AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH"], "author_judge": "VIKRAM NATH", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-16", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11117/2024", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951", "Bihar Municipal Act, 2007", "Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914", "Patna Municipal Corporation (Grant of Permission for Display of Advertisements & Similar Devices) Regulations, 2012."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1381_1403", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative sanction and is, thus, violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The core question confronting this Court, as it was before the Division Bench, is whether the demand is by way of a tax/levy or simply in the nature of royalty for permission for advertising through hoardings within the limits of the Corporation. Headnotes† Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – s. 431 – Royalty on advertisements – Power of Corporation to charge royalty – On 29.08.2005, in a meeting it was resolved that if any agency puts up its advertisement(s), the Corporation would charge royalty at the rate of Re.1/- per square foot per year on such hoardings – Thereafter, appellants came out with fresh rates of royalty/ tax on advertisements, the same being Rs.10/- per square foot per year in the case of the respondent, which was made effective from 02.11.2007 – The Municipal Commissioner of the Corporation recommended that all those advertisers who had not paid their dues in terms of the order dated 02.11.2007 would be liable to be charged twice the rate fixed and further that hoardings displayed without permission should be removed and such persons would be charged a penalty five times the amount due from them – A demand was raised towards royalty/fee/tax on the respondent no.1 – A writ petition was filed by the respondent no.1 – The Single Judge of the High Court quashed the order of demand of penalty – However, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the * Author 1382\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court and held that the appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/ royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative sanction – Correctness:", "held": ": In the instant factual setting, the advertising companies/ respective Respondents No.1 had agreed in the year 2005 to pay a royalty of Re.1 per square foot to the Corporation for putting up hoardings/advertisements – There is no dispute that in the Meeting held on 29.08.2005, the advertising companies did not object to payment of royalty, as sought by the Corporation – Only 2 advertising companies, in praesenti, moved the High Court by way of letters patent appeals, whereas, a majority of the advertising companies complied with making payment(s) @ Rs.10 per square foot subsequent to the decision of the Corporation dated 02.11.2007 – The revision of rate was within the power of the Corporation – The Corporation’s power to charge royalty cannot be interfered with on the ground that the same is not available, either in the Act or in the Regulations concerned, as there is no question of the said ‘royalty’ being a tax – Section 431 of the Act, therefore, would not come into the picture where royalty, that too by way of and under an agreement/understanding is concerned – As royalty and tax cannot be equated – The nomenclatures cannot be used interchangeably in law, both carrying starkly different imports and connotations – As far as enhancement of the rate from Re.1 per square foot to Rs.10 per square foot is concerned, there has been no serious attempt to challenge the enhancement in quantum from Re.1 per square foot to Rs.10 per square foot, hence, this Court refrains from delving into that aspect – The payment of enhanced rate of Rs.10 per square foot was not made retrospective by the Corporation, as it was made effective from November, 2007, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere in such demand from the date it was made effective by the Corporation as there is no element of retrospectivity involved – Therefore, the decision of the Corporation, to charge Rs.10 per square foot with regard to hoarding(s)/advertisement(s) as communicated at the relevant point of time to the concerned parties needs no interference – However, the imposition of penalty for non-payment needs to be interfered with as no such power exists – It is held thus, but with the clarificatory caveat that the Corporation would not be precluded from charging interest over delayed payment(s). [Paras 23, 24, 29, 33, 36] [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1383 The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. M/s Tribro Ad Bureau & Ors. Principle of Law – Quoting wrong provision of law: Held: It is settled that quoting the wrong provision of law, when the authority concerned is otherwise empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground alone. [Para 30]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India", "citations": ["[2024] 8 SCR 540 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796 – followed. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M H Ghaswala [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 303 : (2002) 1 SCC 633"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary", "citations": ["[2003] Supp. 2 SCR 743 : (2003) 8 SCC 204"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Union of India v. Naveen Jindal", "citations": ["[2004] 1 SCR 1038 : (2004) 2 SCC 510 – held inapplicable. Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited v. State of Kerala [2021] 13 SCR 136 : (2021) 10 SCC 165"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council", "citations": ["[1970] 3 SCR 854 : (1970) 1 SCC 582"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "State of Kerala v. Chandramohanan", "citations": ["[2004] 1 SCR 1155 : (2004) 3 SCC 429"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "N Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre", "citations": ["(2004) 12 SCC 278"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India", "citations": ["[2007] 8 SCR 292 : 2007 (9) SCALE 197"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "P K Palanisamy v. N Arumugham", "citations": ["[2009] 11 SCR 342 : (2009) 9 SCC 173"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar", "citations": ["[2010] 3 SCR 911 : (2010) 4 SCC 653"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar", "citations": ["[2021] 8 SCR 320 : (2021) 9 SCC 292"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India", "citations": ["[2007] 2 SCR 737 : (2007) 3 SCC 545 – referred to. Books and Periodicals Cited Mozley & Whiteley's Law Dictionary (11th Edn., 1993, p. 243)"], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 791", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1404"], "cnr": "ESCR010006392024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-18", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 3098/2023", "disposition": null, "acts": ["Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act 2008", "Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff for Services Provided for Cargo Facility, Ground Handling and Supply of Fuel to the Aircraft) Guidelines 2011", "Competition Act 2002", "Advocates Act 1961", "Electricity Act 2003", "Companies Act 2013."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1404_1447", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Whether Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) has a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), and then consequently prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court under Section 31 of the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act, 2008; and Even if AERA does not have a right to contest an appeal against its order determining tariff for aeronautical services before TDSAT, does it have a right to prefer an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court in terms of Section 31 of the AERA Act. Headnotes† Judicial Authority or quasi-judicial Authority – Whether an Authority can be impleaded in an appeal against its order if the order was issued solely in exercise of its “adjudicatory function”:", "held": ": An authority (either a judicial or quasi-judicial authority) must not be impleaded in an appeal against its order if the order was issued solely in exercise of its “adjudicatory function”. [Para 33 (a)] Judicial Authority or quasi-judicial Authority – Whether an Authority can be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal against its order if it was issued in exercise of its regulatory role: Held: An authority must be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal against its order if it was issued in exercise of its regulatory role since the authority would have a vital interest in ensuring the protection of public interest. [Para 33(b)] * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1405 Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Ors. Judicial Authority or quasi-judicial Authority – Whether an Authority can be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal against its order where its presence is necessary: Held: An authority may be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal against its order where its presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of the appeal in view of its domain expertise. [Para 33(c)] Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 – Whether AERA in exercise of its power under Section 13(1) (a) of the AERA Act is discharging an adjudicatory function: Held: (a) It cannot be concluded that AERA is performing an adjudicatory function merely because Section 13(1)(a) uses the phrase “determine” with respect to tariff – This would amount to a formalistic interpretation – The Court ought to make an assessment by undertaking a holistic analysis; (b) Section 13(1) (a) lays down seven factors which must be considered by AERA for determining the tariff of aeronautical services – It is settled that the function can be regarded as legislative even if objective guidelines are prescribed for the exercise of the function – Further, the provision only prescribes broad guidelines that AERA must “take into consideration” – AERA still has sufficient discretion to adapt to circumstances and various concerns while determining tariff – The Act does not prescribe the weightage that must be provided to each of the factors – That is well within the discretion of AERA – This is also evident from Section 13(1)(a)(viii) which provides that AERA may consider “any other factor which may be relevant for the purposes of the Act”; (c) The factors which are required to be considered by AERA indicate the underlying policy considerations of the assessment – The factors, inter alia, include the cost of efficiency and economic and viable operation of major airports; (d) Section 13(1A) requires that AERA be consulted regarding tariff and tariff structures which are proposed to be incorporated in bidding documents – This provision elucidates that even if AERA does not in a strict sense, “determine” tariff in terms of Section 13(1)(a), it will always be interested in the economic viability of airports and in that sense is a regulator of tariff – Thus, the considerations of AERA while determining tariff will be those of a regulator concerned with public and economic interests, which are purely non-adjudicatory considerations; (e) Section 13(2) 1406\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports by enabling AERA to amend the tariff structure even before the completion of the prescribed five year period in “public interest” is clearly indicative of its regulatory role in the regulatory sphere entrusted to it; (f) The “overarching” limitations placed on AERA’s functions by Section 13(3) resemble the grounds for reasonable restrictions prescribed by Article 19 of the Constitution – These grounds are limitations on the broad policy considerations that AERA undertakes while determining tariffs – Thus, on analysis of the statutory provisions, it can be reasonably concluded that AERA is performing a regulatory function while determining tariff under Section 13(1)(a) of the AERA Act. [Para 58] Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 – Whether AERA is a necessary party in the appeal against its tariff order before TDSAT and whether it can be impleaded as a respondent: Held: When it comes to appeals against the tariff orders issued by AERA, it is not just acting as an ‘expert body’ but as a regulator interested in the outcome of the proceedings – AERA has a statutory duty to regulate tariff upon a consideration of multiple factors to ensure that airports are run in an economically viable manner without compromising on the interests of the public – This statutory role is evident, inter alia, from the factors that AERA must consider while determining tariff and the power to amend tariff from time to time in public interest as discussed above – When AERA determines the tariff for aeronautical services in terms of Section 13(1)(a) of the AERA Act, it is acting as a regulator and an interested party – It is interested not in a personal capacity – Its interest lies in ensuring that the concerns of public interest which animate the statute and the performance of its functions by AERA are duly preserved – Thus, AERA is a necessary party in the appeal against its tariff order before TDSAT and it must be impleaded as a respondent. [Para 63] Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 – s. 31 – Power of AERA to file an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court: Held: Section 31 does not expressly confer AERA with the right to file an appeal against the order of TDSAT before this Court – In fact, it does not confer that power to any party expressly – There are three ways in which provisions dealing with statutory appeal [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1407 Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India v. Delhi International Airport Ltd. & Ors. are drafted – First, the provision may not prescribe who can file an appeal such as Section 31 of the AERA Act – Second, the provision may provide that an appeal may be preferred by a ‘person aggrieved’ such as under the Electricity Act96, the Major Port Authorities Act 2021, the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992 and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Act 2012 – The third category is where the statute confers ‘any party’ with the right to file an appeal as under the Companies Act 2013 – With respect to the first of the three categories, at a minimum the parties to the appeal before first appellate body (in this case TDSAT) will have a right to file an appeal before this Court – AERA can file an appeal under Section 31, it is a necessary party in the appeals against the tariff orders issued by it – The appeals filed by AERA against orders of TDSAT under Section 31 of the AERA Act are maintainable. [Paras 66, 67]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Bar Council of Maharashtra v. MV Dabholkar", "citations": ["[1976] 1 SCR 306 : (1975) 2 SCC 702"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India", "citations": ["[1959] 1 SCR 12 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 23"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "AK Kraipak v. Union of India", "citations": ["[1970] 1 SCR 457 : (1969) 2 SCC 262"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India", "citations": ["[1978] 2 SCR 621 : AIR 1978 SC 597"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "PTC India v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission", "citations": ["[2010] 3 SCR 609 : (2010) 4 SCC 603 – followed. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission [2022] 14 SCR 790 : (2023) 4 SCC 788"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd v. Union of India", "citations": ["[1990] 1 SCR 909 : (1990) 3 SCC 223"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "GRIDCO v. Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited, 2023 SCC Online 1249", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Savitri Devi v. District Jugde, Gorakhpur", "citations": ["[1999] 1 SCR 725 : (1999) 2 SCC 577"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue", "citations": ["[1963] Supp. 1 SCR 676 : AIR 1963 SC 786"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat", "citations": ["[2015] 6 SCR 504 : (2015) 9 SCC 1"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Syed Yakoob v. KS Radhakrishnan", "citations": ["[1964] 5 SCR 64 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "State Transport Authority Tribunal and Regional Transport Authority, Meerut v. Mohd. Lucman Shariff, C.A. No. 878 of 1963", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India", "citations": ["[2010] 11 SCR 112 : (2010) 10 SCC 744"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Brahm Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 730", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Vidus Impex & Traders Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd", "citations": ["[2012] 10 SCR 307 : (2012) 8 SCC 384"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors 1408\b", "citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports P. Ltd. [2013] 2 SCR 74 : (2013) 5 SCC 397"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay", "citations": ["[1992] 2 SCR 1 : (1992) 2 SCC 524 (14)"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Karthuri v. Uyyamperumal", "citations": ["[2005] 3 SCR 864 : (2005) 6 SCC 733"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Nakkuda Ali v. MF De S Jayaratne [1951] AC 66", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S Advani", "citations": ["[1950] SCR 621"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Shivji Nathubhai v. Union of India", "citations": ["[1960] 2 SCR 775 : AIR 1960 SC 606"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan", "citations": ["[1981] 1 SCR 746 : AIR 1981 SC 136"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd", "citations": ["[1987] 2 SCR 841 : (1987) 2 SCC 729"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India", "citations": ["[1975] 1 SCR 956 : (1974) 2 SCC 630 – referred to. Md. Omer v. S Noorudin, AIR 1952 Bom 165"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "R v. ex p London Electricity Joint Committee Co. (1920) Ltd. (1924) 1 KB 171 (CA)", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C 40 – referred to. Books and Periodicals Cited Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v State of Gujarat & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 806", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1448"], "cnr": "ESCR010006402024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ABHAY S. OKA", "AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH"], "author_judge": "ABHAY S. OKA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4307/2024", "disposition": "partly_allowed", "acts": ["Penal Code, 1860", "Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959", "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973", "Constitution of India", "Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1448_1461", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with sections 147 and 148 Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His application for remission was considered expeditiously by the State Government after interference of the Supreme Court. The State Government while granting remission imposed four conditions on the appellant. The appellant contended that two out of these four conditions are vague, subjective and arbitrary. The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the legality of these two conditions imposed by the appropriate government in exercise of its powers under Section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) while remitting the life sentence of the appellant. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Explained:", "held": ": The appropriate government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict unconditionally or subject to certain conditions – Actual remission takes effect only after the convict accepts the conditions – There is an identical provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in form of section 473(1). [Paras 9, 17(i), 2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – The power to grant remission – How to be exercised: Held: A constitution bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1, while approving the view taken in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC 294 held that, the decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned – Convict cannot seek remission of sentence as of right – Factors including public interest, * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1449 Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. the gravity and nature of the offences involved and antecedents of the convict can be looked into by the appropriate government as the power to grant remission is discretionary – Almost all the States including the State of Gujarat who is a respondent here have a written policy on grant of remission in order to avoid arbitrary use of this power. [Paras 10-11, 12, 17(ii), 17(iii)] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Nature of the conditions that can be imposed by the appropriate government: Held: The conditions imposed must be fair, reasonable and stand the test of scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution – Conditions cannot be arbitrary as it will violate rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 12, 17(iv)] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) – Whether the condition requiring the convict to behave ‘decently’ for a period of two years after his release from jail is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution: Held: The condition number 1 imposed by the appropriate government required the convict to: (a) behave ‘decently’ for a period of two years after his release from jail and; (b) submit two respectable sureties to ensure that he does not commit the breach of peace and harmony of the society and does not threaten the complainant and the witnesses – The words ‘decent’ and ‘decency’ are not defined in CrPC or any other cognate legislation, it can mean different things to different people and differently in different times – This condition is thus vague, arbitrary, unclear, unambiguous and capable of having different interpretations – Hence the condition is unenforceable and hit by Article 14. [Paras 13, 18a] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.432(1) and 432(3) – Whether the condition providing for arrest and automatic revocation of remission of sentence if appellant commits any other cognizable offence or inflicts any serious injury to any citizen or property after his release, valid: Held: The Apex Court while dealing with Section 401 of the CrPC of 1898 (identical to Section 432(3) of CrPC of 1973 and Section 473(3) of BNSS), in Shaikh Abdul Azees vs. State of Karnataka (1977) 2 SCC 485, held that, the provision does not intend to automatically revive the sentence already remitted and the government is under no legal obligation to cancel such remission – This drastic power affecting the convict’s liberty has to be exercised only after due 1450\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports compliance of the principles of natural justice – Serving show cause notice, opportunity to file reply and of being heard and a reasoned order by the adjudicating authority are essential before cancellation of such remission – An order cancelling remission can be challenged under Article 226 of Constitution by the convict – Mere registration of a cognizable offence or allegation of breach of condition not a ground for cancellation of remission – A decision to cancel remission has to be made on a case to case basis taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of offence or breach – Condition number 2 thus clarified. [Paras 14-16, 17(v), 17(vi), 18b, 18c]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Shaikh Abdul Azees v. State of Karnataka", "citations": ["[1977] 3 SCR 393 : (1977) 2 SCC 485"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors", "citations": ["[2015] 14 SCR 613 : (2016) 7 SCC 1"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors", "citations": ["[2006] Supp. 7 SCR 81 : (2006) 8 SCC 161"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab", "citations": ["[2013] 3 SCR 90 : (2013) 3 SCC 294 – relied on."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Vidyasagar Prasad v UCO Bank & Anr.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 810", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1462"], "cnr": "ESCR010006412024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "SANDEEP MEHTA"], "author_judge": "PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-22", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 1031/2022", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016", "Limitation Act, 1963"], "sections": ["s.18", "s.238A"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1462_1474", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Whether specific and clear acknowledgement of debt by the Corporate Debtor in its balance sheet is necessary while considering limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Headnotes† Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – s.238A – s.18 of Limitation Act – No specific and clear acknowledge of debt in the balance sheet entries necessary while computing limitation u/s.18 Limitation Act r/w s.238A of the IBC:", "held": ": It was contended by the Appellant that there is no unequivocal, unambiguous and specific acknowledgement of debt owed to Respondent – Financial Creditor in the balance sheet entries of Corporate Debtor for the years 2017 and 2019 – The CIRP was admitted by the NCLT on the ground that there is acknowledgement of debt in the balance sheet entries as well as Auditors Report for the year ending 31.01.2017 – The order of admission of CIRP affirmed by the NCLAT – The Appellant contended that the name of Financial Creditor in question is not specifically mentioned in the relied upon entry in the balance sheet – It was contended that in the absence of clear demarcation as to what the Corporate Debtor owes to the Financial Creditor in question, the balance sheet entries cannot be relied on for the purpose of extending the period of limitation in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act – By relying on Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. Bishal Jaiswal [2021] 3 SCR 524, the Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed – The contention of the Financial Creditor that there was no compulsion for Companies to make any particular admissions in the balance sheet was accepted by the Court – The entry made in the balance sheet * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1463 Vidyasagar Prasad v. UCO Bank & Anr. coupled with the note of the auditor of the Appellant clearly amounts to acknowledgement of the liability – The Court noted that the Corporate Debtor’s proposal of One Time Settlement (OTS) also fortifies the case against the Appellant – The Civil Appeal dismissed accordingly. [Paras 8-13]", "cases_cited": null}
+{"case_name": "Neeraj Sud and Anr. v Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 825", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1475"], "cnr": "ESCR010006422024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "PANKAJ MITHAL"], "author_judge": "PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-25", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 272/2012", "disposition": null, "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1475_1482", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "The NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation. Whether the NCDRC was justified in holding doctor negligent and awarding compensation. Headnotes† Negligence – Medical negligence – Complainants are father and son – Son was diagnosed of congenital disorder in his left eye (PTOSIS) for which a minor surgery was performed by appellant-doctor – It was alleged that surgery was performed in a negligent manner and eye further deteriorated post-surgery – The State Commission, upon examination of the records, concluded that the complainants failed to establish any negligence or carelessness on part of the doctor – However, the NCDRC held appellant-doctor liable for negligence in medical treatment and liable for payment of compensation – Correctness:", "held": ": It is found that doctor was a competent and a skilled doctor possessing requisite qualification to perform PTOSIS surgery and to administer the requisite treatment and that he had followed the accepted mode of practice in performing the surgery and that there was no material to establish any overt act or omission to prove negligence on his part – No evidence was adduced to prove that he had not exercised sufficient care or has failed to exercise due skill in performing the surgery – It is settled that a professional may be held liable for negligence if he is not possessed of the requisite skill which he supposes to have or has failed to exercise the same with reasonable competence – The * Author 1476\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports complainant has not adduced any evidence to establish that doctor or the PGI were guilty of not exercising the expertise or the skill possessed by them, so as to hold them liable for negligence – No evidence was produced of any expert body in the medical field to prove that requisite skill possessed by doctor was not exercised by him in discharge of his duties – In other words, simply for the reason that the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties – Thus, the judgment and order of the NCDRC is hereby set aside and that of the State Commission is restored. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 20] Negligence – Medical Negligence – Actionable negligence – Three constituents: Held: It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage – However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties – He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment. [Para 14] Negligence – Medical Negligence – When a medical professional may be held liable for negligence: Held: A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment – In the instant case, none of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no evidence was brought on record to prove that appellant had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. [Para 15] [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1477 Neeraj Sud and Anr. v. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) and Anr.", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab and Another", "citations": ["[2005] Supp. 2 SCR 307 : 2005 (6) SCC 1 – referred to. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Queen’s Bench Division) English Law (1957) 1 WLR 582 – referred to."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Nipun Aneja and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 767", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1483"], "cnr": "ESCR010006432024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": null, "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-03", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 654/2017", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["Penal Code, 1860."], "sections": ["s.306"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1483_1502", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "The High Court rejected the application filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under section 306 of IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Abetment of suicide – Victim-deceased was an employee of a company for past twenty-three years – It is alleged that company wanted some of its employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – As all those employees were not ready to opt for the VRS scheme, they were being harassed in some manner or the other – It is further alleged that in a course of a office meeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants and he felt very bad about it – Later, in a hotel room he committed suicide – Charge-sheet was filed – The High Court declined to quash the proceedings:", "held": ": The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide – Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial – In the case on hand, the entire approach of the High Court could be said to be incorrect – The High Court should have examined the matter keeping in mind the following: (a) On the date of the meeting, i.e., 03.11.2006, did the appellants create a situation of unbearable harassment or torture, leading the deceased to see suicide as the only escape – To ascertain this, the two statements of the colleagues of the deceased referred were sufficient; (b) Are the appellants accused of exploiting the emotional vulnerability of the deceased by making him feel worthless or underserving of life leading him to commit suicide; (c) Is it a case of threatening the deceased with 1484\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports dire consequences, such as harm to his family or severe financial ruin to the extent that he believed suicide was the only way out; (d) Is it a case of making false allegations that may have damaged the reputation of the deceased & push him to commit suicide due to public humiliation & loss of dignity – In the overall view of the matter, putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law – In opinion of this Court, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out. [Paras 22, 23, 25] Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Ingredients to constitute an offence u/s.306: Held: The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide – Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories – First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity – In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide – In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law – In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship – The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship – The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations. [Para 21] Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 – Understanding of Courts – Unnecessary prosecutions: Held: The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1485 Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide – Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full-fledged trial – The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more – Such an understanding on part of the Courts is wrong – In cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself – The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record – It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions – It is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them. [Para 22]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal", "citations": ["(2005) 2 SCC 659"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another", "citations": ["[2021] 10 SCR 393 : (2021) 19 SCC 144"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police", "citations": ["(2019) 3 SCC 315"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana", "citations": ["[2019] 9 SCR 703 : (2019) 17 SCC 301"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Mariano Anto Bruno & Another v. The Inspector of Police", "citations": ["[2022] 14 SCR 889 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 – relied on."], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "International Seaport Dredging Pvt Ltd v Kamarajar Port Limited", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 827", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1503"], "cnr": "ESCR010006442024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-24", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 12097/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996", "Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015", "Builidng and other Construction Worker’s Welfare Cess Act 1996", "Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1503_1512", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting stay on the execution of the award conditional on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – ss.36, 34 – Arbitral award – Stay on enforcement – Dispute between parties – Invocation of arbitration agreement – Arbitral award passed directing the respondent to pay the appellant certain sum with 9% interest which would be increased to 12% p.a. if not paid within three months and certain amount as costs – Applications u/s.33 for correction of the award by both the parties – Arbitral tribunal dismissed the application filed by the respondent, however allowed the application filed by the appellant – Respondent challenged the arbitral award u/s.34 and moved an application for stay of execution – High Court granted a stay on the execution of the award conditional on the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee – Correctness:", "held": ": Law qua arbitration proceedings, cannot be any different merely because of the status of the respondent as a statutory undertaking – High Court ought not to have based its decision on the condition for the grant of stay on the status of the respondent as a statutory authority – Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, it does not distinguish between governmental and private entities – Hence, the decision of the Court cannot be influenced by the position of the party before it and whether it is a fly-by-night operator – In the absence of any provision of law, it would be inappropriate for courts to apply this standard while adjudicating * Author 1504\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the conditions upon which a stay of an award may be granted – Similarly, the form of security required to be furnished should not depend on whether a party is a statutory or other governmental body or a private entity – Governmental entities must be treated in a similar fashion to private parties insofar as proceedings under the Arbitration Act are concerned, except where otherwise indicated by law – Parties have entered into commercial transactions with full awareness of the implications of compliance and non-compliance with the concerned contracts and the consequences which would visit them in law – Thus, the submission that the High Court was correct in directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantees in relation to the amount awarded because it is a statutory body, rejected – Under Ord. XLI r.5 CPC, the Court has the power to direct full or part deposit and/or the furnishing of security in respect of the decretal amount–Thus, order of the High Court to be modified – Respondent to deposit an amount quantified at 75% of the decretal amount, inclusive of interest, on or before the stipulated date before the High Court – Conditional on the deposit of the said amount, there shall be a stay on the enforcement of the arbitral award. [Paras 12, 15, 17]", "cases_cited": [{"name": "Pam Developments Private Limited v. State of West Bengal", "citations": ["[2019] 9 SCR 252 : (2019) 8 SCC 112"], "treatment": "cited"}, {"name": "Toyo Engineering Corpn. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3455 – referred to.", "citations": [], "treatment": "cited"}]}
+{"case_name": "Atul Kumar v The Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Others", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 749", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 150"], "cnr": "ESCR010004842024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": null, "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-09-30", "case_number": "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 609/2024", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Constitution of India. [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 151 Atul Kumar v", "The Chairman (Joint Seat Allocation Authority) and Others"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_150_153", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Matter pertains to Schedule caste category student who lost his admission to IIT since he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500/- by a few minutes. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Exercise of power under – Indian Institute of Technology IIT-Admission – Schedule caste category student allotted seat in Electrical Engineering course at IIT – Took all steps to comply with all formalities pursuant to the allotment to him of a seat for the course, however, lost his admission to IIT since he was late in paying the online admission fee of Rs 17,500/- by a few minutes – Challenge to:", "held": ": Petitioner logged in as many as on six occasions and uploaded the documents, which evidently indicates that he was making earnest efforts to log into the portal – No conceivable reason why the petitioner would not have done so if he had the wherewithal to pay the fees of Rs 17,500 – Talented student like the petitioner who belongs to a marginalized group of citizens and has done everything to secure admission should not be left in the lurch – Power of this Court u/Art.142 to do substantial justice is meant precisely to cover such a situation – Petitioner to be granted admission to IIT Dhanbad against the seat which was allotted to him in the branch of Electrical Engineering – Supernumerary seat to be created for the petitioner, if so required. [Paras 6, 7]", "cases_cited": null}
+{"case_name": "Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 790", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1513"], "cnr": "ESCR010006452024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-18", "case_number": "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1234/2017", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA  Issue for Consideration Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1513_1632", "_year": "2024", "_pdf": true, "issue": "Petitioner, an NGO raised significant concerns as regards prevelance of child marriages and failure of authorities to prevent them despite the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Sought issuance of effective guidelines inter alia for stronger enforcement mechanisms, awareness programs, appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers, and comprehensive support systems for child brides. Headnotes† Child Marriage – Guidelines issued for effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) and achieving the elimination of child marriage:", "held": ": The success of PCMA, a social legislation requires collective efforts of all stakeholders – Need for intersectional approach, multi- sectoral coordination, preventive and community-driven strategies to ensure complete eradication of child marriages, emphasized – Guidelines issued with respect to-(1) Legal enforcement pertaining to appointment and accountability of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPO); District-Level responsibility for active prevention of child marriages; Establishment of a Specialized Police Unit and Special Child Marriage Prohibition Unit – (2) Judicial measures such as empowering Magistrates to take suo moto action and issue preventive injunctions; Exploration of Special Fast- Track Courts for child marriage cases; Mandatory action against neglectful Public Servants – (3) Community involvement which includes Annual action plans and Community-Centric Capacity Building; Adoption of the Child Marriage Free Village Initiative – (4) Awareness Campaigns: Led by CMPOs in Schools, Religious * Author 1514\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Institutions, Panchayats; Integrating comprehensive sexuality and rights education into school curricula; Educational materials and community awareness tools; Targeted community awareness campaigns; Empowerment programs for girls and young women; Helpline awareness and reporting mechanisms – (5) Training/ Capacity Building for Teachers and School Administrators, Training for Community Health Workers and Educators, Law Enforcement, Judicial Officers and Health Care Providers; as also Empowerment of Local Leaders and Community Influencers; Engagement with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) – (6) Educational and Social Support like scholarships, educational incentive programs specifically targeted at girls at risk of child marriage; Social Welfare Programs; Convergence and continuity of services – (7) Monitoring and Accountability which inter alia includes formulation of Standard Operating Procedure by NALSA, Ministry of Women and Child Development, in consultation with State Child Protection Societies, National Commission for protection of child rights; Monitoring also includes role of Panchayats and local leaders; Individual care plans for At-Risk girls – (8) Technology-driven initiatives for reporting child marriage such as creation of a Centralized Reporting Portal; Technology-Driven Support Services; Monitoring of Attendance – (9) Funding in form of Dedicated annual budget allocation by relevant ministries of the Union Government for each State aimed at preventing child marriage and supporting affected individuals; Institutionalization of Juvenile Justice Fund; Compensation for Girls opting out of marriage; Identification and support for At-Risk Children. [Para 211] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) vis-à-vis Personal laws – PCMA, if overrides various personal laws governing marriage: Held: Issue is pending consideration before Parliament as the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amending) Bill 2021 introduced in Parliament sought amendment of PCMA to expressly state the overriding effect of the statute over various personal laws. [Para 214] Suggestions by Supreme Court – Outlawing of child betrothals: Held: Child betrothals, marriages fixed in the minority of a child undermines and violates their rights to free choice, autonomy, agency and childhood – Though Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 prohibits child marriages, it does not stipulate on betrothals – Parliament may consider outlawing child betrothals. [Para 215] [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1515 Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Child marriage – Constitutional guarantees against – Right to self-determination: choice, autonomy and sexuality of children; Right to health; Right to childhood: Right to education and development – Explained – Evils of child marriage, enumerated: Held: Child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy, right to sexuality and right to enjoy their childhood – The right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is violated by the commission of child marriage – Both sexes are adversely affected by forced and early marriage – Constitution recognises the right a person has over all aspects of their sexuality – Men and women alike are victimised by compulsory heterosexuality – In child marriage, their limited agency within heteropatriarchy is also taken away in infancy – Marrying in childhood objectifies the child – Child marriage imposes mature burdens on children who are not physically or mentally prepared to comprehend the significance of marriage – The right to choice and autonomy of a woman who is married as a child is violated by the system of child marriage – Minor girls forced to make conjugal relations experience post- traumatic stress and depression emanating from sexual abuse by an elder partner – Right to choice and autonomy includes the right to reproductive freedom – The right to reproductive freedom is part of the rights wherein the right to the health of a person also finds place – Constitution recognises the right to health as an inalienable aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Child marriage inflicts tangible and lifelong physical and mental injuries to its members – Right to health is made illusory by all accounts within such an institution – The effect of child marriage denies women their health which is vital to lead a dignified life – Marriage for most women in patriarchal societies is an announcement of educational conclusion – The minority of a woman’s age at the time of her marriage has a heightened impact on her education – Right to primary education is a fundamental right expressly enshrined under Article 21-A – Issue as regards approach towards boys in child marriage also ought to be taken into account – The right to childhood belongs to all sexes – Primary, sexual and life enhancing education is integral to the right to childhood. [Paras 171, 173, 176-178, 184, 188, 191, 197] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – Scheme of the Act – ss.3-7, 9-12, 15, 13, 14, 16 – Protection of women married as girls, children born in child marriages – Maintenance and residence of the female contracting party; custody and maintenance of children of a child marriage – Solemnization of 1516\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports child marriages – Punishment – Preventive measures against child marriages, deterrence and prevention – Injunctions against child marriages – Elucidated – Appointment of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), appointment of exclusive CMPOs in each district directed. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.9 – Punishment for male adult marrying a child – Penalizing the groom based on higher agency he possesses in the marriage as against the girl: Held: Under s.9, the Court is empowered to penalise an accused with imprisonment or a fine or both – Punishment can be imposed based on the gravity of the offence, the circumstance of the marriage and the socio-economic power of the male over his child bride – Further, despite the age of majority for a man to enter into a marriage being twenty-one under s.2(a), his criminal liability for entering into a child marriage with a minor woman begins at eighteen – Under s.9, a woman, regardless of her age is not liable for entering into a child marriage and a man above the age of eighteen but under the age of twenty one is liable for marrying a girl who is under the age of eighteen – The legislative intent behind making a groom liable for entering into child marriage is to recognise the relative control of the agency that a groom has in relation to his marriage as opposed to a girl. [Paras 52, 55] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 – ss.10, 11 – Scope – Punishment for solemnising a child marriage – Punishment for promoting or permitting solemnisation of child marriages: Held: The Act punishes three classes of persons – An adult groom in a child marriage (s.9); persons involved in the solemnization of child marriage (s.10) and; persons promoting or permitting the solemnization of child marriage (s.11) – s.10 is expansive and governs any accomplice to the commission of child marriage including the priest who performs the marriage, any family member, relative or person at whose direction the marriage takes place or anyone who abets it – Further, under s.11 any person having charge of the child, who promotes or permits a child marriage or fails to prevent it is liable to rigorous imprisonment which may extend to two years and a fine – The person liable under s.11 may be the parents of the child or a guardian or any other person or organisation – The means by which a person may have the charge of the child is immaterial as the provision stipulates that the charge may be ‘lawful or unlawful’ – Thus, the section penalises any person or organisation involved in a child marriage – Its expansive scope [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1517 Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. allows prosecution of any person who may have unlawfully taken the custody of a child and thereafter promoted, permitted or failed to prevent the child marriage – s.11 also deals with organisations, such as orphanages or schools or hostels, which may have the charge of a child and under whose watch the child is married off. [Para 52, 58, 60] Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 – s.11 – Intention – Explained. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 – s.12 – Child marriage when void ab initio – Stated. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – s.11(2) – Presumption of negligence – Nature of presumption: Held: s.11(2) raises a presumption – Any person in charge of a child who was married off, is presumed to have negligently failed to prevent the child marriage – The presumption is however, rebuttable and may be rebutted by proving that the person could not have prevented the marriage or failed at preventing it, despite their best efforts – This principle is only applicable to an offence u/s.11. [Para 62] Child marriage – Laws governing child rights – Protective legislations such as Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – ss.2(14), 27, 106, 107 – Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005 – ss.2(b), 13, 24 – Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 – s.12 – Protective framework of the Acts: Held: 1. The principles of the POCSO Act are directly threatened by the commission of child marriage. The intent of the POCSO Act is to protect children from sexual advances. Child marriage on the other hand is an institution which puts minor girls directly in harm’s way. Under the POCSO Act, a man is liable to punishment for having sex with his minor wife. Nevertheless, the existence of child marriage and its continued recognition in the law as a valid (and voidable) marriage threatens the dignity of children. The institution of child marriage, more directly than any other institution, stipulates for the sexual abuse of child brides by design. [Para 81] 2.1 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides a comprehensive framework to deal with children in need of care and protection (CNCP). Section 27 of the JJ Act establishes 1518\b [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to inter alia handle and resolve complaints in relation to children who are in need of care. The CWC's role is to ensure the children's basic needs are met and that they are protected, treated, developed, and rehabilitated. Therefore, children who are married off are required to be produced before the CWC so that they may be rehabilitated and taken care of. As a beneficial social legislation aimed at children, the society and units constituted under the JJ Act are required to proactively identify remedies and strategies for the rehabilitation and protection of victims of child marriages. [Para 85] 2.2 Children who are at risk of marriage at the hands of their family or relatives are expressly recognised as CNCP under the Act. The JJ Act further prescribes for their protection, rehabilitation and development. While victims of child marriage are protected under the JJ Act, it further strengthens the effort to eliminate child marriages by creating a trained and skilled force of police officers to deal with children. The Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs) are marked by their unique ability to inject humanity in law enforcement. The task of law enforcement officers, the police in particular, has traditionally been associated by the State’s ability to compel compliance to its norms. The formation of SJPUs reflects a refreshing outlook toward police work, one which is imperative in liberal democracies’ treatment of vulnerable groups. Law with a touch of humanity and law enforcement with a boost of sensitivity and empathy are the cornerstone of the law on children. [Para 88] 3.1 The effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) also falls within the subject matter of the National Commission for the protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and State Commissions for the protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) established under Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005. [Para 92] 3.2 The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) and the NCPCR have been actively engaged in raising awareness about the negative consequences of child marriage and strengthening the enforcement of the PCMA. In recent years, the NCPCR has conducted multiple review meetings and collaborated with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including District Magistrates, CMPOs, Child Development Project Officers (CDPOs), Child Welfare Committee (CWCs), and Anganwadi Workers. These initiatives have aimed to create a coordinated approach to tackling child marriage at the grassroots level. [Para 93] [2024] 10 S.C.R. \b 1519 Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 3.3 The NCPCR has also concentrated on identifying children at risk by compiling school-wise data on those who have dropped out or exhibit irregular attendance. In 2023-2024, the NCPCR identified 645,673 children across India who were either out of school or at risk of early marriage. The Commission directed district authorities to pinpoint vulnerable children from this list, prevent their marriages, and ensure proper rehabilitation for those affected. While these awareness campaigns and data-driven interventions have been vital, it is evident that awareness alone is not enough to prevent child marriages effectively. Enforcement of laws, community engagement, and support systems for vulnerable children are equally crucial. [Para 94] 4. Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 stipulat", "cases_cited": null}
+{"case_name": "Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v S. Harish & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 716", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 154"], "cnr": "ESCR010004852024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-09-23", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2161/2024", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_154_314", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Union of India & Ors. v Rajeev Bansal", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 754", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1633"], "cnr": "ESCR010006482024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-03", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 8629/2024", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Income Tax Act, 1961", "Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1633_1708", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Horrmal (Deceased) Through His LRs & Ors. v State of Haryana & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 797", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1709"], "cnr": "ESCR010006492024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SURYA KANT", "K.V. VISWANATHAN"], "author_judge": "SURYA KANT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11758/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1709_1725", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Shyam Narayan Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Etc.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 800", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1726"], "cnr": "ESCR010006502024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["VIKRAM NATH", "PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE"], "author_judge": "VIKRAM NATH", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4287/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": ["s.294"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1726_1735", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "K.C. Kaushik and Others v State of Haryana and Others", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 803", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736"], "cnr": "ESCR010006512024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PANKAJ MITHAL", "R MAHADEVAN"], "author_judge": "PANKAJ MITHAL", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11711/2024", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1736_1747", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Central Warehousing Corporation & Anr. v M/s Sidhartha Tiles & Sanitary Pvt. Ltd.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 805", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1748"], "cnr": "ESCR010006522024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "SANDEEP MEHTA"], "author_judge": "PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11723/2024", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Dispute arose between the parties on the issue of revised storage charges and renewal of agreement. Appellant invoked the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971", "SANDEEP MEHTA  Issue for Consideration Appellant, which is a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1748_1756", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Uma & Anr. v The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 809", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757"], "cnr": "ESCR010006532024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["BELA M. TRIVEDI", "SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA"], "author_judge": "BELA M. TRIVEDI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-22", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 757/2015", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": ["s.4A"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1757_1768", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Suhas Chakma v Union of India & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 813", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1769"], "cnr": "ESCR010006542024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI", "K.V. VISWANATHAN"], "author_judge": "BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-23", "case_number": "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1082/2020", "disposition": "Directions issued", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1769_1801", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "GLAS Trust Company LLC v BYJU Raveendran & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 811", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1802"], "cnr": "ESCR010006552024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-23", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 9986/2024", "disposition": null, "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1802_1854", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Nisar Ahmad & Ors. v Sami Ullah (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 820", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1855"], "cnr": "ESCR010006562024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ABHAY S. OKA", "UJJAL BHUYAN"], "author_judge": "ABHAY S. OKA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-24", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 9739/2011", "disposition": null, "acts": ["Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1855_1875", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "The State of Madhya Pradesh v Ramjan Khan & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 823", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1876"], "cnr": "ESCR010006572024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["C.T. RAVIKUMAR", "SUDHANSHU DHULIA"], "author_judge": "C.T. RAVIKUMAR", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-25", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2129/2014", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1876_1889", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Bijay Agarwal v M/s Medilines", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 918", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1890"], "cnr": "ESCR010006582024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["C.T. RAVIKUMAR", "SANJAY KAROL"], "author_judge": "C.T. RAVIKUMAR", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4301/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881"], "sections": ["s.138", "s.148"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1890_1901", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi v The State of Manipur & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 733", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 18"], "cnr": "ESCR010004752024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["HRISHIKESH ROY", "SUDHANSHU DHULIA", "SARASA VENKATANARAYANA BHATTI"], "author_judge": "HRISHIKESH ROY", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-09-19", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 10682/2024", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_18_36", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "HDFC Bank Ltd. v The State of Bihar & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 807", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1902"], "cnr": "ESCR010006592024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI", "K.V. VISWANATHAN"], "author_judge": "BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-22", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4324/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": ["s.420", "s.482"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1902_1917", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "State of U.P. & Anr. v Northern Coal Fields", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 948", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1918"], "cnr": "ESCR010006602024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["VIKRAM NATH", "PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE"], "author_judge": null, "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-03", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 7614/2014", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1918_1930", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "State of U.P. & Ors v M/s Lalta Prasad Vaish and sons", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 812", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1931"], "cnr": "ESCR010006612024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "HRISHIKESH ROY", "ABHAY S. OKA", "B.V. NAGARATHNA", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA", "SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA", "AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH", "UJJAL BHUYAN"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "larger", "date": "2024-10-23", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 151/2007", "disposition": null, "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1931_2182", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "K. Vadivel v K. Shanthi & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 746", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1"], "cnr": "ESCR010004742024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI", "K.V. VISWANATHAN"], "author_judge": "BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-09-30", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4058/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": ["s. 178(3)"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_1_17", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Union of India & Anr v M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 799", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183"], "cnr": "ESCR010006622024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": null, "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-18", "case_number": "REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 359/2023", "disposition": null, "acts": ["Ground for recall Supreme Court declared unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2183_2186", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Om Rathod v The Director General of Health Services & Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 836", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2187"], "cnr": "ESCR010006632024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-25", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 12110/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2187_2226", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v State of Gujarat and Ors.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 801", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2227"], "cnr": "ESCR010006642024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["DIPANKAR DATTA", "PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA"], "author_judge": "DIPANKAR DATTA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11000/2024", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2227_2239", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Sonal Gupta & Ors. v Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 830", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2240"], "cnr": "ESCR010006652024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "J.B. PARDIWALA", "MANOJ MISRA"], "author_judge": "D.Y. CHANDRACHUD", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2024-10-24", "case_number": "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 708/2024", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2240_2247", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "M/s S.S. Production and Anr. P1: M/s S. S. Production P2: TR. S. Subbiah v TR. Pavithran Prasanth", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 1059", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2248"], "cnr": "ESCR010006662024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SUDHANSHU DHULIA", "AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH"], "author_judge": "SUDHANSHU DHULIA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-01", "case_number": "SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 13981/2024", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881", "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881"], "sections": ["s.138"], "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2248_2264", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "V.D. Raveesha v The State of Karnataka", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 1060", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2265"], "cnr": "ESCR010006672024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SUDHANSHU DHULIA", "AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH"], "author_judge": "SUDHANSHU DHULIA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-22", "case_number": "SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 980/2024", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2265_2277", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Haryana Urban Development Authority v Abhishek Gupta etc.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 796", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2278"], "cnr": "ESCR010007192024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SURYA KANT", "K.V. VISWANATHAN"], "author_judge": "SURYA KANT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 7420/2010", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2278_2302", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "Lenin Kumar Ray v M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.", "neutral_citation": "2024 INSC 802", "equivalent_citations": ["[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2303"], "cnr": "ESCR010007202024", "reportable": true, "bench": ["PANKAJ MITHAL", "R MAHADEVAN"], "author_judge": "PANKAJ MITHAL", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2024-10-21", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 11709/2024", "disposition": null, "acts": ["Industrial Disputes Act, 1947"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2024", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2024_10_2303_2313", "_year": "2024"}
+{"case_name": "PRATAP SINGH v STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 58", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1019"], "cnr": "ESCR010000012005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "S.N. VARIAVA", "B.P. SINGH", "H.K. SEMA", "S.B. SINHA"], "author_judge": "N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "bench_strength": "constitution", "date": "2005-02-02", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 210/2005", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000", "S.N. VARIAVA, B.P. SINGH, H.K. SEMA, S.B. SINHA  Juvenile Justice Act, 1986"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1019_1064", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "NAGESH DATTA SHETTI AND ORS. v THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 60", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1065"], "cnr": "ESCR010000022005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ARIJIT PASAYAT", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "ARIJIT PASAYAT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-02", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 853/2005", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1065_1068", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "M/S. O.K. PLAY (INDIA) LTD. v COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III, GURGAON", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 61", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1069"], "cnr": "ESCR010000032005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S.N. VARIAVA", "AR. LAKSHMANAN", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "S.N. VARIAVA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-02-03", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 6980/2004", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA  B Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1069_1081", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "THE PRESIDENT, POORNATHRAYISHA SEVA SANGHAM,  THRIPUNITHURA v K. THILAKAN KAVENAL AND ORS.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 62", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1082"], "cnr": "ESCR010000042005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ARIJIT PASAYAT", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "ARIJIT PASAYAT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-03", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 874/2005", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1082_1085", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "M/S. O.K. PLAY (INDIA) LTD. v COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-II, NEW DELHI", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 63", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1086"], "cnr": "ESCR010000052005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S.N. VARIAVA", "AR. LAKSHMANAN", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "S.N. VARIAVA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-02-04", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 275/2001", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA  Central Excise Act, 1944", "Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1086_1099", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE v M/S. ESWARAN AND SONS ENGINEERS LTD.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 8", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 108"], "cnr": "ESCR010000062005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S.N. VARIAVA", "AR. LAKSHMANAN", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "S.N. VARIAVA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-01-05", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 5403/1999", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA  Central Excise Tariff Act, 1913"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_108_114", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "GOVINDARAJU v MARIAMMAN", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 64", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1100"], "cnr": "ESCR010000072005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ASHOK BHAN", "A.K. MATHUR"], "author_judge": "ASHOK BHAN", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-04", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 2292/1999", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["A.K. MATHUR  Hindu Succession Act, 1955"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1100_1111", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "STATE OF HARYANA v RAM PAL AND ORS.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 66", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1112"], "cnr": "ESCR010000082005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ARIJIT PASAYAT", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "ARIJIT PASAYAT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-07", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 234/2005", "disposition": "partly_allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1112_1117", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE v M/S. BAJAJ TEMPO LTD.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 65", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1118"], "cnr": "ESCR010000092005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S.N. VARIAVA", "AR. LAKSHMANAN", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "S.N. VARIAVA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-02-07", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 3840/1999", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) Central Excise Act, 1944"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1118_1122", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. v BHOLA SINGH", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 67", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1123"], "cnr": "ESCR010000102005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "S.B. SINHA"], "author_judge": "N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-08", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 1262/2003", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1123_1131", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "STATE OF U.P. v SATISH", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 68", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1132"], "cnr": "ESCR010000112005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ARIJIT PASAYAT", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "ARIJIT PASAYAT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-08", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 256/2005", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1132_1146", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME A.P. AND ORS. v B. CHINNAM NAIDU", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 69", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1147"], "cnr": "ESCR010000122005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ARIJIT PASAYAT", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "ARIJIT PASAYAT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-02-09", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 1014/2005", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1147_1153", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "S. PUSHPA AND ORS. v SIVACHANMUGAVELU AND ORS.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 71", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 1158"], "cnr": "ESCR010000132005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["R.C. LAHOTI", "K.G. BALAKRISHNAN", "G.P. MATHUR"], "author_judge": "R.C. LAHOTI", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-02-11", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 6/1998", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_1158_1176", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 11", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 115"], "cnr": "ESCR010000142005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["Y.K. SABHARWAL", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "Y.K. SABHARWAL", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-01-05", "case_number": "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 657/1995", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_115_139", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v M/S. UPPER GANGES SUGAR AND INDUSTRIES LTD.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 9", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 140"], "cnr": "ESCR010000152005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S.N. VARIAVA", "AR. LAKSHMANAN", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "S.N. VARIAVA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-01-05", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 3018/1999", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA  Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_140_144", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE v M/S. MATADOR FOAM AND ORS.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 10", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 145"], "cnr": "ESCR010000162005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S.N. VARIAVA", "AR. LAKSHMANAN", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "S.N. VARIAVA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-01-05", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 3832/1999", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["AR. LAKSHMANAN, S.H. KAPADIA  Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_145_151", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "MOHD. SHAMIM AND ORS. v SMT. NAHID BEGUM AND ANR.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 16", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 152"], "cnr": "ESCR010000172005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "S.B. SINHA"], "author_judge": "N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-01-07", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 23/2005", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_152_159", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "JAYENDRA SARASWATHI SWAMIGAL v STATE OF TAMIL NADU", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 17", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 160"], "cnr": "ESCR010000182005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["R.C. LAHOTI", "G.P. MATHUR", "P.P. NAOLEKAR"], "author_judge": "R.C. LAHOTI", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "2005-01-10", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 44/2005", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_160_172", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET, INDIA AND ANR. v NETAJI CRICKET CLUB AND ORS.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 18", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 173"], "cnr": "ESCR010000192005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "S.B. SINHA"], "author_judge": "N. SANTOSH HEGDE", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-01-10", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 237/2005", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": ["Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_173_208", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v SMT. DRAUPADI BEHARA AND ANR.", "neutral_citation": "2005 INSC 3", "equivalent_citations": ["[2005] 1 S.C.R. 18"], "cnr": "ESCR010000202005", "reportable": true, "bench": ["ARIJIT PASAYAT", "S.H. KAPADIA"], "author_judge": "ARIJIT PASAYAT", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "2005-01-03", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 7/2005", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "2005", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "2005_1_18_20", "_year": "2005"}
+{"case_name": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA v BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 91", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1027"], "cnr": "ESCR010000011990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SABYASACHI MUKHERJI", "M.M. PUNCHHI"], "author_judge": "SABYASACHI MUKHERJI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-03-19", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 4447/1988", "disposition": "disposed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_1027_1030", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW v ATMA RAM MISRA ETC.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 92", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1031"], "cnr": "ESCR010000021990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S. RANGANATHAN", "A.M. AHMADI"], "author_judge": "S. RANGANATHAN", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-03-19", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 1465/1990", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_1031_1040", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v CHANDRAPRAKASH KEWAL CHAND JAIN", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 14", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 115"], "cnr": "ESCR010000031990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["A.M. AHMADI", "M. FATHIMA BEEVI"], "author_judge": "A.M. AHMADI", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-18", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 221/1986", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_115_133", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "P.V.G. RAJU GARU v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 16", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 134"], "cnr": "ESCR010000041990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SABYASACHI MUKHERJI", "P.B. SAWANT", "K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY"], "author_judge": "SABYASACHI MUKHERJI", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "1990-01-24", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 804/1975", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Ryotwari) Act, 1948", "Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) D Estates (Abolitimumd Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_134_143", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "WORKMEN OF ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., MADRAS v PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 3", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 13"], "cnr": "ESCR010000051990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["RANGANATH MISRA", "P.B. SAWANT", "K. RAMASWAMY"], "author_judge": "RANGANATH MISRA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "1990-01-11", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 596/1986", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["Quantum interfered. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_13_19", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JABALPUR v KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI AND ANR.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 17", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 144"], "cnr": "ESCR010000061990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY", "T.K. THOMMEN"], "author_judge": "K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-25", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 480/1986", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["T.K. THOMMEN  M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956", "Whether obligatory on Corporation to refer dispute to Government. c M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_144_151", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "DUTTA CYCLE STORES & ORS. v SMT. GITA DEVI SULTANIA & ORS.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 18", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 152"], "cnr": "ESCR010000071990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY", "T.K. THOMMEN"], "author_judge": "K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-25", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 652/1982", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947", "T.K. THOMMEN  Bihar Buildings ( Ledse, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_152_163", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "HIRA LAL AND ANOTHER v GAJJAN AND OTHERS", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 19", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 164"], "cnr": "ESCR010000081990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["K.N. SAIKIA", "M. FATHIMA BEEVI"], "author_judge": "K.N. SAIKIA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-30", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 3154/1982", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": ["Circumstances under which High Court could that before the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refoms Act, 1950", "M. FATHIMA BEEVI  U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_164_171", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "SMT. PATASIBAI & ORS. v RATANLAL", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 20", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 172"], "cnr": "ESCR010000091990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["M.H. KANIA", "J.S. VERMA"], "author_judge": "M.H. KANIA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-30", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 1043/1990", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_172_180", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "COAL MINES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER v RAMESH CHANDER JHA", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 23", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 181"], "cnr": "ESCR010000101990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["K.N. SAIKIA", "M. FATHIMA BEEVI"], "author_judge": "K.N. SAIKIA", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-31", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 1932/1982", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_181_185", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "SURESH CHAND v GULAM CHISTI", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 21", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 186"], "cnr": "ESCR010000111990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["SABYASACHI MUKHERJI", "K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY", "A.M. AHMADI"], "author_judge": "SABYASACHI MUKHERJI", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "1990-01-31", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 10234/1983", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI  U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972", "U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_186_202", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "K.M. SHARMA v DEVI LAL & ORS.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 1", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1"], "cnr": "ESCR010000121990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["RANGANATH MISRA", "M.M. PUNCHHI"], "author_judge": null, "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-09", "case_number": "WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1269/1989", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_1_3", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "GHAZIABAD SHEROMANI SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LIMITED & ANR. ETC. v STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 22", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 203"], "cnr": "ESCR010000131990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["RANGANATH MISRA", "P.B. SAWANT", "K. RAMASWAMY"], "author_judge": null, "bench_strength": "full", "date": "1990-01-31", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 992/1990", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.I Land Acquisition Act, 1894"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_203_208", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "M. AHAMEDKUTTY v UNION OF INDIA & ANR.", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 24", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 209"], "cnr": "ESCR010000141990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["S. RANGANATHAN", "K.N. SAIKIA"], "author_judge": "S. RANGANATHAN", "bench_strength": "division", "date": "1990-01-31", "case_number": "CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 49/1990", "disposition": "allowed", "acts": ["K.N. SAIKIA  B ... Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974"], "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_209_228", "_year": "1990"}
+{"case_name": "UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v K.T. SHASTRI", "neutral_citation": "1990 INSC 4", "equivalent_citations": ["[1990] 1 S.C.R. 20"], "cnr": "ESCR010000151990", "reportable": true, "bench": ["RANGANATH MISRA", "P.B. SAWANT", "K. RAMASWAMY"], "author_judge": "RANGANATH MISRA", "bench_strength": "full", "date": "1990-01-12", "case_number": "CIVIL APPEAL No. 4284/1988", "disposition": "dismissed", "acts": null, "sections": null, "court": "SC", "year": "1990", "headnote_snippet": null, "_path": "1990_1_20_24", "_year": "1990"}