WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

01 Sep 2025

Posted by: Rishika Chouhan

Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025): Landmark case on circumstantial evidence

In Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025), the accused Chetan killed his friend Vikram Sinde over a dispute of Rs. 4,000. He called Vikram for hunting and then shot him with a gun. There were no direct witnesses, so the case depended fully on circumstantial evidence, like both being last seen together, recovery of the weapon, stolen items with the accused, forensic reports, and the fact that Chetan ran away after the crime. Issue before the Court The main question....

Read More
01 Sep 2025

Posted by: Rishika Chouhan

BOULTON VS JONES: A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

In this case, Jones was in the business of selling building materials and often bought supplies from Brocklehurst. Over time, they became friendly. One day, Jones placed a written order for goods at Brocklehurst’s shop, but he did not know that the shop had been sold to Boulton. Without telling Jones about the change, Boulton accepted the order and sent the goods. Jones received and used them, thinking they came from Brocklehurst as usual. Later, when Boulton sent him an....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Lily Thomas vs. Union of India Case

Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh and Mr. Gyan Chand Ghosh got married on 10th May 1985 following Hindu rituals and traditions. However, after just a few months, on 22nd April 1992, Mr. Ghosh informed his wife that he no longer wished to stay with her and insisted on getting a divorce by mutual consent. Since it was a new marriage, Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh was unwilling to consent to a divorce and expressed her desire to continue living with her husband. Later, Mr.....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847

  In this case, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre (Hereinafter Dunlop), a tire manufacturing company, had an agreement with its dealers that the tires should not be sold below a fixed recommended retail price (RRP). The dealers were also required to ensure that their own retailers like Selfridge in this case followed the same pricing condition. Under the agreement, if Selfridge sold the tires below the RRP, they would have to pay £5 per tire as damages to Dunlop. Even though this....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt, 1913 40 ALJ 489

In this case, the defendant's nephew had gone missing, and the defendant sent his servants to search for him. One of the servants, Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff, went from Kanpur to Haridwar to look for the missing boy. During the journey, he was given money by the defendant to cover his travel and related expenses. While Lalman was away searching, the defendant made a public announcement offering a reward of Rs. 501 to anyone who found and brought back his....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas

State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati (1962)

This case is about an accident involving Lokumal, a temporary driver working for the State of Rajasthan. He was assigned to drive a government-owned jeep used by the Collector of Udaipur. On February 11, 1952, while returning the jeep from a repair workshop, Lokumal drove negligently and hit a pedestrian named Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath. As a result, Jagdishlal suffered serious injuries, including skull and spinal fractures, and died three days later in the hospital. The suit....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Kushal Rao vs The State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22)

  In the case of Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay, the accused, Kushal Rao, was charged with the murder of a man named Baboolal. The incident took place late at night on February 12, 1956, in a narrow lane in Nagpur. The prosecution claimed that Kushal Rao, along with a few others, attacked Baboolal using swords and spears. Baboolal suffered serious injuries and later died from them. The main evidence against Kushal Rao was three dying declarations made by....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1

In this case, a man named Jiwan Lal was admitted to a private ward in Christian Medical College (CMC) Hospital, Ludhiana. On the night of 22nd February 1995, around 11 PM, he suddenly started having difficulty breathing. Seeing this, his elder son Vijay Sharma immediately called for medical help by informing the nurse and the doctor. However, no doctor came to attend to Jiwan Lal for the next 20–25 minutes. After some time, two doctors, Dr. Jacob Mathew and Dr.....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1

This case is a landmark judgment from the pre-independence era, which dealt with the interpretation of "common intention" under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Barendra Kumar Ghosh was a member of a revolutionary group in Bengal that opposed British rule and aimed to fund their movement through illegal means. On August 3, 1923, Ghosh and three other members of the group attempted to rob a post office in a place called Shankaritola to collect money for their....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

State Of West Bengal V. Union of India, (1964) 1 SCR 371

The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, especially Sections 4 and 7, claiming that Parliament had no authority to make laws allowing the Union to acquire land belonging to a State. West Bengal sought an injunction to stop the Union from acquiring coal-bearing lands within the State. The Supreme Court issued notices to all State Advocates-General. States like Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Madras, Orissa, Punjab,....

Read More