ALEC - Aashayein Law Education Center|Law Coaching in Bhopal

18 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986):Understand Unfair Contracts the Simple Way

Unconscionable contracts, public policy, and the court's power under Section 23 ICA Freedom of contract is a foundational principle of the law of contracts. Parties are free to make their own bargains. But that freedom rests on an assumption that both parties enter the contract on something approaching equal footing. When one party is vastly more powerful than the other, and when that power is used to impose terms that no reasonable person in a position of genuine choice would....

14 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs K. Devi (1996):Facts, Issues & Judgment Explained

HUF coparcenary rights, Mitakshara vs Dayabhaga, and the law of succession Few areas of Hindu personal law are as foundational, as frequently examined, and as often confused as the law governing the Hindu Undivided Family and coparcenary rights. The Supreme Court's decision in Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs K. Devi (1996) is a landmark ruling that brings together the principles of HUF coparcenary, the distinction between the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools of Hindu law, and the framework of succession....

12 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co. (1994):Landmark Judgment on Enforcement of Foreign Awards

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral awards and the public policy exception under the New York Convention When a foreign arbitral tribunal delivers an award against an Indian party, can that party resist enforcement in India by invoking public policy? And if so, how wide is the public policy exception? These are the questions at the heart of Renusagar Power Co. vs General Electric Co. (1994), a Supreme Court judgment that remains the foundational Indian authority on the enforcement of foreign arbitral....

09 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Saheli v. Commissioner of Police Delhi (1990):Case Summary, Facts & Judgement

Vicarious liability of State for police torture and the public law remedy of compensation When a police officer, acting in the name of the State, causes the death of a child through brutal and unlawful force, can the State simply wash its hands of responsibility? Can a grieving mother be told that her only remedy lies in a lengthy civil suit for damages in a tort court? The Supreme Court answered these questions with moral force and legal precision in....

08 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

State of MP V. Ramesh C Sharma (2005):A Landmark Judgement Every Judiciary Aspirant Must Understand

Can one witness decide the entire case? From hostile witnesses to sole testimony — uncover the hidden rules of evidence How many witnesses does it take to convict a person of a crime? Can a court convict an accused on the testimony of a single witness who stands alone, without corroboration from any other source? And what happens when a witness the prosecution has called turns around in the witness box and contradicts everything they said in their earlier statement?....

06 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

N. Kamalam v. Ayyasamy (2001): The Judgement That Redefined Legal Interpretation

Limitation in suits for possession, adverse possession, and the starting point under Article 65 Property disputes in India frequently turn on one deceptively simple question: when did the clock start ticking? In suits for possession of immovable property, the law of limitation is every bit as important as the law of title. N. Kamalam vs Ayyasamy (2001) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that answers the foundational questions surrounding limitation in suits for possession, the doctrine of adverse possession, and....

30 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Firm Srinivas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad (1951): Estoppel Explained Simply

In the landscape of evidence law and civil procedure, few doctrines are as conceptually rich and exam-relevant as estoppel. The Supreme Court's decision in Firm Srinivas Ram Kumar vs Mahabir Prasad (1951) remains one of the clearest judicial statements on what estoppel actually means, what its essential conditions are, and crucially, how it is fundamentally different from the doctrine of res judicata. The ruling unpacks Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is now reproduced as Section 129....

28 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Moti Lal Banker v. Mahraj Kumar Mahmood Hasan Khan (1947): Part Performance & Oral Agreements Explained

Imagine you enter into an agreement to purchase land, take possession of it, make improvements, pay a part of the consideration, and then the seller turns around and denies the contract ever existed because nothing was written down formally. Is the law truly powerless to protect you? Moti Lal Banker vs Mahraj Kumar Mahmood Hasan Khan (1947) is the landmark Privy Council decision that answers this question through the lens of the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of....

24 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Pramod Mahto vs State of Bihar (1989): A Landmark Decision in Criminal Law

When the right of private defence ends and retaliation begins Every law student learns that the Indian Penal Code gives every person the right of private defence. But the harder and more exam-relevant question is: where does that right stop? Pramod Mahto vs State of Bihar (1989) answers that question with striking clarity. The Supreme Court held that the right of private defence extends only to protect the body from an ongoing threat. It does not extend to retaliate, settle....

22 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Amar Nath vs State of Haryana (1977):Crack the Concept, Crack the Exam

FACTS OF THE CASE Amar Nath and others were parties to a civil suit pending before a subordinate court in Haryana. During the proceedings, the trial court passed an order that did not merely regulate the progress of the suit — it conclusively decided a substantive right that was in dispute between the parties. The suit had not yet concluded, but the order effectively shut one side out on a material question. Aggrieved, the petitioners sought to challenge the order....