WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

  • 3rd Floor, Radhika Heights, 284, in front of APT House, Zone-II, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462011

  • +91 9691073595 Office, Bhopal

23 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan AIR (1965) SC 845

Ratlam, a princely state that eventually joined the Indian Union, was governed by Sajjan Singh. Sajjan Singh and the Indian government entered into a contract in 1949 that gave him a number of rights and privileges, including the ability to receive a yearly privy purse. The Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, which was passed in 1954, removed the rulers of the former princely states' privy privileges and privy funds. In the Supreme Court, Sajjan Singh contested the legality of the 26th....

Read More
23 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

The claimant, Hadley, owned a mill featuring a broken crankshaft. The claimant engaged Baxendale, the defendant, to transport the crankshaft to the location at which it would be repaired and then subsequently transport it back. The defendant then made an error causing the crankshaft to be returned to the claimant a week later than agreed, during which time the claimant’s mill was out of operation. The claimant contended that the defendant had displayed professional negligence and attempted to claim for....

Read More
21 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Ram Niwas v Bano, AIR 2000 SC 2921

The Plaintiff had taken a shop on rent from the Defendant. Later, both parties entered into a sale agreement where the Plaintiff agreed to buy the same shop. At the time of the agreement, the Plaintiff paid part of the purchase amount and promised to pay the remaining balance when the official sale deed would be signed. However, after six months, the Defendant sold the shop to another person (a third party) for ₹20,000. In response, the Plaintiff filed a....

Read More
21 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

R. K. Dalmia vs Delhi Administration 1962 AIR 1821

In R.K. Dalmia vs. Delhi Administration (1962), R.K. Dalmia, a prominent businessman, was accused of publishing controversial and sharply critical articles in The Hindustan Times. These articles were said to contain disrespectful language against the government and allegations that were considered potentially harmful to public order and national security. As a result, Dalmia was charged by the Delhi Administration under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for promoting enmity between different groups, and under Section 124A for sedition. The....

Read More
21 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Powell v. Lee (1908)

In this case, Mr. Powell, the plaintiff, was a candidate for the headmaster position at a school. His application was forwarded by the school manager to the appointing authority, which later passed a resolution that basically confirmed Powell’s selection for the role. However, this decision was never officially communicated to him, and everything was still being handled internally. One of the board members overheard discussions about the final decision and informed Powell that he had been chosen. Thinking he had....

Read More
16 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Banwari Lal and Ors. Vs. Sukhdarshan Dayal [(1973) 1 SCC 294]

In this case, the land in Plot No. 765 in Mauza Bhaunjar, Ghaziabad, was divided into smaller plots by its co-owners as part of a residential housing scheme named “Chandrapuri Colony.” The plaintiffs, who were some of the people who bought these smaller plots, brought a legal suit claiming that Plot No. 19 was never meant to be sold because it was reserved for building a Dharmshala (a public rest house). However, they alleged that the plot was wrongly sold....

Read More
16 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar Case (1966)

In this case, the accused, Aghnoo Nagesia, was charged with murdering four of his family members his aunt Ratni, her daughter Chamni, Chamni’s husband Somra, and their son Dilu. After committing the crime, he himself went to the police station and filed an FIR. In that FIR, he gave a detailed confession, stating how he killed them, which weapon he used, and where he had hidden their bodies. The Trial Court relied on this confession and convicted him under Section....

Read More
14 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

S VARADARAJAN vs STATE OF MADRAS (1965)

In 1960, Savitri, a 17-and-a-half-year-old girl and B.Sc. student, was living in Nungambakkam with her family. She developed a relationship with her neighbor, Varadarajan. When her sister saw them talking, Savitri expressed her desire to marry him. Their father, S. Natrajan, took her to a relative’s house to keep her away from Varadarajan. However, the next day, Savitri left the house on her own, met Varadarajan, and went with him in his car. They got married at the registrar’s office....

Read More
08 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Queen-Empress vs Kader Nasyer Shah 1896

In this case, the accused, Kader Nasyer, was put on trial before the Sessions Court in Rungpur for the charge of murdering an eight-year-old boy named Abdul. During the trial, Kader claimed that he was mentally unstable at the time of the incident and that he was not in his senses when he strangled the child. As a result, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life transportation. Issues before the Court Whether....

Read More
07 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D’Souza & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 1796-1828 of 2024, 2025 (SC) 397]

INTRODUCTION The Supreme dealt with the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The case revolved around the demand raised for revised license fees by a public authority and whether such demand was barred by limitation.  FACTS OF THE CASE In 2003, New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) allotted land to the respondents on license basis, with a clause for revision of license fee every 5....

Read More