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

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
07 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

M Ismail Faruqui (Dr) V. Union of India (1994)

The constitutional validity of the Ayodhya Act was questioned in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. In the landmark case M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360, the Supreme Court decided to hear all the connected petitions together, including those from the High Court. The Court also considered a reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. After the Supreme Court’s judgment, the High Court continued with the civil suits based....

Read More
02 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996) 1 SCC 361

Balaji Raghavan, a petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the government from granting National Awards like the Padma Vibhushan and Padma Shri. He argued these awards violated Article 18(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the state from conferring non-military or non-academic titles. The case involved written submissions from both sides between 1992 and 1994, but no oral arguments or interim orders were made by the Kerala High Court. The matter....

Read More
02 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Shantabai v State of Bombay (1958)

Shrimati Shantabai, the petitioner, was granted the right to cut and use wood from certain forests within her husband’s Zamindari through an unregistered document. However, with the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, all proprietary rights over such lands were transferred to the State. Despite this, she obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner under the Act to continue working in the forest and began cutting trees. Subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer....

Read More
02 Apr 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra (1966)

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, a journalist at Blitz, wrote an article alleging that businessman Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey manipulated the import of silk yarn for personal gain, using fabricated documents and black market dealings. Thackersey filed a defamation suit against the magazine. During the trial, defense witness Bhaichand G. Goda supported Blitz’s claims but requested the court to prohibit the publication of his statements, fearing business losses. The court accepted his request and orally barred Blitz from reporting his testimony. When Blitz....

Read More