WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

ALEC for Judiciary

16 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Indranil Mullick & Ors. vs. Shuvendra Mullick SLP(c) 12384/2025

A Bench Comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction The Supreme Court, on May 9, 2025, refused to interfere with the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which held that CCTV cameras cannot be installed inside a residential property without the consent of all co-occupants. This case revolves around a dispute between two brothers regarding the installation of CCTV cameras in their shared residential space, leading to a legal challenge based on privacy and property rights. Article 21 - Protection of Life....

Read More
10 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Muruganandam v. Muniyandi (Died) through LRs, 2025 (SC) 549

Introduction  The Supreme Court held that an unregistered agreement to sell is admissible in a suit for specific performance under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The decision clarifies the evidentiary value of such documents when not used to establish title. Section 49, Registration Act, 1908 – Bars use of unregistered documents affecting immovable property but allows their use under the proviso for specific performance or collateral transactions. S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundara, (2010) 5 SCC....

Read More
10 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh & Ors. 2025 (SC) 538

Bench Comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan Introduction: The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), stating that suits may be dismissed suo motu by the court based on the plaintiff's admissions that undermine their claim. This decision emphasized the wide discretionary power of courts under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, enabling them to pass judgments on their own motion at any stage of the trial. Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Allows....

Read More
10 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Santosh Devi v. Sunder 2025 (SC) 534

Bench Comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan   Introduction This Supreme Court judgment pertains to the interpretation of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the context of a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed allegedly executed by fraud. The Court clarified that to invoke Section 17, it is not sufficient to allege that the transaction was fraudulent; the plaintiff must prove that the fraud actually prevented her from knowing her right to sue. Section 17,....

Read More
07 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India and Anr | W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta Introduction The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in a writ petition filed by death row convict Vasanta Sampat Dupare, seeking application of the 2022 Manoj judgment which laid down sentencing guidelines in death penalty cases. The petitioner urges the Court to consider mitigating factors under Article 32, even though the original sentence had attained finality. For Judiciary Aspirants - Start your judiciary preparation with the right program:....

Read More
07 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors., 2025 (SC) 509

The Bench Comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan Introduction  The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC as time-barred if the issue of limitation involves mixed questions of law and fact. The judgment reinforces the principle that such matters require trial and evidence before determination. Facts  The Appellant filed a suit in 2014 seeking cancellation of a sale deed, claiming to have discovered fraud in 2011. The Respondent contended the cause of....

Read More
05 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2025 (SC) 504

Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction: In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position that the mere existence of civil proceedings or remedy does not bar criminal prosecution, especially when allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The judgment came in the context of a commercial dispute that involved allegations of cheating and forgery, where the High Court had quashed the FIR citing parallel civil litigation. Section 420 IPC(Now 318 of BNS)....

Read More
05 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) vs Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale Introduction: The Supreme Court clarified that if a party denies the existence or legality of a compromise decree, they cannot directly approach the appellate court. Instead, they must first challenge the compromise before the trial court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC. It was held that Order XLIII Rule 1-A CPC does not create an independent right of appeal; it only allows challenge to a non-appealable....

Read More
05 May 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Etc 2025 (SC) 470

A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih Introduction: The Supreme Court in this case severely criticized the Allahabad High Court for invoking Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to alter a final judgment in a murder case. The High Court had changed the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which the Supreme Court held to be a misuse of Section 362 CrPC. The apex....

Read More
23 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi and Anr. v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi (Dead Through LRs), 2025 (SC) 446

Introduction In this 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that a compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can only be challenged by filing a recall application before the same court. A separate suit challenging the validity of the compromise on the ground of coercion or fraud is barred under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC. Order 23 Rule 3 CPC – Compromise of suit. Order 23 Rule 3A CPC – Bar to....

Read More

Categories