- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Bench comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan Introduction: The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified an important aspect of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the rejection of a plaint that seeks multiple reliefs. The Court emphasized that a plaint cannot be rejected solely because one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, as long as the remaining reliefs are valid and within the jurisdiction of the court. Facts: The case involved....
Read MoreBench comprising of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan The Supreme Court dealt with whether grave and sudden provocation can reduce an offense from murder to culpable homicide. The case involved an altercation where the appellant, after being slapped and abused by the deceased, struck the latter on the head with a cement brick, causing his death. Facts The appellant, along with his friends, was sleeping under a bridge when the deceased, who was drunk, started an argument. The deceased slapped the....
Read MoreBench comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, clarified the nature of a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly focusing on the power of the trial court after the decree for specific performance has been passed. The Court ruled on the question of whether the trial court retains jurisdiction and control over the decree even after the passing of the decree for specific performance. Facts: In the present....
Read MoreA bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan Introduction The Supreme Court of India, questioned the practice of arresting accused persons after the filing of a chargesheet and the court’s cognizance of the same. A bench observed that such a practice is unwarranted, particularly when the accused was not arrested during the investigation. The decision aligns with previous judgments emphasizing the principle of arrest only when necessary, to prevent misuse of authority. Facts The petitioner, accused in a case under the....
Read MoreIntroduction The Supreme Court, in Indian Overseas Bank vs M.A.S. Subramanian & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 77), reaffirmed that mere possession under an agreement to sell does not confer ownership unless a registered sale deed is executed as per the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) decision, which held that the sale deed executed by the property owner's legal heirs was not....
Read MoreBench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan Introduction The Supreme Court in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and Another dealt with the applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in cases involving subsequent suits based on fresh causes of action. The judgment clarified the scope of Order II Rule 2 CPC, emphasizing that it does not bar subsequent suits when the relief sought was not enforceable at the....
Read MoreBench Comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Introduction This case examines the application of Section 34 IPC (Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) in the context of criminal liability. The Supreme Court emphasized that when multiple accused act with a common intention, the severity of injury inflicted by individual acts cannot be a sole factor to reduce the conviction or sentence. Facts Accused Nos. 2 (K.B. Vijayakumar) and 3 (K.B.....
Read MoreThe case deals with the issue of whether a resigned director of a company can be held liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (“NI Act”) for cheques issued by the company after their resignation. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision, clarifying that liability under Section 141 cannot be imposed on a person who was no longer a director at the time of the issuance of the cheque. Provisions: 1. Section 138, NI Act: Deals....
Read MoreThe Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the applicability of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, ruled that part performance of a contract cannot be claimed when the unperformed portion is substantial, non-segregable, and the plaintiff neither relinquishes claims for the unperformed part nor demonstrates readiness to perform the contract. Facts The case arose from an agreement to sell a property for Rs 84 Lakhs. The Plaintiff....
Read MoreIn the case of MK Ranjitsinh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court acknowledged freedom from the harmful effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right. This decision expanded the scope of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that overhead power lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan's arid regions posed a grave threat to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).....
Read More
