ALEC - Aashayein Law Education Center|Law Coaching in Bhopal

12 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 169

Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh Introduction The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that an arrest is illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the grounds for arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that in such cases, the accused must be granted bail despite statutory restrictions. It further emphasized that magistrates must ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards during remand proceedings. For Judiciary Aspirants - Start your....

11 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Hitesh Verma v. M/s Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 176.

Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction: The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that a director who is "in charge of" a company and one who is "responsible to" the company for its business operations are distinct legal aspects. The Court emphasized that both conditions must be present in a complaint to hold someone liable under this section. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Deals with the....

11 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 990

The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising concerns about the dominance of multinational corporations in India's pharmaceutical industry. These corporations, originally based in countries such as the U.S.A., U.K., Germany, Sweden, Japan, and France, were alleged to have vast financial resources and generate enormous profits. The petitioner argued that the Indian government exercised minimal control over these foreign corporations, allowing them to exploit the Indian market, particularly given the country's high vulnerability to diseases. The petitioner referred to....

10 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392

Several High Courts across the country have ruled that denying wages at rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 amounts to a violation of constitutional protection against forced labour. The Kerala High Court held that prisoners should be paid wages in accordance with the rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Additionally, the court rejected the request to deduct the cost of food and clothing from these wages. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court upheld the same principle, ruling....

10 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

MT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman seeking maintenance from her second husband, despite her first marriage not being legally dissolved. The Court emphasized that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory for a woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS,2023) if the parties are de facto separated. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Provides for maintenance to....

08 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 722

The case involves a student from Baptist College, Kohima (the Respondent) and her lecturer (the Appellant). The Appellant frequently visited the Respondent’s home and confessed his love for her. Believing his assurances of marriage, the Respondent entered into a physical relationship with him and later became pregnant. Fearing social stigma, she pressured him to marry her. In response, the Appellant performed a symbolic marriage ritual at his home by applying sindur (vermilion) to her forehead, making her believe they were....

08 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

P.V. KRISHNABHAT vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta Introduction The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings in a cruelty and dowry harassment case, emphasizing that criminal laws should not be misused for personal vendettas. It urged caution in handling cases under Section 498-A IPC(Now Section 85 of BSA, 2023) and the Dowry Prohibition Act to prevent misuse. Section 498A of the IPC: Criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward the wife, with penalties of up to 3 years' imprisonment....

07 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 294

The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a case challenging Section 33B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section stated that, regardless of any court ruling or Election Commission directive, an election candidate was not required to disclose any information beyond what the Act specifically mandated. Earlier, in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court had ruled that voters have a right to know details about candidates, such....

07 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled that government employees cannot claim promotions as a right. The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's promotion policy for Senior Civil Judges to District Judges based on the merit-cum-seniority principle. It also emphasized limited judicial intervention in promotion matters, except when equality principles are violated. Facts: The petitioners challenged the Gujarat High Court's Select List for promotions of Senior Civil Judges to District Judges, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners contested....

06 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS SUBHASH SHARMA 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest found to be illegal mandates the release of the accused on bail. The Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal, emphasizing that failure to present the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours violates constitutional rights. The decision underscored the duty of courts to uphold fundamental rights in such cases. Facts: Subhash Sharma was detained by the Immigration Bureau at IGI Airport, Delhi, on....