WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. 2025 (SC) 466

Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan   Introduction In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the legal position on the maintainability of a suit for declaration of title over a property in cases where the plaintiff is not a party to the impugned sale deed. The Court held that such a plaintiff is not required to seek cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that a....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Hochster v. De la Tour

In this case, Hochster was hired by De La Tour to work as a courier on a trip that was supposed to start on June 1, 1852. But before the trip even began—on May 12—De La Tour told Hochster he didn’t want to go ahead with the agreement and wouldn’t be paying him. Hochster decided to sue for breach of contract to claim the money he was promised. De La Tour tried to argue that he hadn’t technically broken the....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas

State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati (1962)

This case is about an accident involving Lokumal, a temporary driver working for the State of Rajasthan. He was assigned to drive a government-owned jeep used by the Collector of Udaipur. On February 11, 1952, while returning the jeep from a repair workshop, Lokumal drove negligently and hit a pedestrian named Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath. As a result, Jagdishlal suffered serious injuries, including skull and spinal fractures, and died three days later in the hospital. The suit....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Kushal Rao vs The State of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 22)

  In the case of Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay, the accused, Kushal Rao, was charged with the murder of a man named Baboolal. The incident took place late at night on February 12, 1956, in a narrow lane in Nagpur. The prosecution claimed that Kushal Rao, along with a few others, attacked Baboolal using swords and spears. Baboolal suffered serious injuries and later died from them. The main evidence against Kushal Rao was three dying declarations made by....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1

In this case, a man named Jiwan Lal was admitted to a private ward in Christian Medical College (CMC) Hospital, Ludhiana. On the night of 22nd February 1995, around 11 PM, he suddenly started having difficulty breathing. Seeing this, his elder son Vijay Sharma immediately called for medical help by informing the nurse and the doctor. However, no doctor came to attend to Jiwan Lal for the next 20–25 minutes. After some time, two doctors, Dr. Jacob Mathew and Dr.....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1

This case is a landmark judgment from the pre-independence era, which dealt with the interpretation of "common intention" under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Barendra Kumar Ghosh was a member of a revolutionary group in Bengal that opposed British rule and aimed to fund their movement through illegal means. On August 3, 1923, Ghosh and three other members of the group attempted to rob a post office in a place called Shankaritola to collect money for their....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

State Of West Bengal V. Union of India, (1964) 1 SCR 371

The State of West Bengal filed a suit against the Union of India, challenging the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, especially Sections 4 and 7, claiming that Parliament had no authority to make laws allowing the Union to acquire land belonging to a State. West Bengal sought an injunction to stop the Union from acquiring coal-bearing lands within the State. The Supreme Court issued notices to all State Advocates-General. States like Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Madras, Orissa, Punjab,....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024 INSC 716)

  In January 2020, the police were informed that the accused had been watching and downloading child sexual exploitation material on his mobile phone. A forensic examination of his phone confirmed the presence of such material. The police charged him under: Section 67B of the IT Act, which punishes publishing, transmitting, or storing child sexual content. Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act, which penalizes using children for making pornographic material. However, as there was no proof that he personally created....

Read More
13 Jun 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

M/s Celestium Financial v A Gnanasekaran, 2025 (SC) 666

Introduction  In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that a complainant in a Section 138 NI Act case is a “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC and thus entitled to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The judgment overturns the Madras High Court's refusal to grant leave under Section 378(4) CrPC. For Judiciary Aspirants - Start your judiciary preparation with the right program: Foundation 3-Year Course, Foundation Ultimate Course, Udaan Foundation Course, and specialized....

Read More
13 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

PUCL v. Union of India: The NOTA CASE 2013

In this case, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 41(2), 41(3), and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. PUCL argued that these rules violate the principle of free and fair elections because they don’t protect the secrecy of a voter’s decision, especially when a person chooses not to vote. They claimed this right is part of a voter’s freedom of....

Read More