- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Danial Latifi & Anr. vs. Union Of India [AIR 2001 SC 3958] DATE OF THE JUDGMENT- 28.09.2001 BENCH- D. Raju, D P Mohapatra, G B Pattanaik, S R Babu, S V Patil BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- this case was filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986” [herein after referred to as MWPRD Act], which was enacted by the Government to nullify the verdict given by the SC in ‘Mohd. Ahmed....
Read MoreDetails Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 840 of 2020 Name of the Case- Roshan Khan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 841 of 2020 Name of the Case- Japhar Abbas vs Union Of India And 2 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 842 of 2020 Name of the Case- Syed Zeeshan Mehdi vs Principal Secretary And 2 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION....
Read MoreMohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SCR (3) 844] DATE OF JUDGMENT- 23rd April, 1985. BENCH- D A Desai, E S Venkataramiah, Rangnath Mishra, O C Reddy, Y V Chandrachud. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The case revolves around a long battle fought by a muslim woman, Shah Bano (appellant) against the system of triple talaq for the price of hatred by the community as well as her husband. The appellant got married to the respondent in 1932,....
Read MoreVinay Mittal vs Union of India & Ors. Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 562/2019 & CRL.M.A. 3920/2019 Date of Judgment: 18th August, 2020 Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU Brief Facts of the Case The petitioner claims that he was an employee of one Mr Bharat Rana Chaudhary, drawing a salary of ₹25,000 to 30,000/-, and has been falsely implicated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter ‘CBI’) in various cases alleging siphoning of funds of Punjab National Bank(PNB). However, the CBI....
Read MoreShailendra Kumar Singh vs Government of NCT of Delhi Case No: W.P.(C) 4621/2020 Date: 28.07.2020 Coram: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN Prayer of the Petitioner This petition, styled as a public interest litigation, has been preferred with the following prayers:- to issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent to remove all subsidies which are delivered at door step for people without any specific disability, liability, restriction, or condition, failing which such scheme will damage welfare....
Read MoreSmt. Selvi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and another [2010 (7) SCC/263] DATE OF THE VERDICT- 05/05/2010 BENCH- J M Panchal, K G Balakrishnan (CJI), R V Raveendran BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- the present case is a compilation of various criminal appeals taken up the honourable SC challenging the prominent techniques used by the police personnel to interrogate people who are either accused or suspects or even the witnesses as well on the ground that these techniques are employed....
Read MoreLaxmi vs. Union Of India and Ors. [2014 SCC (4) 427]- DATE OF JUDGMENT- 10.04.2015 BENCH- M B Lokur, U U Lalit. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- This is basically public interest litigation that was filed Laxmi, a survivor of an acid attack, who drives a campaign against preventing these attacks and runs an NGO named ‘Chaanv Foundation’ to support the victims and survivors. The victim Laxmi in this case at the age of 15 was attacked with acid in New Delhi, by three....
Read MoreRanjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra [1965 AIR 881, 1965 SCR (1) 65] BENCH- P.B. Gajendragadkar (CJ), M Hidayatullah, K N Wanchoo, J C Shah, N.R.Ayyangar DATE OF JUDGMENT- 19th August, 1964. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE – the appellant Ranjit who being an owner of a book store along with four other partners were charged under Sec. 292 of the IPC (which penalizes the act of possessing, circulating and selling of obscene material) for possessing and selling off....
Read MoreVishakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others [(1997)6 SCC241, AIR 1997 SC 3011] Date of verdict: 13.08.1997 Bench: B N Kirpal, CJI S.V. Manohar BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The verdict is the outcome of a petition filed by four women organisations along with Vishakha (which is a group dedicated towards female education and research) regarding the issue of sexual harassment of females at the workplace and their safety. Further to be simplified this petition was filed as a....
Read MoreBrief Facts Perusal of the orders passed from time to time will show that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had assured the Court toremove the illegal structure of the temple on thefootpath. Perusal of the record will show that on11th December 2019, Sri P.T. Prasanna Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Jayanagar Sub-Division of BBMP has filed on record the noticesissued by BBMP. He has stated that the structureof the temple is on a footpath. A status reportwas filed on 8th January....
Read More
