- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Introduction The Supreme Court of India clarified the interpretation of Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected merely because one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, as long as other reliefs are maintainable and within the jurisdiction of the civil court. Facts of the Case The plaintiff (Smt. Prabha Jain) filed a civil suit seeking three distinct reliefs concerning a property mortgaged to the Central Bank....
Read MoreIn 1960, Savitri, a 17-and-a-half-year-old girl and B.Sc. student, was living in Nungambakkam with her family. She developed a relationship with her neighbor, Varadarajan. When her sister saw them talking, Savitri expressed her desire to marry him. Their father, S. Natrajan, took her to a relative’s house to keep her away from Varadarajan. However, the next day, Savitri left the house on her own, met Varadarajan, and went with him in his car. They got married at the registrar’s office....
Read MoreBench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Introduction: The Supreme Court held that a civil suit can be dismissed as time-barred even if no specific issue of limitation was framed during trial. The Court emphasized the mandatory duty cast on courts by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to reject any suit filed beyond the limitation period, irrespective of whether the defendant raised it in the pleadings. Section 3, Limitation Act, 1963 – Bar of limitation to be considered....
Read MoreBench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan Introduction: The Supreme Court in this case dealt with the validity of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The key question was whether such clauses are barred by law, especially when there is a disparity in bargaining power between an employer and an employee. The Court held that exclusive jurisdiction clauses are valid as long as they do not absolutely bar access to....
Read MoreBench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran Introduction: In this significant criminal law ruling, the Supreme Court held that a conviction based solely on the 'last seen together' theory is unsustainable if the accused has raised a plausible plea of alibi, and the prosecution has failed to disprove it. The Court emphasized that the burden of disproving the alibi lies with the prosecution, especially when the accused has raised the plea at the earliest possible stage. Section....
Read MoreThe Bench Comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Introduction: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC (Now Section 218 of The Bharatiya NAgarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is mandatory for prosecuting public servants if the alleged act, even if excessive or unlawful, has a reasonable nexus with their official duties. The Court held that the statutory protection cannot be denied merely because a public servant may have exceeded authority, provided the act is....
Read MoreIn this case, the accused, Kader Nasyer, was put on trial before the Sessions Court in Rungpur for the charge of murdering an eight-year-old boy named Abdul. During the trial, Kader claimed that he was mentally unstable at the time of the incident and that he was not in his senses when he strangled the child. As a result, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life transportation. Issues before the Court Whether....
Read MoreINTRODUCTION The Supreme dealt with the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The case revolved around the demand raised for revised license fees by a public authority and whether such demand was barred by limitation. FACTS OF THE CASE In 2003, New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) allotted land to the respondents on license basis, with a clause for revision of license fee every 5....
Read MoreIntroduction: The Supreme Court ruled that if an appointment is illegal, the candidate cannot seek equitable relief under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that if a candidate gains entry through an invalid process, the Court cannot use its special powers under Article 142 to regularize or rescue such an appointment. Facts of the Case: The appellant was appointed to the post of "Boat Lascar" in the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The minimum qualification prescribed for the....
Read MoreThe constitutional validity of the Ayodhya Act was questioned in both the High Court and the Supreme Court. In the landmark case M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr.) v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360, the Supreme Court decided to hear all the connected petitions together, including those from the High Court. The Court also considered a reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution. After the Supreme Court’s judgment, the High Court continued with the civil suits based....
Read More
