ALEC - Aashayein Law Education Center|Law Coaching in Bhopal

17 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors., 2025 (SC) 428

the Bench Comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti Introduction This Supreme Court judgment deals with the interpretation of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, focusing on when the limitation period begins in suits for declaration. The Court clarified that limitation begins when the cause of action first arises, not when the plaintiff acquires “full knowledge” of the dispute. The judgment also reiterates the principle that a time-barred suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC,....

16 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 (SC) 398

Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta Introduction The Supreme Court, in this significant judgment, set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant in a child rape and murder case. The Court found grave procedural irregularities during the trial, including the illegal admission of confessional statements and lapses in the handling and proof of DNA evidence. The ruling reaffirms the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving capital punishment. Indian Penal....

14 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal, 2025 SC 415

Introduction: The Supreme Court, in this case, interpreted Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, emphasizing that a judgment on admission can be passed even dehors (outside) the pleadings, and that such power can be exercised suo moto by the Court without a formal application. Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on admissions Order X Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Examination of parties Facts of the Case: The petitioner’s father was a tenant of the....

14 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Central Bank of India & Anr. vs. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors., 2025

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....

11 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through LRs & Another v. Rajmani & Others 2025 (SC) 416

Bench: 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....

11 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Rakesh Kumar Verma vs HDFC Bank Ltd & HDFC Bank Ltd vs Deepti Bhatia 2025 (SC) 407

Bench: 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....

09 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Jagdish Gond vs The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. 2025 (SC) 409

Bench: 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....

08 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

G.C. Manjunath & Others v. Seetaram, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 399

The 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....

07 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Jomon KK v. Shajimon P and Others 2025 (SC) 381

Introduction: 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....

05 Apr 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

ZEP FOUNDATION Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2025

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih Introduction The case was a public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Supreme Court of India, seeking a statutory prohibition on social media usage by children below 13 years of age. The petition was based on concerns regarding the severe mental, psychological, and physical impact of social media on young users. The petitioner also sought mandatory parental controls for children aged 13-18 and stricter age verification mechanisms. However, the Supreme Court refused....