WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

  • 3rd Floor, Radhika Heights, 284, in front of APT House, Zone-II, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462011

  • +91 9691073595 Office, Bhopal

15 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 733

In this case, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court raising concerns about noise pollution caused by loudspeakers, and firecrackers during religious events, including bhajans and other performances, in busy commercial areas. The petitioners argued that these loudspeakers, especially when used on weekly holidays, created a serious nuisance for residents living nearby. They claimed that the excessive noise disrupted daily life and made it difficult for people to enjoy peace and rest in their homes. Issues....

Read More
14 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420

Facts of the case  The case involved admissions to undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical courses across various states and union territories in India. The general policy followed by these institutions was to give preference to students who either held domicile status or had been permanent residents of the state for a significant period, ranging from 3 to 20 years, or had completed their education in that state for a period between 4 to 10 years. The dispute arose when....

Read More
13 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625

A.K. Chopra, the respondent, was employed as a private secretary to the chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (the appellant). On August 12, 1988, he used his position of authority to compel a female employee, Miss X, to accompany him to the Business Centre at the Taj Palace Hotel for dictation, despite her lack of training in taking dictation. Taking advantage of the secluded setting, Chopra attempted to molest her by sitting too close and touching her inappropriately, despite....

Read More
12 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)

The dispute arose when Lata, a postgraduate student, voluntarily married Bramha Nand Gupta, which angered her brothers as it was an inter-caste marriage. In retaliation, her brothers falsely accused her husband and his relatives of kidnapping, leading to their arrests and legal proceedings. Despite Lata affirming in court that she had married of her own free will, her brothers continued to pursue legal action, including obtaining warrants and filing a protest petition. Additionally, Lata and her husband’s family faced continuous....

Read More
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....

Read More
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....

Read More
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....

Read More
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....

Read More
06 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039

A human rights activist, advocating for the public good, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The case was based on a news report titled "Law helps the injured to die" published in the Hindustan Times. According to the report, a man on a scooter was hit by a speeding car and was severely injured. A passerby, seeing the victim bleeding heavily, rushed him to the nearest hospital. However, the doctors at that hospital refused to treat....

Read More
05 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia [2002] 38 SCL 625 (SC)

The case revolved around the composition of an arbitral tribunal. The Appellant argued that Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was a mandatory provision that could not be ignored. According to sub-section (1) of Section 10, parties could decide the number of arbitrators, but the total number could not be even. Sub-section (2) further stated that if the parties did not specify the number of arbitrators, the tribunal would automatically consist of a sole arbitrator. The Appellant....

Read More