- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment clarified that the contents of a FIR are inadmissible as evidence if the informant dies a natural death and cannot be proved through the investigating officer. The Court ruled that a FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict statements under the Evidence Act, 1872. It further stated that a FIR may be treated as a....
Read MoreBench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment ruled that the mere mention of Section 307 IPC (Now Sec 109 of BNS, 2023) (attempt to murder) in a FIR does not prevent the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement if the facts do not substantiate the charge. The Court emphasized that the nature of the injury, weapon used, conduct of the accused, and societal impact must be....
Read MoreIntroduction The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the admissibility of a FIR when the informant dies a natural death before trial. The Court held that such a FIR is not substantive evidence unless it qualifies as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(Now Section 26 of BSA,2023). It ruled that an investigating officer cannot prove the contents of the FIR in such circumstances. Facts of the Case The appellant’s daughter was married to the....
Read MoreBench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh Introduction The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that an arrest is illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the grounds for arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that in such cases, the accused must be granted bail despite statutory restrictions. It further emphasized that magistrates must ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards during remand proceedings. Facts of the Case The petitioner,....
Read MoreBench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction: The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that a director who is "in charge of" a company and one who is "responsible to" the company for its business operations are distinct legal aspects. The Court emphasized that both conditions must be present in a complaint to hold someone liable under this section. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Deals with the....
Read MoreBench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman seeking maintenance from her second husband, despite her first marriage not being legally dissolved. The Court emphasized that a formal decree of dissolution is not mandatory for a woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS,2023) if the parties are de facto separated. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Provides for maintenance to....
Read MoreThe Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta Introduction The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings in a cruelty and dowry harassment case, emphasizing that criminal laws should not be misused for personal vendettas. It urged caution in handling cases under Section 498-A IPC(Now Section 85 of BSA, 2023) and the Dowry Prohibition Act to prevent misuse. Section 498A of the IPC: Criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives toward the wife, with penalties of up to 3 years' imprisonment....
Read MoreIntroduction: The Supreme Court ruled that government employees cannot claim promotions as a right. The Court upheld the Gujarat High Court's promotion policy for Senior Civil Judges to District Judges based on the merit-cum-seniority principle. It also emphasized limited judicial intervention in promotion matters, except when equality principles are violated. Facts: The petitioners challenged the Gujarat High Court's Select List for promotions of Senior Civil Judges to District Judges, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners contested....
Read MoreBench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Introduction: The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest found to be illegal mandates the release of the accused on bail. The Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal, emphasizing that failure to present the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours violates constitutional rights. The decision underscored the duty of courts to uphold fundamental rights in such cases. Facts: Subhash Sharma was detained by the Immigration Bureau at IGI Airport, Delhi, on....
Read MoreBench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction: In a positive development for out-of-court settlements, the Supreme Court recently lauded the amicable resolution of a trademark dispute between Murlidhar Gyanchandani and the State of Jharkhand, highlighting the benefits of resolving disputes without prolonged litigation. Facts: The dispute between the appellants (Murlidhar Gyanchandani and others) and the respondent centered on the infringement of the trademark “Ghadi.” They filed a civil suit alleging trademark infringement by the respondent. In response to the....
Read More
