- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
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,....
Read MoreBench 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....
Read MoreIn this case, the land in Plot No. 765 in Mauza Bhaunjar, Ghaziabad, was divided into smaller plots by its co-owners as part of a residential housing scheme named “Chandrapuri Colony.” The plaintiffs, who were some of the people who bought these smaller plots, brought a legal suit claiming that Plot No. 19 was never meant to be sold because it was reserved for building a Dharmshala (a public rest house). However, they alleged that the plot was wrongly sold....
Read MoreIn this case, the accused, Aghnoo Nagesia, was charged with murdering four of his family members his aunt Ratni, her daughter Chamni, Chamni’s husband Somra, and their son Dilu. After committing the crime, he himself went to the police station and filed an FIR. In that FIR, he gave a detailed confession, stating how he killed them, which weapon he used, and where he had hidden their bodies. The Trial Court relied on this confession and convicted him under Section....
Read MoreIntroduction: 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....
Read MoreIntroduction 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 More
