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

21 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (AIR 1998 SC 1057)

Facts The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent for failing to fulfil a financial obligation. The respondent had issued three cheques to partially settle the debt arising from the purchase of cement from the appellant. However, these cheques were returned by the bank with the remark “payment stopped by the drawer.” The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether a cheque returned due to a “stop payment” order would....

Read More
20 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 802)

Facts: The petitioner, an organization dedicated to freeing bonded laborers, surveyed stone quarries in the Faridabad District near Delhi. The survey revealed that many workers, originally from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, were enduring extremely harsh working conditions, with several of them being bonded laborers. Deeply concerned, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, bringing these issues to its attention, and filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The PIL claimed that hundreds of workers were trapped....

Read More
19 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350

FACTS IN BRIEF During India's economic reforms, the Public Sector Disinvestment Commission recommended privatizing the government-owned company BALCO. Initially, the plan was to sell 40% of its shares immediately and reduce the government’s ownership to 26% within two years, with the long-term goal of complete disinvestment. However, the proposal was later revised to include the transfer of 51% of the government’s ownership along with management control. This revised plan was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment. Following this decision,....

Read More
18 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021

The petition, filed as a public interest litigation by Advocate Gaurav Jain, sought the court's intervention to address the rights and rehabilitation of prostitutes in India. The petitioner sought a declaration affirming several fundamental rights for prostitutes, including freedom, protection from re-entrapment, and socio-economic empowerment to ensure equality, dignity, and social integration. Issues raised 1. Rights of Prostitutes: The petitioner emphasized the need to recognize prostitutes as free citizens with the right to dignity, economic empowerment, social justice, and self-reliance.....

Read More
16 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45

Article 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution provides a citizen with the right to strike. The basic understanding of a strike is that it is a collective stoppage of work by employees aimed at pressuring management to address their demands or concerns. The scenario of the right to strike changes when the case is related to advocates. An advocate is considered an officer of the court and thus, his right to strike is dealt with differently as compared to other people.....

Read More
14 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 1531

The Sarla Mudgal case (“Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.”) is a key landmark decision in Indian family law. This case addressed critical issues like apostasy i.e changing one’s religion, and bigamy under “section 494 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)”, offering clarity on what makes a marriage “void” under Section 494 of IPC. It also played an important role in discussions about the need for a Uniform Civil Code in India. Facts....

Read More
10 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR 1999 SC 495

The Supreme Court of India's landmark decision in “Mr. X v. Hospital Z” (1998) deals with the balance between an individual’s “right to privacy” and society’s “need to protect public health”. The case raised key questions about medical confidentiality, the limits of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare organizations. This judgment has played a vital role in shaping the legal understanding of fundamental rights in sensitive health-related situations. I. Facts The patient, who....

Read More
06 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958

The landmark case of Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) dealt with important issues related to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It focused on interpreting Section 125 of the CrPC, which ensures maintenance for a dependent wife. The case resolved the conflict between personal religious laws and constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act while ensuring that divorced Muslim women receive a fair and reasonable settlement. It managed....

Read More
29 Nov 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 SC 1025

The 1978 case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani is a landmark judgment in Indian law, particularly concerning The Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It addressed key issues related to the protections during police questioning under Section 161(2) of the CrPC and the Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Nandini Satpathy, the former Chief Minister of Odisha, refused to answer certain police questions, claiming they were self-incriminating. This judgment is significant for safeguarding individual....

Read More
28 Nov 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT VS. KASHIRAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ORS

Introduction In the landmark case of Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Ors (1987), the Supreme Court of India examined Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with providing maintenance to dependents. The Court interpreted the use of the term "he" in the section and ruled that both sons and daughters have an obligation to support their parents if the parents are unable to take care of themselves. Brief fact of the case....

Read More