- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (AIR 2017 SC 4904) The Section 375 of Indian Penal Code defines 'rape'. This provision was amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 haphazardly after the Nirbhaya incident. The Amendment to the said Section increased the age of consent to sexual intercourse to 18 years. However, the Exception-2 of the said provision was not amended which stated that "sexual intercourse by a....
Read MoreCARLIL Vs. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY (1893) 1 Q.B. 256 In our day to day lives most of the relationships are governed by the agreements. The agreements which are enforceable by law are contracts. However, to constitute any agreement the foremost requirement is the offer and its acceptance. The offer is constituted when there is a proposal by one i.e. the willingness to do or abstain to do something with an intention of obtaining assent of the other party. Although,....
Read MoreREG V. GOVINDA In India the criminal law is governed by the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Chapter 16 of the Code deals with "Offences Affecting the Human Body." The most important provision of the Chapter is Section 299 and Section 300. The former defines culpable homicide while the latter defines murder. The language of these provisions suggests that there is no difference between Section 299 and Section 300. The similarity of the language of these provisions is the reason....
Read MoreDONOGHUE VS. STEVENSON Negligence in layman's terms means carelessness or absence of duty of care. However, the legal meaning of the term negligence means 'absence of reasonable duty of care.' Legally, negligence is of two types i.e. civil and criminal; the differentiating factor between the two is the gravity of absence of care and mens rea. The concept of 'reasonability' of the duty of care has been laid down by the House of Lords in 1932....
Read MoreSHAKTI VAHINI vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR (2018) SC 1601: 7 SCC 192] BENCH- Dipak Mishra, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud BACKGROUD OF THE CASE- The National Commission for Women authorised the petitioner, an organization to conduct a research on “Honour Killings in the areas of western U.P., Punjab and Haryana’. The organization asserted that there has been a significant increase in both the honour crimes as well as the fear among young people who are willing to marry....
Read MoreARJUN PANDIT RAO KHOTKAR vs. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL & Ors. [civil appl no. 20825-20826 of 2017] DATE OF THE VERDICT- July 14th, 2020 BENCH- R F Nariman, S. R. Bhat, V. Ramasubhramaniam. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- the decision was given in this amidst of conflicting decisions pronounced by the SC previously, regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. In the present case two petitions were filed against the election of the appellant to the Maharashtra legislative assembly elections. One petition was filed....
Read MoreM.C. MEHTA & ANR. vs. SHRI RAM FOODS AND FERTILISER INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS [AIR 1987 SC 965] - also known as ‘the Oleum Gas Leak Case’. DATE OF THE VERDICT- 17/02/1986 BENCH- P N Bhagwati, D P Madon, G L Oza BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- While the case of Bhopal gas tragedy awaited verdict of the Hon’ble SC, another gas disaster took place at Shri Ram Foods and fertiliser industries which was a subsidiary of the Delhi Textile Mills.....
Read MoreNational Insurance Company Limited vs Ashwani Kumari and others Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE Reserved on: 26.08.2020 Pronounced on:01.09.2020 Brief Facts of the Case The National Insurance Company Limited an appeal against the judgment and award dated 28th April 2017, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of R.88,045- along with pendent elite and future interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimant. Therefore, the....
Read MoreDanial Latifi & Anr. vs. Union Of India [AIR 2001 SC 3958] DATE OF THE JUDGMENT- 28.09.2001 BENCH- D. Raju, D P Mohapatra, G B Pattanaik, S R Babu, S V Patil BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- this case was filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986” [herein after referred to as MWPRD Act], which was enacted by the Government to nullify the verdict given by the SC in ‘Mohd. Ahmed....
Read MoreDetails Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 840 of 2020 Name of the Case- Roshan Khan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 841 of 2020 Name of the Case- Japhar Abbas vs Union Of India And 2 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 842 of 2020 Name of the Case- Syed Zeeshan Mehdi vs Principal Secretary And 2 Others With Case- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION....
Read More
