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

17 Mar 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, AIR 1960 Orissa 161

The case revolves around Mr. Ram Bahadur Thapa, who, on May 20, 1958, in Rasgovindpur village (Balasore district), mistakenly attacked a group of women, believing them to be ghosts. Due to widespread local superstitions among the Adivasi communities, including the Majhis and Santhals, an abandoned airport in the village was thought to be haunted, making people afraid to go near it at night. On the night of the incident, Thapa, along with Chandra Majhi and Krishna Patro, went to the....

Read More
17 Mar 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209

On February 28, 1997, the Indian Railways issued a circular stating that reserved category candidates who were promoted through roster points could not claim seniority over general category candidates who were promoted later. This circular was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, which held that while reserved candidates could be promoted earlier through roster points, they would not automatically become senior to general candidates who were promoted later to the same level. The Supreme Court further clarified that once a....

Read More
15 Mar 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 (SC) 279

Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta  Introduction: The case deals with the legal question of whether a prolonged consensual sexual relationship, continuing for 16 years, can amount to rape on the ground of a false promise of marriage. The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, ruling that there was no evidence of force, deceit, or mala fide intent at the beginning of the relationship. Facts of the Case: The complainant alleged that the accused had sexually....

Read More
12 Mar 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

BADSHAH vs. URMILA GODSE (2014) 1 SCC 188

On February 10, 2005, the petitioner and respondent were married at Devgad Temple, Hivargav-Pavsa, following Hindu marriage rituals. After their marriage, they lived together, but while the respondent was pregnant, a woman named Shobha arrived at their home, claiming to be the petitioner’s wife. The petitioner allegedly told the respondent that she must either accept living with Shobha or leave. Choosing to stay due to her pregnancy, the respondent suffered physical and mental abuse. The petitioner questioned the paternity of....

Read More
12 Mar 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

YUVRAJ LAXMILAL KANTHER & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2025 (SC) 304

The Bench Comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan  Introduction: The Supreme Court of India recently discharged two employers accused under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC (Now Section 105 of BNS,2023) in connection with the electrocution deaths of two workers engaged in decoration work. The Court held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not met, as the appellants lacked the requisite knowledge or intent to cause death. Facts: Two....

Read More
11 Mar 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Durga Prasad VS Baldeo and Others (1881) ILR 3 Allahabad 221

Facts of the case Durga Prasad built two-grain markets in Etawah at the request of the District Collector. These markets were named Hume Ganj and Ram Ganj. Durga invested a lot of money in setting up a shop and acquiring property in these markets. The respondent rented a shop there. Since Durga had made significant investments in the business, he also became a commission agent. Eventually, after discussions, the appellant and local shopkeepers agreed to pay Durga a commission of....

Read More
11 Mar 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

GYANENDRA SINGH @ RAJA SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. 2025 (SC) 299

The Bench Comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta Introduction  The Supreme Court ruled that when an offence is punishable under both the POCSO Act and IPC(Now BNS,2023), the offender must be sentenced under the provision prescribing the higher punishment, as per Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The Court also held that the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence without a State appeal for enhancement. Facts The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting his minor daughter under Sections....

Read More
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
15 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2017)

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 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
CHAT