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

10 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392

Several High Courts across the country have ruled that denying wages at rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 amounts to a violation of constitutional protection against forced labour. The Kerala High Court held that prisoners should be paid wages in accordance with the rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Additionally, the court rejected the request to deduct the cost of food and clothing from these wages. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court upheld the same principle, ruling....

Read More
10 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

MT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 156

Bench 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 More
08 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 722

The case involves a student from Baptist College, Kohima (the Respondent) and her lecturer (the Appellant). The Appellant frequently visited the Respondent’s home and confessed his love for her. Believing his assurances of marriage, the Respondent entered into a physical relationship with him and later became pregnant. Fearing social stigma, she pressured him to marry her. In response, the Appellant performed a symbolic marriage ritual at his home by applying sindur (vermilion) to her forehead, making her believe they were....

Read More
08 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

P.V. KRISHNABHAT vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 149

The 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 More
07 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 294

The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a case challenging Section 33B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section stated that, regardless of any court ruling or Election Commission directive, an election candidate was not required to disclose any information beyond what the Act specifically mandated. Earlier, in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court had ruled that voters have a right to know details about candidates, such....

Read More
07 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Introduction: 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 More
06 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS SUBHASH SHARMA 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137

Bench 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 More
06 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039

A human rights activist, advocating for the public good, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The case was based on a news report titled "Law helps the injured to die" published in the Hindustan Times. According to the report, a man on a scooter was hit by a speeding car and was severely injured. A passerby, seeing the victim bleeding heavily, rushed him to the nearest hospital. However, the doctors at that hospital refused to treat....

Read More
06 Feb 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Murlidhar Gyanchandani and others v. State of Jharkhand and another CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5549 OF 2024

Bench 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
05 Feb 2025

Posted by: Manas shrivastava

Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia [2002] 38 SCL 625 (SC)

The case revolved around the composition of an arbitral tribunal. The Appellant argued that Section 10 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was a mandatory provision that could not be ignored. According to sub-section (1) of Section 10, parties could decide the number of arbitrators, but the total number could not be even. Sub-section (2) further stated that if the parties did not specify the number of arbitrators, the tribunal would automatically consist of a sole arbitrator. The Appellant....

Read More