Category : Case Analysis

Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra(2018)

By: Shreya Kohli
The present case is one of the Landmark cases of this century and deals with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Atrocities Act’). The case talks about how the law which was made to protect SC’s and ST’s from any sort of Caste Discrimination is misused by filing some frivolous complaints and by taking advantage of the loopholes in the statutes.

Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Case Analysis

By: Shreya Kohli
The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi, JJ Deepak Gupta, and JJ Sanjiv Khanna on 2nd August 2019 decided the case of Ritesh Sinha v State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl. Appeal 2003 of 2012, decided on 02.08. 2019), dealing with a question of whether an accused can be compelled by a Magistrate to give his voice samples during the course of a criminal investigation.

Promita Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 2 CAL LT 363 (HC)

By: Gaurav Kumar
The case comment below discuss the case Promita Dutta V. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 2 CAL LT 363 (HC). In the case, a writ petition was filed by Promita Dutta in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in relation to the investigation of her husband’s death. In the petition, the petitioner showed her dissatisfaction over the investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department.

Anoop Singh vs Gopal Krishan Bhuradia & Anr on 5 July 2018

By: Yahya Abdullah
This is the case regarding breach of contract and forfeiture of the amount paid by the defaulter regarding the agreement to sell. This case is between Anoop Singh (appellate)  versus Gopal Krishan Bhuradia & Anr (respondent) regarding the breach of contract between the two parties.
The issue, therefore, to be decided by the court is that even if the appellant/plaintiff/buyer is guilty of breach of contract and did not have the readiness and willingness to go ahead with the specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 24.1.2013, whether in such circumstances the respondents/defendants/sellers can forfeit the amount of Rs.10.25 lacs paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondents/defendants under the subject Agreement to Sell.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

By: Kalyani Tehri
This case analysis is focused to elucidate the landmark judgement of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) in which the scope of President’s power under article 356 of the Indian Constitution i.e. power to impose State emergency in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State, was discussed. This judgement holds a great significance because it helped in putting an end to the arbitrary use of the power by the President given under article 356.

Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (August 11th, 2020): Analysing Case of Equal Inheritance Rights for Daughter

By: D. Ilavenil
School of Excellence in Law, TNDALU
Putting the final nail on male chauvinism in the division of Hindu ancestral property, the Supreme court made a landmark judgement in the case Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma on August 11th 2020. This judgement cleared the legal hurdles to declare that daughters will have inheritance rights equal to those of sons from properties of fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers right from the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.