AAP’s Preeti Sharma Menon in SC/ST Atrocities case : Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court passed a order on 3 March, 2023.This was seen in the case of Preeti Sharma Menon & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.  3411 OF 2018 and the case was presided over by Hon’ble Justice Sunil Shukre and MM Sathye.


In this case a first information report (FIR) against Menon. another member Manu Pillai allegedly made certain anti-caste remarks. Kamble complained to Menon and asked her to take action against Pillai and another meeting, Menon allegedly told Kamble that “his mentality was low”.



On Kamble’s FIR, Menon stated it seemed to be registered under influence of rival political parties. He also submitted that despite the offences being punishable for less than 7 years, no notice had been issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing Desai briefly, the bench granted interim relief and issued notice in the plea. It directed the Mumbai police to file a reply in 4 weeks.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”






ECHR hears Two Landmark Climate Change Cases.

The European Court of Human Rights has heard two oral arguments by the applicants of France and Switzerland wherein the governments are accused of neglecting taking proper actions to handle climate change. According to both petitioners, the European Convention on Human Rights violates their right to life and their right to respect for family life.


The first case was challenged by the members of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a Swiss organization. A collection of older ladies make up the members, with 33% of them being over 75. Their worries include how climate change might affect their health and quality of life.  They claim that the aggravation of health issues during heat waves brought on by global warming is a major matter of public concern. The members assert that Switzerland’s government has not passed any adequate or required legislation to achieve global goals for combating climate change. They contend there is no effective domestic remedy and that they haven’t had access to a court.

Former French mayor Mr. Damien Carême is the applicant in the second case. Carême is contesting the French court’s claim that he is not specifically impacted or has had any negative effect due to the nation’s inaction on climate change. However, Careme claims that this failure of legislation directly affects him because there is a greater possibility that his home could be negatively impacted in the future, specifically through flooding. He claims that the failure has already impacted him through him being affected from uninterrupted life planning. 


The Swiss and the French governments have similar contentions regarding the cases filed against their negligence. They argue that since they cannot be held solely accountable for the climate change, they cannot be charged for its negative impacts as well. 

The decision of this case is expected to pave a way to influence future climate change actions adopted by international governments. The ECHR is expected to make its ruling in both the cases by the year 2024. 



The U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Derecognizing the Constitutional Right to Abortion Is a Feudalistic Approach.

Justice Alito J, gives his historical approach in the case of Roe V. Wade which argues for the recognition of the constitutional right to abortion.


The Republican States petitioned for the overturning of the decision made in Roe v. Wade, which was rendered 50 years ago. They wanted to outright outlaw abortions or place strong limitations on them. On the basis of Roe, lower courts had temporarily stayed the new abortion-banning laws passed by various states. Previously, The Trump administration’s support of traditional Christian beliefs had made sure that the court was crowded enough for the Roe overturn.

The issue in question was whether American women had a constitutional right to get abortions prior to fetal viability or even quickening, which had been formerly upheld in Roe and Casey’s case as a part of Liberty and Equality, including autonomy and physical rights.

In Dobbs v. Jackson, the majority, which was affected by feudal retrogression, gave a negative response and overturned both Roe and Casey.


The U.S. Constitution mentions freedom, equality, and due process, just as Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution mention equality and “fair, just, and reasonable method” for their deprivation, respectively. All courts acknowledge that these rights do have a concealed domain, and courts occasionally attempt at broadening the scope of these rights. Speaking for the majority, Kavanaugh J. agrees that “the Constitution does not freeze the rights of the American people as of 1791 or 1868.”

Justice Alito J, speaking for the people, stated that within the US Constitution, the addition of new rights cannot be done so unless it is deeply rooted and aligned with the history and traditions of the country. And since before the case of Roe V. Wade, the right to abortion was never recognized and thus, it is not ingrained or aligned to the history of rights in the country. Thus it is said that such a right could not be recognized.




Valid and Voidable Contract

Valid Contract:

An unenforceable and illegal contract would be the void contract but the voidable contracts can be a legal contract which would be enforceable in the eyes of law and the parties to the contract can enforce it in the voidable contracts and in the void contracts the party doesn’t have the opportunity to enforce it.  The term void literally means that the contract is null and its is not legally binding and due to which it cannot be enforceable by law. The void contract is a contract which is not backed up by any law for it to be legally binding.

Therefore we can understand that this contract, when it’s a void contract, then it would be not enforceable and hence if the contract has been breached by one party when the party which has been affected by the breach would not avail any legal remedy or recourse which is legal against them. A contract is a valid contract or said to be valid when it was being formed then it was valid but at the later stage it has become void.

The above mentioned situation can only take place when all the conditions are fulfilled which leads to a valid contract such as free consent, capacity, consideration and lawful object etc. But at a later stage when laws change or due to any other circumstances then the act would become impossible at that point of time the valid contract at the beginning stage would still remain valid but at the later stage due to the above mentioned change in laws or any other circumstances then it would become a void contract.

Voidable Contracts:

Voidable Contract is not illegal and it’s an enforceable contract and hence the parties to contract can enforce it and therefore it is a legally binding contract. This contract binds when their parties to contract, either of them would change their mind and they have the option to change their mind hence at that time it would be a voidable contract. Voidable Contract allows the party to cancel the contract at the option of changing their minds and they can cancel it at any point of the time during the contract. Therefore if there is a mutual mistake on the both sides of the contract i.e the both parties who are contracting then it would be voidable i.e the contract would be voidable. Also such conditions like omission of few conditions from the contract while performing the contract would also lead to the voidability of the contract.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Boulton vs Jones 1857 Case – Case brief

The importance of this case of “Boulton vs Jones” would be understood through the concepts of the offer made when it comes to the ascertained and the specific person as well. When the other party performs their act and when the offer is made, the offer would be the promise for the performance by the two parties. The Indian Contract Act has mentioned conditions which are essentials when the offer can be terminated or when it can be revoked as well.

There are 2 important kinds of offer and they are the General offer and the Specific Offer respectively. General offer can be understood as the offer where it can be made to the large public or the public at large and the acceptance can be given by any person among the public to whom it was made and it leads to fulfillment when the necessary conditions are fulfilled by the persons to contract and the conditions are mentioned by the Indian Contract Act, 1872.  Coming to the specific offer it means that the offer is made only to the person who is specific or it is only made to a specific person for the contract. So the right of action is only there to that person to whom the offer is made and there is no right to action accrues to any other person.

Facts of the Case:

Jones, the offender, operated a construction materials company. He was a frequent client of Brocklehurst, which supplied him with construction supplies. They were friends with each other now on both sides. On a beautiful day, the offender sent Brocklehurst’s store a written order for products. The offender moved his company to Boulton without knowing that Brocklehurst had already been sold. When Boulton got the order for the goods, he made the decision to fulfill it and gave the items to the defendant without letting him know that he had taken over Brocklehurst’s company. The offender used the items after accepting them under the impression that Brocklehurst had provided them.

Issues of the Case:

  1. Was Jones the defendant to Boulton, be liable to pay? And whether the claimed goods amount by the boulton was already used by the Jones or not?
  2. Whether there was any duty on the Boulton which has to be performed for giving the information regarding the taking over of the business and its information to be given to Jones?

Judgment : The judge ruled that Mr. Jones, the defendant, was not responsible for paying Boulton’s fee. A contract is crucial when it is formed with a particular individual. There was therefore no agreement between the parties.

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

1 2 3 4 1,224