Court CasesLandmark judgments: the facts, the question, what the court held and why it matters

Cases475 in the database

• Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2023) 5 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2022

  Economic criteria alone can be a valid basis for reservation; the 103rd Amendment is constitutionally valid.

• Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha AhujaLandmark

  (2021) 1 SCC 414 · Supreme Court of India · 2020

  A shared household need not belong to the husband or a joint family; it is wherever the woman lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of title.

• Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading CorporationLandmark

  (2021) 2 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2020

  Four-fold test of non-arbitrability; prima facie review at the referral stage; when in doubt, refer.

• Common Cause v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2018) 5 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2018

  The right to life with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity; passive euthanasia and advance directives are lawful under judicial safeguards.

• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of KeralaLandmarkReferred to larger bench

  (2019) 11 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2018

  Morality in Article 25 means constitutional morality; exclusion of women from a public temple is not an essential religious practice and violates their right to worship.

• Joseph Shine v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2019) 3 SCC 39 · Supreme Court of India · 2018

  Section 497 IPC is unconstitutional; adultery is a civil wrong and a ground for divorce, not a crime.

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2018) 10 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2018

  Consensual adult same-sex relations are not a crime; section 377 was read down.

• Independent Thought v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2017) 10 SCC 800 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  The marital rape exception does not protect intercourse with a wife below eighteen; the Exception is read down to eighteen.

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2017) 10 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  The right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.

• Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of BiharLandmark

  (2017) 3 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  Laying an ordinance before the Legislature is mandatory, re-promulgation is a fraud on the Constitution, satisfaction is justiciable, and a lapsed ordinance creates no enduring rights.

• Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)Landmark

  (2017) 6 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  Extreme brutality in gang rape and murder attracts the death sentence under the rarest-of-rare doctrine.

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay SethiLandmark

  (2017) 16 SCC 680 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  Just compensation for death includes an addition for future prospects for all deceased below 60 at standard percentages, and standard conventional heads enhanced every three years.

• Shayara Bano v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2017) 9 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  Manifest arbitrariness is a ground for invalidating legislation under Article 14; instant triple talaq is unconstitutional.

• Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative AssemblyLandmark

  (2016) 8 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2016

  The Governor must summon the Legislature on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; his discretion under Article 163 is confined to functions expressly or necessarily left to him.

• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2016) 7 SCC 221 · Supreme Court of India · 2016

  The right to reputation is part of Article 21 and criminal defamation is a constitutionally valid restriction on free speech.

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2015) 5 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2015

  Vague and overbroad restrictions on speech not tied to a ground in Article 19(2) are void; section 66A struck down.

• Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2014) 3 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2014

  Inordinate delay in deciding a mercy petition violates Article 21 and warrants commutation of the death sentence.

• Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.Landmark

  (2012) 9 SCC 552 · Supreme Court of India · 2012

  Seat of arbitration determines the supervisory court; Part I is territorial.

• Darshan Singh v. State of PunjabLandmark

  (2010) 2 SCC 333 · Supreme Court of India · 2010

  Private defence rests on reasonable apprehension; the defender need not wait to be struck nor measure his response precisely.

• Selvi v. State of KarnatakaLandmark

  (2010) 7 SCC 263 · Supreme Court of India · 2010

  Compulsory narco-analysis, polygraph and brain-mapping tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21; only voluntary tests with safeguards are permitted and their results are not evidence per se.

• Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport CorporationLandmark

  (2009) 6 SCC 121 · Supreme Court of India · 2009

  Compensation for death is the annual dependency (income with future prospects less personal expenses) multiplied by the age-based multiplier, plus conventional heads.

• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil NaduLandmark

  (2007) 2 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2007

  Post-24 April 1973 Ninth Schedule laws are subject to basic-structure review on the touchstone of Articles 14, 19 and 21; judicial review cannot be excluded by Article 31B.

• Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra PradeshLandmark

  (2006) 8 SCC 161 · Supreme Court of India · 2006

  Clemency orders under Articles 72 and 161 are open to limited judicial review on five stated grounds; political considerations vitiate the order.

• M. Nagaraj v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2006) 8 SCC 212 · Supreme Court of India · 2006

  Reservation in promotion is permissible subject to quantifiable data on inadequacy of representation, administrative efficiency, the ceiling and the creamy layer.

• Jacob Mathew v. State of PunjabLandmark

  (2005) 6 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2005

  Criminal negligence must be gross; ordinary civil negligence does not attract s. 304A IPC / s. 106 BNS.

• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot SandhuLandmarkPartly overruled

  (2005) 11 SCC 600 · Supreme Court of India · 2005

  Conspiracy requires proof of agreement, which may be circumstantial; knowledge of or association with a conspiracy without agreement is not conspiracy.

• Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (2005) 4 SCC 649 · Supreme Court of India · 2005

  Public functions or de facto monopoly alone do not make a private body 'State'; governmental domination is essential.

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran SinghLandmark

  (2004) 3 SCC 297 · Supreme Court of India · 2004

  The insurer must prove a fundamental breach of the licence condition attributable to the insured's lack of care, and may in any event be directed to pay the third party and recover from the owner.

• Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd v. Saw Pipes LtdLandmark

  (2003) 5 SCC 705 · Supreme Court of India · 2003

  A genuine pre-estimate of loss may be awarded under s. 74 without proof of actual loss where loss is difficult to prove; a penalty yields only reasonable compensation.

• Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical BiologyLandmark

  (2002) 5 SCC 111 · Supreme Court of India · 2002

  Financial, functional and administrative domination by government, pervasive and particular to the body, makes it 'State'; mere regulatory control does not.

• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok HurraLandmark

  (2002) 4 SCC 388 · Supreme Court of India · 2002

  Final judgments of the Supreme Court are not open to Article 32 challenge; a curative petition lies in exceptional cases to cure gross miscarriage of justice.

• Sanju v. State of Madhya PradeshLandmark

  (2002) 5 SCC 371 · Supreme Court of India · 2002

  Angry words such as 'go and die' spoken in a quarrel, without the intention to drive the person to suicide and without proximity to the act, are not instigation.

• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of KarnatakaLandmark

  (2002) 8 SCC 481 · Supreme Court of India · 2002

  Establishing and administering an educational institution is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30(1); the State is the unit for identifying minorities; unaided institutions have autonomy subject to merit, transparency and no profiteering.

• Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Landmark

  (2001) 2 SCC 9 · Supreme Court of India · 2001

  The owner of a motor vehicle is strictly liable for death or injury caused by its use on the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher, even without proof of negligence, unless an exception such as act of God applies.

• Ramesh Kumar v. State of ChhattisgarhLandmark

  (2001) 9 SCC 618 · Supreme Court of India · 2001

  Instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage; a word spoken in anger without intending its consequence is not instigation.

• D.K. Basu v. State of West BengalLandmark

  (1997) 1 SCC 416 · Supreme Court of India · 1997

  Arrest and detention must follow the eleven D.K. Basu safeguards flowing from Articles 21 and 22, and custodial violence gives rise to compensation under public law.

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1997) 3 SCC 261 · Supreme Court of India · 1997

  Judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded by Parliament.

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal NathLandmark

  (1997) 1 SCC 388 · Supreme Court of India · 1997

  The State is trustee of natural resources for the public and cannot permit their private exploitation inconsistent with their natural use; the polluter must pay to restore the environment.

• Mafatlal Industries Ltd v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1997) 5 SCC 536 · Supreme Court of India · 1997

  Refund of an illegal tax is subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment: no refund to a claimant who has passed the burden on to others.

• Vishaka v. State of RajasthanLandmark

  AIR 1997 SC 3011 · Supreme Court of India · 1997

  Sexual harassment at work violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21; the Vishaka Guidelines filled the legal vacuum.

• Gian Kaur v. State of PunjabLandmark

  (1996) 2 SCC 648 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  The right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die; ss. 306 and 309 IPC are valid.

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1996) 3 SCC 212 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  An enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is absolutely liable for the pollution it causes and, under the polluter pays principle, must bear the cost of compensating the victims and restoring the environment, irrespective of fault.

• M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil NaduLandmark

  (1996) 6 SCC 756 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  Article 24's ban on child labour in hazardous employment must be enforced through rehabilitation: employer compensation, family support and compulsory education for the withdrawn child.

• State of Punjab v. Gurmit SinghLandmark

  (1996) 2 SCC 384 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  The testimony of a rape victim needs no corroboration as a rule of law; the court may convict on it alone if it inspires confidence.

• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  AIR 1996 SC 2715 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  Sustainable development, with the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, is part of the law of India and binds industry and the State under Articles 21, 47, 48A and 51A(g).

• Indian Medical Association v. V.P. ShanthaLandmark

  (1995) 6 SCC 651 · Supreme Court of India · 1995

  Services of medical practitioners and hospitals rendered for consideration are 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act; free service to all and service under a contract of employment are excluded.

• Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial InstituteLandmark

  (1995) 3 SCC 583 · Supreme Court of India · 1995

  A buyer who uses goods himself exclusively to earn his livelihood by self-employment is a consumer; a buyer who uses them in a profit-making enterprise is not, and the question is one of fact.

• Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. GillLandmark

  (1995) 6 SCC 194 · Supreme Court of India · 1995

  Modesty means womanly propriety of behaviour; an act that a reasonable woman considers an affront to her decency outrages it.

• Sarla Mudgal v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  AIR 1995 SC 1531 · Supreme Court of India · 1995

  Conversion for a second marriage does not dissolve the first; the second marriage is void and bigamous.

• N. Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra PradeshLandmark

  (1994) 6 SCC 205 · Supreme Court of India · 1994

  Sovereign immunity of the State is confined to its primary and inalienable functions; for the negligent exercise of ordinary statutory or administrative powers the State is liable in tort like any other person.

• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil NaduLandmark

  (1994) 6 SCC 632 · Supreme Court of India · 1994

  Public officials cannot recover damages for defamation relating to their official conduct unless the statement is shown to be false and made with reckless disregard for truth.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1994) 3 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 1994

  Article 356 proclamations are open to judicial review and majority must be tested on the floor of the House.

• Chand Rani v. Kamal RaniLandmark

  (1993) 1 SCC 519 · Supreme Court of India · 1993

  In a sale of immovable property time is not presumed to be of the essence, but it may be made so by the terms and circumstances of the contract.

• Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. GuptaLandmark

  (1994) 1 SCC 243 · Supreme Court of India · 1993

  A statutory authority that builds and allots houses for consideration renders a service, and the consumer fora may compensate the allottee for its deficiency, including for harassment and mental agony, the amount to be recovered from the officers responsible.

• Nilabati Behera v. State of OrissaLandmark

  (1993) 2 SCC 746 · Supreme Court of India · 1993

  Compensation under Articles 32 and 226 for the violation of a fundamental right is a public law remedy based on the strict liability of the State, to which sovereign immunity is no defence.

• Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra PradeshLandmarkPartly overruled

  (1993) 1 SCC 645 · Supreme Court of India · 1993

  The right to free education up to the age of fourteen is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Article 45; beyond that it is subject to the State's economic capacity.

• Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire PoliceLandmark

  [1992] 1 AC 310 · House of Lords · 1992

  A secondary victim of psychiatric injury must show a close tie of love and affection with the victim, proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath, and perception by his own unaided senses.

• Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad SinghLandmark

  (1992) 1 SCC 719 · Supreme Court of India · 1992

  Temporary injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury must all be shown.

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 · Supreme Court of India · 1992

  OBC reservation valid; 50 per cent ceiling; creamy layer excluded; no reservation in promotion under Article 16(4) as originally framed.

• St. Stephen's College v. University of DelhiLandmarkPartly overruled

  (1992) 1 SCC 558 · Supreme Court of India · 1992

  An aided minority institution may prefer its own community in admissions but must admit a reasonable proportion of non-minority students on merit.

• Pitts v. HuntLandmark

  [1991] 1 QB 24 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1991

  No action lies between participants in a joint illegal enterprise for harm arising directly from it, and contributory negligence cannot be assessed at 100 per cent.

• Caparo Industries plc v. DickmanLandmark

  [1990] 2 AC 605 · House of Lords · 1990

  A duty of care requires foreseeability of damage, proximity, and that it be fair, just and reasonable to impose it.

• Kehar Singh v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1989) 1 SCC 204 · Supreme Court of India · 1989

  The President may re-examine the evidence under Article 72, need not give an oral hearing, and his decision is reviewable only on the limited grounds in Maru Ram.

• Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1989) 1 SCC 674 · Supreme Court of India · 1989

  A mass tort claim against a hazardous enterprise may be settled by the Supreme Court in the victims' interest under its power to do complete justice, but a civil settlement cannot quash the criminal liability arising from the same disaster.

• Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)Landmark

  AIR 1988 SC 1883 · Supreme Court of India · 1988

  The gist of criminal conspiracy is the agreement, which may be proved by circumstantial evidence; each conspirator need not know every detail of the plan.

• D.C. Wadhwa v. State of BiharLandmark

  (1987) 1 SCC 378 · Supreme Court of India · 1987

  Re-promulgation of an ordinance without placing it before the Legislature is a fraud on the Constitution.

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  AIR 1987 SC 1086 · Supreme Court of India · 1987

  An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely and non-delegably liable to compensate everyone harmed by an accident in that activity, with no exceptions, and the compensation is to be measured by the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise.

• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of KeralaLandmark

  (1986) 3 SCC 615 · Supreme Court of India · 1986

  The freedom of speech includes the right not to speak; sincerely held religious belief is protected irrespective of its rationality.

• Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v. Brojo Nath GangulyLandmark

  AIR 1986 SC 1571 · Supreme Court of India · 1986

  Unfair and unreasonable terms imposed by a party with unequal bargaining power are void as against public policy.

• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano BegumLandmark

  AIR 1985 SC 945 · Supreme Court of India · 1985

  Section 125 CrPC applies to divorced Muslim women; the Court urged Parliament to act on Article 44.

• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal CorporationLandmark

  (1985) 3 SCC 545 · Supreme Court of India · 1985

  The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, and deprivation of livelihood requires a fair and reasonable procedure.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1984) 3 SCC 161 · Supreme Court of India · 1984

  Proof of forced labour raises a presumption of bonded labour; the State must identify, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers under Article 23 and the 1976 Act.

• D.S. Nakara v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1983) 1 SCC 305 · Supreme Court of India · 1983

  An arbitrary cut-off date dividing one class of pensioners violates Article 14; socialism in the Preamble means a welfare State securing a decent standard of life from cradle to grave.

• McLoughlin v. O'BrianLandmark

  [1983] 1 AC 410 · House of Lords · 1983

  A close relative who perceives the immediate aftermath of an accident and suffers psychiatric illness may recover in negligence, subject to limits of relationship, proximity and means of perception.

• Mithu v. State of PunjabLandmark

  AIR 1983 SC 473 · Supreme Court of India · 1983

  A mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional; the court must retain discretion between death and life imprisonment.

• Rudul Sah v. State of BiharLandmark

  AIR 1983 SC 1086 · Supreme Court of India · 1983

  Compensation may be awarded by the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the violation of the right to life and personal liberty, so that the fundamental right is not reduced to a formality.

• A.K. Roy v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1982) 1 SCC 271 · Supreme Court of India · 1982

  Preventive detention under the NSA is constitutional; an ordinance is law under Article 21; the detenu has no right to counsel before the advisory board unless the State uses one; the 44th Amendment's change to Article 22(4) cannot be enforced by mandamus.

• People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1982) 3 SCC 235 · Supreme Court of India · 1982

  Payment below the minimum wage is forced labour under Article 23; Articles 23 and 24 bind private employers and the State alike.

• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib SehravardiLandmark

  (1981) 1 SCC 722 · Supreme Court of India · 1981

  A body, statutory or not, is 'State' if it is an instrumentality or agency of the government judged by the six cumulative tests.

• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of DelhiLandmark

  (1981) 1 SCC 608 · Supreme Court of India · 1981

  The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity and the bare necessaries of life, and extends to prisoners and detenus.

• Maru Ram v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1981) 1 SCC 107 · Supreme Court of India · 1981

  The pardoning power is exercised on ministerial advice, must be exercised fairly and on relevant considerations, and is not fettered by section 433A CrPC.

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of IndiaLandmarkPartly overruled

  1981 Supp SCC 87 · Supreme Court of India · 1981

  Any member of the public acting bona fide may move the court on behalf of persons unable to do so; locus standi is liberalised in public interest litigation.

• Waman Rao v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1981) 2 SCC 362 · Supreme Court of India · 1981

  Ninth Schedule laws added before 24 April 1973 are immune; those added later are open to basic-structure review.

• Bachan Singh v. State of PunjabLandmark

  AIR 1980 SC 898 · Supreme Court of India · 1980

  Death penalty only in the rarest of rare cases; life imprisonment is the rule.

• Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  AIR 1980 SC 1789 · Supreme Court of India · 1980

  Parliament's amending power is limited and cannot be made unlimited; judicial review is part of the basic structure.

• Municipal Council, Ratlam v. VardhichandLandmark

  (1980) 4 SCC 162 · Supreme Court of India · 1980

  A local authority cannot plead financial inability to avoid its statutory duty to remove a public nuisance ordered under s. 133 CrPC.

• State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. YakubLandmark

  (1980) 3 SCC 57 · Supreme Court of India · 1980

  An act reasonably proximate to the completion of the offence, done with intent after preparation, is an attempt; proximity is judged by the circumstances of each case.

• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of BiharLandmark

  (1980) 1 SCC 81 · Supreme Court of India · 1979

  Speedy trial and free legal aid to the indigent accused are components of the fair procedure guaranteed by Article 21.

• Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of IndiaLandmark

  (1979) 3 SCC 489 · Supreme Court of India · 1979

  Government instrumentalities are 'State'; State action in grant of contracts and largesse must be non-arbitrary and conform to announced standards.

• Tukaram v. State of MaharashtraLandmarkOverruled

  AIR 1979 SC 185 · Supreme Court of India · 1979

  The decision equated passive submission with consent - a view legislatively reversed in 1983.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1978) 1 SCC 248 · Supreme Court of India · 1978

  Procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are read together.

• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. DaniLandmark

  (1978) 2 SCC 424 · Supreme Court of India · 1978

  Article 20(3) protects a suspect at the police interrogation stage against answers that tend to incriminate, and compulsion includes psychological pressure.

• Sunil Batra v. Delhi AdministrationLandmark

  (1978) 4 SCC 494 · Supreme Court of India · 1978

  Prisoners retain their fundamental rights; solitary confinement and bar fetters cannot be imposed by jail officials as extra punishment.

• Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya PradeshLandmark

  (1977) 1 SCC 677 · Supreme Court of India · 1977

  'Propagate' in Article 25(1) means spreading the tenets of a religion and does not include a right to convert another person.

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant ShuklaLandmarkOverruled

  AIR 1976 SC 1207 · Supreme Court of India · 1976

  Held that liberty could be wholly suspended in an Emergency - overruled in Puttaswamy (2017).

• Sri Krishan v. Kurukshetra UniversityLandmark

  AIR 1976 SC 376 · Supreme Court of India · 1976

  Mere silence as to a fact the other party could discover by ordinary diligence is not fraud.

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj NarainLandmark

  1975 Supp SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 1975

  The rule of law, free and fair elections and judicial review are part of the basic structure and cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendment.

• Sirros v. MooreLandmark

  [1975] QB 118 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1975

  A judge acting judicially in the honest belief that he has jurisdiction is immune from liability in damages, and so are officers who carry out his order in good faith.

• Sukhdev Singh v. BhagatramLandmark

  (1975) 1 SCC 421 · Supreme Court of India · 1975

  A statutory corporation that is an instrumentality or agency of government is 'State' and its regulations have the force of law.

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil NaduLandmark

  (1974) 4 SCC 3 · Supreme Court of India · 1974

  Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness; arbitrary State action violates Article 14.

• Shamsher Singh v. State of PunjabLandmark

  AIR 1974 SC 2192 · Supreme Court of India · 1974

  The President and the Governor are constitutional heads; their satisfaction is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers.

• Deo Narain v. State of Uttar PradeshLandmark

  AIR 1973 SC 473 · Supreme Court of India · 1973

  The right of private defence arises on reasonable apprehension of danger; the defender need not wait to be hit.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of KeralaLandmark

  (1973) 4 SCC 225 · Supreme Court of India · 1973

  Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1972) 2 SCC 788 · Supreme Court of India · 1972

  A law is tested by its direct effect on the fundamental right; page and edition limits on newspapers violate Article 19(1)(a).

• K.A. Abbas v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1970) 2 SCC 780 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  Films may be subjected to pre-censorship under Article 19(2) because of their distinct impact, subject to precise standards.

• M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of TravancoreLandmark

  AIR 1970 SC 504 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  A stranger to a contract cannot enforce it unless it creates a trust or charge in his favour or falls within a recognised exception.

• Malkiat Singh v. State of PunjabLandmark

  AIR 1970 SC 713 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  Acts that would be harmless if the accused changed his mind are preparation, not attempt (locus poenitentiae).

• Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of IndiaLandmark

  (1970) 1 SCC 248 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  A law is tested by its direct effect on every fundamental right it impairs; the fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive.

• Nair Service Society Ltd v. K.C. AlexanderLandmark

  AIR 1968 SC 1165 · Supreme Court of India · 1968

  Possession is good title against all but the true owner; a trespasser cannot plead jus tertii.

• I.C. Golaknath v. State of PunjabLandmarkOverruled

  AIR 1967 SC 1643 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  Fundamental rights were held beyond Parliament's amending power - superseded by the basic structure doctrine.

• Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. LtdLandmark

  AIR 1967 SC 1098 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  A negative covenant during the term of employment is valid; post-employment restraints are void under section 27.

• Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan LalLandmark

  AIR 1967 SC 1857 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  Every statutory or constitutional authority invested with legal powers is an 'other authority' under Article 12, irrespective of the nature of its functions.

• Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas & Co.Landmark

  AIR 1966 SC 543 · Supreme Court of India · 1966

  A contract by telephone is made where the offeror hears the acceptance.

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. SubhagwantiLandmark

  AIR 1966 SC 1750 · Supreme Court of India · 1966

  The collapse of a structure under the defendant's exclusive control raises an inference of negligence that the defendant must rebut.

• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of MaharashtraLandmark

  AIR 1967 SC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 1966

  Judicial orders of competent courts are not amenable to Article 32 as violating fundamental rights; the judiciary acting judicially is not 'State'.

• Nathulal v. State of Madhya PradeshLandmark

  AIR 1966 SC 43 · Supreme Court of India · 1966

  Mens rea is presumed in a statutory offence unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication.

• Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar PradeshLandmarkDistinguished

  AIR 1965 SC 1039 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  No action lies against the State for a tort committed by its servants in the exercise of powers referable to the sovereign powers of the State, as opposed to its non-sovereign activities.

• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans GeorgeLandmark

  AIR 1965 SC 722 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  Mens rea may be excluded by necessary implication from an economic regulatory statute; Gazette publication is notice to all.

• Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of GujaratLandmark

  AIR 1964 SC 1563 · Supreme Court of India · 1964

  Burden of proving unsoundness of mind is on the accused on a preponderance of probability; reasonable doubt about mens rea still earns acquittal.

• Fateh Chand v. Balkishan DasLandmark

  AIR 1963 SC 1405 · Supreme Court of India · 1963

  Under s. 74 a penalty or forfeiture clause entitles the injured party only to reasonable compensation, not exceeding the sum stipulated.

• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshLandmarkPartly overruled

  AIR 1963 SC 1295 · Supreme Court of India · 1963

  Fundamental rights can be restricted only by law; the majority's denial of a right to privacy was overruled in Puttaswamy.

• K.M. Nanavati v. State of MaharashtraLandmark

  AIR 1962 SC 605 · Supreme Court of India · 1962

  Grave and sudden provocation is judged by the reasonable-man test and is lost once there is time to cool down.

• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of BiharLandmark

  AIR 1962 SC 955 · Supreme Court of India · 1962

  Sedition requires an intention or tendency to incite violence or public disorder; mere criticism of government is not sedition.

• State of Rajasthan v. VidyawatiLandmark

  AIR 1962 SC 933 · Supreme Court of India · 1962

  The State is liable under Article 300 for torts committed by its servants in the course of employment in non-sovereign activities, exactly as a private employer would be.

• State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and SonsLandmark

  AIR 1962 SC 779 · Supreme Court of India · 1962

  Three conditions ground s. 70: a lawful act or delivery, done without intending it to be gratuitous, whose benefit the other person voluntarily enjoys.

• Abhayanand Mishra v. State of BiharLandmark

  AIR 1961 SC 1698 · Supreme Court of India · 1961

  Preparation ends and attempt begins with the first act towards commission of the offence.

• Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. (The Wagon Mound)Landmark

  [1961] AC 388 · Privy Council (on appeal from New South Wales) · 1961

  A negligent defendant is liable only for damage of a reasonably foreseeable kind.

• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu OghadLandmark

  AIR 1961 SC 1808 · Supreme Court of India · 1961

  'To be a witness' under Article 20(3) covers testimonial compulsion only; fingerprints, handwriting and similar physical evidence are not protected.

• In re Berubari UnionLandmarkPartly overruled

  AIR 1960 SC 845 · Supreme Court of India · 1960

  Cession of territory requires a constitutional amendment, not a law under Article 3; the Preamble is a key to the makers' intention but neither a source of power nor a limitation on it.

• Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas MaiyaLandmark

  AIR 1959 SC 781 · Supreme Court of India · 1959

  A wager is void but not unlawful; collateral agreements to it are enforceable.

• Sales Tax Officer, Banaras v. Kanhaiya Lal Mukundlal SarafLandmark

  AIR 1959 SC 135 · Supreme Court of India · 1959

  'Mistake' in s. 72 includes mistake of law, and 'coercion' bears its ordinary meaning, not the s. 15 definition.

• In re Kerala Education BillLandmark

  AIR 1958 SC 956 · Supreme Court of India · 1958

  Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are to be harmoniously construed; regulation of minority institutions must not destroy the right to administer.

• State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co.Landmark

  AIR 1958 SC 560 · Supreme Court of India · 1958

  A sale of goods needs an agreement to sell movables, transfer of property in them and a money price; a works contract has no separable sale of materials.

• Virsa Singh v. State of PunjabLandmark

  AIR 1958 SC 465 · Supreme Court of India · 1958

  For murder under clause thirdly, the accused need only intend the injury inflicted; its sufficiency to cause death is judged objectively.

• Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management CommitteeLandmark

  [1957] 1 WLR 582 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1957

  A doctor who acts in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion is not negligent.

• Basdev v. State of PepsuLandmark

  AIR 1956 SC 488 · Supreme Court of India · 1956

  Under s. 24 BNS a voluntarily intoxicated person is presumed to have the knowledge of a sober person; intention is judged on the facts.

• Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of BiharLandmark

  AIR 1955 SC 661 · Supreme Court of India · 1955

  Article 141 binds all courts but not the Supreme Court itself, which may overrule its own erroneous decisions.

• Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya PradeshLandmark

  AIR 1955 SC 781 · Supreme Court of India · 1955

  Pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are eclipsed, not obliterated, and revive when the inconsistency is removed.

• Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad IshaqueLandmark

  AIR 1955 SC 233 · Supreme Court of India · 1955

  Certiorari lies for jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice or an error of law apparent on the face of the record; it is not an appeal.

• Pandurang v. State of HyderabadLandmark

  AIR 1955 SC 216 · Supreme Court of India · 1955

  Common intention requires a prior meeting of minds; same or similar intention is not enough.

• Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of PunjabLandmark

  AIR 1955 SC 549 · Supreme Court of India · 1955

  Executive power is the residue of governmental functions; it needs no statute unless it infringes rights; the President is a constitutional head who acts on ministerial advice.

• Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur MuttLandmark

  AIR 1954 SC 282 · Supreme Court of India · 1954

  Religion under Articles 25-26 includes essential religious practices, determined by the religion's own doctrines; the State may regulate a denomination's property but not its matters of religion.

• Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co.Landmark

  AIR 1954 SC 44 · Supreme Court of India · 1954

  Frustration under section 56 covers impracticability that destroys the basis of the contract, not mere delay.

• Maqbool Hussain v. State of BombayLandmark

  AIR 1953 SC 325 · Supreme Court of India · 1953

  Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) requires an earlier prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal for the same offence.

• State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali SarkarLandmark

  AIR 1952 SC 75 · Supreme Court of India · 1952

  Classification under Article 14 must rest on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the law.

• In re Delhi Laws ActLandmark

  AIR 1951 SC 332 · Supreme Court of India · 1951

  A legislature may delegate ancillary powers but not its essential legislative function of laying down policy.

• Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of IndiaLandmarkPartly overruled

  AIR 1951 SC 458 · Supreme Court of India · 1951

  An amendment of the Constitution is not 'law' within Article 13(2).

• State of Madras v. Champakam DorairajanLandmark

  AIR 1951 SC 226 · Supreme Court of India · 1951

  Fundamental rights prevail over Directive Principles; caste-based allocation of college seats without constitutional authority is void.

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of MadrasLandmarkOverruled

  AIR 1950 SC 27 · Supreme Court of India · 1950

  Any procedure enacted by law satisfies Article 21 - a reading overruled by Maneka Gandhi.

• Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya PradeshLandmark

  AIR 1951 SC 118 · Supreme Court of India · 1950

  Reasonable restrictions must not be arbitrary or excessive and must balance the freedom against the social control permitted.

• Romesh Thappar v. State of MadrasLandmark

  AIR 1950 SC 124 · Supreme Court of India · 1950

  Freedom of speech includes freedom of circulation; restrictions must fall strictly within Article 19(2).

• Mahbub Shah v. EmperorLandmark

  AIR 1945 PC 118 · Judicial Committee of the Privy Council · 1945

  Common intention needs a prior meeting of minds; similar intention is not common intention.

• Bourhill v. YoungLandmark

  [1943] AC 92 · House of Lords · 1943

  No duty of care is owed in respect of nervous shock to a person outside the range of foreseeable injury; road users are presumed to have ordinary fortitude.

• Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills LtdLandmark

  [1936] AC 85 · Privy Council (on appeal from the High Court of Australia) · 1936

  Latent defects breach the implied conditions of merchantable quality and fitness; a counter sale by generic description is a sale by description.

• Haynes v. HarwoodLandmark

  [1935] 1 KB 146 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1935

  A person injured while reasonably rescuing others from a danger created by the defendant's negligence is not barred by volenti non fit injuria.

• Bell v. Lever Brothers LtdLandmark

  [1932] AC 161 · House of Lords · 1932

  A mistake as to quality avoids a contract only if it makes the thing essentially different from what the parties believed; a mistake as to value is not enough.

• Donoghue v. StevensonLandmark

  [1932] AC 562 · House of Lords · 1932

  A person owes a duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which he can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his neighbour, that is, anyone closely and directly affected by his conduct; a manufacturer therefore owes such a duty to the ultimate consumer.

• Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King EmperorLandmark

  AIR 1925 PC 1 · Judicial Committee of the Privy Council · 1925

  Every participant in a crime committed with a common intention is liable as if he did it alone.

• Hambrook v. Stokes Bros.Landmark

  [1925] 1 KB 141 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1925

  Nervous shock suffered by a parent from fear for the safety of her children, perceived with her own senses, is recoverable from the negligent defendant.

• Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar MullickLandmark

  (1925) 52 IA 245 · Privy Council · 1925

  A Hindu idol is a juristic person; its interests are represented by the shebait and, where the shebaits are interested, by a disinterested next friend appointed by the court.

• Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju PrasadLandmark

  AIR 1924 PC 60 · Privy Council · 1924

  Unconscionableness of a bargain is not the first thing to be considered; the court must first find a position to dominate the will before the burden shifts under s. 16(3).

• Rowland v. DivallLandmark

  [1923] 2 KB 500 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1923

  Breach of the implied condition of title is a total failure of consideration entitling the buyer to recover the whole price.

• Balfour v. BalfourLandmark

  [1919] 2 KB 571 · Court of Appeal (England and Wales) · 1919

  Domestic and social agreements are presumed not to be intended to create legal relations.

• Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co.Landmark

  (1919) 122 LT 44 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1919

  A person may be falsely imprisoned without knowing it; knowledge of the restraint affects only the measure of damages.

• Lalman Shukla v. Gauri DuttLandmark

  (1913) 11 All LJ 489 · Allahabad High Court · 1913

  There is no acceptance of an offer that the acceptor did not know about.

• Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Co.Landmark

  [1912] AC 716 · House of Lords · 1912

  A master is liable for a servant's fraud within his apparent authority, even if committed for the servant's own benefit.

• Wallis, Son and Wells v. Pratt and HaynesLandmark

  [1911] AC 394 · House of Lords · 1911

  Acceptance limits the buyer's remedy to damages but does not turn a broken condition into a warranty; excluding 'warranties' leaves conditions intact.

• E. Hulton and Co. v. JonesLandmark

  [1910] AC 20 · House of Lords · 1910

  A publisher is liable for defamation if reasonable readers understand the words to refer to the plaintiff, whatever the publisher intended.

• Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini BegumLandmark

  (1910) 37 IA 152 · Privy Council · 1910

  A beneficiary of a trust or charge created by a contract may sue on it although not a party.

• Krell v. HenryLandmark

  [1903] 2 KB 740 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1903

  Non-occurrence of the event that was the foundation of the contract frustrates it.

• Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas GhoseLandmark

  (1903) 30 IA 114 · Judicial Committee of the Privy Council · 1903

  An agreement by a minor is void ab initio; a minor cannot be made to repay money advanced under it.

• Dulieu v. White and SonsLandmark

  [1901] 2 KB 669 · King's Bench Division (Divisional Court) · 1901

  Nervous shock caused by a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself is actionable without proof of physical impact.

• Salomon v. Salomon and Co.Landmark

  [1897] AC 22 · House of Lords · 1897

  A registered company is a legal person distinct from its members; its debts are its own and its members' liability is limited.

• Bradford Corporation v. PicklesLandmark

  [1895] AC 587 · House of Lords · 1895

  A lawful act does not become a tort because it is done with a bad motive.

• Helby v. MatthewsLandmark

  [1895] AC 471 · House of Lords · 1895

  A hirer with an option, but no obligation, to buy has not agreed to buy and cannot pass title to a pledgee or purchaser.

• Sherras v. De RutzenLandmark

  [1895] 1 QB 918 · Queen's Bench Division · 1895

  Mens rea is presumed in every statutory offence unless the statute or its subject matter clearly excludes it.

• Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co.Landmark

  [1894] AC 535 · House of Lords · 1894

  A restraint of trade is enforceable at common law if reasonable as between the parties and in the public interest.

• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.Landmark

  [1893] 1 QB 256 · Court of Appeal (England and Wales) · 1893

  A general offer is accepted by performing its conditions; no separate communication of acceptance is needed.

• Smith v. Baker and SonsLandmark

  [1891] AC 325 · House of Lords · 1891

  Knowledge of a risk is not by itself consent to it; volenti requires a free and voluntary agreement to bear the risk.

• Stanley v. PowellLandmark

  [1891] 1 QB 86 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1891

  An unintended injury caused without negligence is an inevitable accident and is not actionable, even in trespass.

• Derry v. PeekLandmark

  (1889) 14 App Cas 337 · House of Lords · 1889

  Fraud needs a false statement made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly.

• R v. TolsonLandmark

  (1889) 23 QBD 168 · Court for Crown Cases Reserved · 1889

  An honest and reasonable mistake of fact which, if true, would make the act innocent is a good defence.

• Chinnaya v. RamayyaLandmark

  (1882) ILR 4 Mad 137 · Madras High Court · 1882

  Consideration may move from a third party, not only from the promisee.

• Sturges v. BridgmanLandmark

  (1879) 11 Ch D 852 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1879

  It is no defence to nuisance that the plaintiff came to it, and prescription runs only from when the interference became actionable.

• Ward v. HobbsLandmark

  (1878) 4 App Cas 13 · House of Lords · 1878

  Caveat emptor: absent fraud, a duty to speak or a warranty, the seller is not liable for defects the buyer could have discovered.

• Nichols v. MarslandLandmark

  (1876) 2 Ex D 1 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1876

  Harm caused by an extraordinary natural event that could not reasonably be anticipated is an act of God and excuses even strict liability.

• Reg. v. GovindaLandmark

  (1876) ILR 1 Bom 342 · Bombay High Court · 1876

  Murder differs from culpable homicide in the degree of probability that the act will cause death.

• Madhub Chunder v. Rajcoomar DossLandmark

  (1874) 14 Beng LR 76 · Calcutta High Court · 1874

  Under s. 27 even a partial or reasonable restraint of trade is void; the English test of reasonableness does not apply.

• Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga SathupathyLandmark

  (1868) 12 MIA 397 · Privy Council · 1868

  Under the Hindu system of law clear proof of usage outweighs the written text of the law.

• Rylands v. FletcherLandmark

  (1868) LR 3 HL 330 · House of Lords · 1868

  A person who brings a dangerous thing on to his land for a non-natural use keeps it at his peril and is liable for the damage caused by its escape without proof of negligence, subject to the defences of act of God, act of a stranger, the plaintiff's default, consent and statutory authority.

• Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.Landmark

  (1865) 3 H and C 596 · Court of Exchequer Chamber (England) · 1865

  An accident with a thing under the defendant's management, of a kind that does not happen with proper care, is reasonable evidence of negligence unless explained.

• St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. TippingLandmark

  (1865) 11 HLC 642 · House of Lords · 1865

  Locality is no defence where a nuisance causes material injury to property; it is relevant only to interference with personal comfort.

• Raffles v. WichelhausLandmark

  (1864) 2 H & C 906 · Court of Exchequer (England) · 1864

  No contract arises where the parties mean different things by an ambiguous description of the subject matter.

• Byrne v. BoadleLandmark

  (1863) 2 H and C 722 · Court of Exchequer (England) · 1863

  The happening of an accident that ordinarily does not occur without negligence is itself evidence of the negligence of the person in control.

• Taylor v. CaldwellLandmark

  (1863) 3 B & S 826 · Court of Queen's Bench (England) · 1863

  Destruction of the specific thing on which the contract depends, without fault, discharges both parties.

• Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co.Landmark

  (1862) 1 H and C 526 · Court of Exchequer Chamber (England) · 1862

  A prohibited mode of doing authorised work remains within the course of employment.

• Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for IndiaLandmark

  (1861) 5 Bom HCR App 1 · Supreme Court of Calcutta · 1861

  The State is liable for its servants' torts in non-sovereign functions that private persons could perform, but not for acts in the exercise of sovereign powers.

• Tweddle v. AtkinsonLandmark

  (1861) 1 B & S 393 · Court of Queen's Bench (England) · 1861

  A stranger to the consideration cannot sue on the contract, although it was made for his benefit.

• Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.Landmark

  (1856) 11 Ex 781 · Court of Exchequer · 1856

  Negligence is judged by the conduct of a reasonable man, who need not guard against extraordinary and unforeseeable events.

• Hadley v. BaxendaleLandmark

  (1854) 9 Exch 341 · Court of Exchequer (England) · 1854

  Only losses that arise naturally or that both parties contemplated at contracting are recoverable.

• Hochster v. De la TourLandmark

  (1853) 2 E & B 678 · Court of Queen's Bench (England) · 1853

  An express renunciation before the date of performance is an immediate breach on which the promisee may sue at once.

• Lumley v. WagnerLandmark

  (1852) 1 De G M & G 604 · Court of Chancery (England) · 1852

  Equity enforces the negative promise by injunction even when it cannot enforce the positive one.

• Bridges v. HawkesworthLandmark

  (1851) 21 LJ QB 75 · Court of Queen's Bench · 1851

  The finder of a thing lost in the public part of premises has a better right to it than the occupier, who never possessed it; the finder's title is good against all but the true owner.

• Bird v. JonesLandmark

  (1845) 7 QB 742 · Court of Queen's Bench · 1845

  False imprisonment requires a total restraint of the plaintiff's liberty; blocking one way while leaving another reasonably open is a partial obstruction, not imprisonment.

• M'Naghten's CaseLandmark

  (1843) 10 Cl & F 200 · House of Lords · 1843

  Insanity is a defence only where the accused did not know the nature of his act or that it was wrong.

• Davies v. MannLandmark

  (1842) 10 M and W 546 · Court of Exchequer · 1842

  A defendant who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident by reasonable care is liable in full despite the plaintiff's prior negligence.

• Hyde v. WrenchLandmark

  (1840) 3 Beav 334 · Rolls Court, Court of Chancery (England) · 1840

  A counter-offer rejects the original offer, which cannot afterwards be accepted.

• Stephens v. MyersLandmark

  (1830) 4 C and P 349 · Court of Common Pleas (England), nisi prius · 1830

  A threatening advance with the present ability to strike, stopped before contact, is an assault.

• Bird v. HolbrookLandmark

  (1828) 4 Bing 628 · Court of Common Pleas (England) · 1828

  A person may not protect property by hidden devices that cause serious injury without notice; a trespasser injured by them can recover.

• Entick v. CarringtonLandmark

  (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 · Court of Common Pleas · 1765

  Every unauthorised invasion of private property is a trespass, and the State's officers must show positive legal authority to justify an entry and search.

• Moses v. MacferlanLandmark

  (1760) 2 Burr 1005 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1760

  The defendant who has received money which he ought in natural justice and equity to refund is bound to repay it, whether or not there was a contract.

• Armory v. DelamirieLandmark

  (1722) 1 Strange 505 · Court of King's Bench · 1722

  A finder has a possessory title good against everyone except the true owner and may sue a wrongful taker; a wrongdoer who withholds the thing has damages presumed against him.

• Cole v. TurnerLandmark

  (1704) 6 Mod 149 · Court of King's Bench (England), nisi prius · 1704

  The least touching of another in anger is a battery, while gentle unintended contact in the ordinary course of life is not.

• Ashby v. WhiteLandmark

  (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938 · House of Lords (on writ of error from the Court of King's Bench) · 1703

  The violation of a legal right is actionable without proof of actual damage, for where there is a right there is a remedy.

• Gloucester Grammar School CaseLandmark

  (1410) YB 11 Hen IV, fo 47, pl 21 · Court of Common Pleas (England) · 1410

  Loss caused by lawful competition is damnum sine injuria and gives no cause of action.

• Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu

  Supreme Court of India · 2022

  Punishment for violence in road rage must be proportionate to the gravity of the act and its consequences; an unduly lenient sentence may be corrected on review.

• Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt Ltd

  (2023) 1 SCC 355 · Supreme Court of India · 2022

  The 2018 Amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and does not govern pre-amendment contracts.

• Shrikant G. Mantri v. Punjab National Bank

  (2022) 5 SCC 42 · Supreme Court of India · 2022

  Services availed of for a profit-making business in a business-to-business relationship are availed of for a commercial purpose, and the person availing them is not a consumer.

• Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.

  (2022) 2 SCC 161 · Supreme Court of India · 2021

  Proceedings instituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before 20 July 2020 continue before the fora where they were filed; the pecuniary limits of the 2019 Act apply only to complaints instituted after it came into force.

• Amish Devgan v. Union of India

  (2021) 1 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2020

  Hate speech, judged by content, intent and impact in context, falls outside the protection of Article 19(1)(a).

• Satyam Dubey v. Union of India

  (2020) 10 SCC 46 · Supreme Court of India · 2020

  A fair, court-monitored investigation and protection of the victim's family and witnesses are part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21.

• Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi

  (2020) 2 SCC 787 · Supreme Court of India · 2020

  An offence without a minimum sentence of seven years is not a heinous offence under the JJ Act and a juvenile cannot be tried as an adult for it.

• Subed Ali v. State of Assam

  Supreme Court of India · 2020

  Common intention can be formed on the spot and is inferred from conduct; no separate overt act is required from each participant.

• Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers

  (2020) 2 SCC 265 · Supreme Court of India · 2019

  Whether a purchase is for a commercial purpose depends on whether its dominant purpose has a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity; the identity of the buyer is not decisive.

• Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

  (2018) 10 SCC 396 · Supreme Court of India · 2018

  No data on backwardness is required for SC/ST promotion quotas, but inadequacy of representation, efficiency and creamy layer exclusion apply.

• Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India

  (2018) 2 SCC 574 · Supreme Court of India · 2018

  Playing the National Anthem in cinema halls is optional; when played, the audience must show respect by standing.

• Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand

  2017 SCC OnLine Utt 367 · High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital · 2017

  A court may treat a river as a juristic person with human guardians to protect it; the Uttarakhand declaration is stayed by the Supreme Court.

• Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

  (2017) 14 SCC 663 · Supreme Court of India · 2017

  An LMV licence covers transport vehicles of the light motor vehicle class, so the insurer cannot plead want of a transport endorsement as a breach of the licence condition.

• Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora

  (2016) 10 SCC 165 · Supreme Court of India · 2016

  Restricting respondents under the 2005 Act to adult males is arbitrary and violates Article 14; the words 'adult male' are severed from s. 2(q).

• Savelife Foundation v. Union of India

  (2016) 7 SCC 194 · Supreme Court of India · 2016

  Good Samaritans who help road accident victims in good faith are protected from civil and criminal liability and from harassment, as part of the victims' right to life under Article 21.

• Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics Pvt Ltd

  (2015) 9 SCC 755 · Supreme Court of India · 2015

  A sale made subject to a third party's consent or a statutory permission is contingent and cannot be enforced until, and unless, that event happens.

• Zarina Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam

  (2015) 1 SCC 705 · Supreme Court of India · 2015

  A purchaser need not prove cash in hand; rising prices caused by the vendor's delay are no ground to refuse specific performance.

• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja

  (2014) 7 SCC 547 · Supreme Court of India · 2014

  Animals have legally protected interests: the law forbids unnecessary pain and suffering and Article 51A(g) imposes a duty of compassion, though animals are not legal persons.

• Manoj Narula v. Union of India

  (2014) 9 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2014

  Courts cannot add disqualifications to Article 75(1), but constitutional morality and constitutional trust require the Prime Minister not to recommend persons facing serious criminal charges as Ministers.

• S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India

  (2014) 6 SCC 36 · Supreme Court of India · 2014

  The State's duty to secure road safety flows from Article 21, and the Supreme Court may monitor its enforcement through a committee and continuing directions.

• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma

  (2013) 15 SCC 755 · Supreme Court of India · 2013

  A woman who knowingly enters a live-in relationship with a married man is not in a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act.

• Lillu v. State of Haryana

  (2013) 14 SCC 643 · Supreme Court of India · 2013

  The two-finger test violates the victim's right to privacy and dignity and cannot found a presumption of consent.

• Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan

  (2013) 9 SCC 65 · Supreme Court of India · 2013

  The Sarla Verma multiplier table and deduction rules govern the computation of just compensation in fatal claims under s. 166.

• Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz FoundationOverruled

  (2014) 1 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2013

  Upheld section 377 IPC; overruled in Navtej Singh Johar (2018).

• Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra

  (2012) 2 SCC 648 · Supreme Court of India · 2012

  Knowledge that death is likely may be inferred from drunken, high-speed driving in a populated area, making the resulting deaths culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• State v. Sanjeev Nanda

  (2012) 8 SCC 450 · Supreme Court of India · 2012

  Death caused by drunken, high-speed driving with knowledge of its likely result is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the court should also secure compensation for road accident victims.

• Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India

  (2011) 5 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2011

  The State must prevent child trafficking and forced labour and rehabilitate rescued children under Articles 21, 23 and 24.

• B.P. Singhal v. Union of India

  (2010) 6 SCC 331 · Supreme Court of India · 2010

  The President's pleasure under Article 156 must be exercised for valid reasons, not for political non-alignment; limited judicial review is available.

• Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

  (2010) 2 SCC 607 · Supreme Court of India · 2010

  A Claims Tribunal must secure the compensation it awards for the benefit of the victims by investment and controlled release, not merely determine its amount.

• T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan

  (2008) 3 SCC 748 · Supreme Court of India · 2008

  Composite negligence of two or more wrongdoers makes them jointly and severally liable to an innocent claimant without reduction; only the claimant's own contributory negligence reduces his compensation.

• S.R. Batra v. Taruna BatraOverruled

  (2007) 3 SCC 169 · Supreme Court of India · 2007

  Formerly held that a shared household must belong to or be rented by the husband or his joint family; overruled in Satish Chander Ahuja (2020).

• Percept D'Mark (India) Pvt Ltd v. Zaheer Khan

  (2006) 4 SCC 227 · Supreme Court of India · 2006

  Post-term negative covenants are void restraints of trade; injunction will not enforce them or compel personal service.

• Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy

  AIR 2006 Del 300 · Delhi High Court · 2006

  Privilege attaches to the occasion, so defamatory allegations repeated to the press outside privileged proceedings are actionable unless proved true.

• Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh

  (2004) 5 SCC 65 · Supreme Court of India · 2004

  Consumer fora must award compensation that is just and reasonable on the facts of each case, covering actual loss and mental agony, and must not apply a uniform rate of interest mechanically.

• Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

  (2004) 3 SCC 602 · Supreme Court of India · 2004

  Attempted rape needs an act towards penetration with intent to succeed despite resistance; lesser indecent acts are outraging modesty.

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur

  (2004) 2 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 2004

  An insurer is not liable under an Act policy for gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, but may be directed to pay and recover from the owner.

• Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam

  (2004) 3 SCC 199 · Supreme Court of India · 2004

  A man who subjects a woman to cruelty under the colour of a marriage is a husband for ss. 85 and 80 BNS even if the marriage is void.

• John Vallamattom v. Union of India

  AIR 2003 SC 2902 · Supreme Court of India · 2003

  Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act was arbitrary and discriminatory against Christians and void under Article 14.

• AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS

  (2002) 1 SCC 428 · Supreme Court of India · 2002

  Fundamental duties are not enforceable by writ but guide the interpretation of the Constitution and the test of reasonableness.

• Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi

  (2002) 6 SCC 635 · Supreme Court of India · 2002

  Complicated medical negligence complaints are within the consumer fora, which must decide them under the summary procedure on affidavit and expert evidence within the statutory time limits.

• Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka

  (2001) 2 SCC 577 · Supreme Court of India · 2001

  An accused cannot be convicted of dowry death without a charge under that section, because the presumption under s. 113B would otherwise operate without a chance to rebut it.

• Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das

  (2000) 2 SCC 465 · Supreme Court of India · 2000

  The State is liable for grave violations of Article 21 by its employees in non-sovereign activities, and Article 21 protects non-citizens too.

• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab

  (2000) 5 SCC 207 · Supreme Court of India · 2000

  Soon before death means a proximate and live link between the harassment and the death; relatives need specific evidence against each.

• Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass

  AIR 2000 SC 1421 · Supreme Court of India · 2000

  The Guru Granth Sahib installed in a gurdwara is a juristic person; legal personality is a creation of the law to meet social needs and is not limited to idols.

• Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra

  (1999) 1 SCC 759 · Supreme Court of India · 1999

  An attempt to molest a woman employee is sexual harassment; physical contact is not essential.

• Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India

  (1999) 6 SCC 667 · Supreme Court of India · 1999

  Exemplary damages for misfeasance in public office need proof of the tort, and the State's sovereign immunity in tort is now narrowly confined.

• Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi

  (2000) 1 SCC 98 · Supreme Court of India · 1999

  A member of a contributory statutory scheme such as the Employees' Provident Fund is a consumer of the services of the authority administering it.

• Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana

  (1998) 3 SCC 309 · Supreme Court of India · 1998

  Demands for dowry made after the marriage without any prior agreement attract s. 304B; harassment soon before death with a proximate link raises the presumption of dowry death.

• Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia

  (1998) 4 SCC 39 · Supreme Court of India · 1998

  A hospital answers for its staff's negligence, and both the parents who hire medical services for a child and the child who receives them are consumers entitled to compensation.

• K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan

  (1997) 3 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 1997

  A purchaser must act within a reasonable time; delay and inaction defeat readiness and willingness.

• Bharathi Knitting Co. v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier

  (1996) 4 SCC 704 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  A consumer is bound by a limitation-of-liability clause in a contract he has signed, and the consumer forum cannot award compensation beyond it, subject now to the power to strike down unfair contract terms.

• Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty

  (1996) 1 SCC 490 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  Rape is a violation of Article 21 and the victim may be awarded interim compensation during the trial.

• Page v. Smith

  [1996] AC 155 · House of Lords · 1996

  For a primary victim, foreseeability of physical injury is sufficient to recover for psychiatric injury, which need not itself have been foreseeable.

• Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel

  (1996) 4 SCC 332 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  A practitioner who treats a patient with a system of medicine in which he is not qualified or registered is negligent per se.

• Revill v. Newbery

  [1996] QB 567 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1996

  A criminal trespasser injured by excessive force may recover in negligence, subject to a reduction for his contributory negligence.

• S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda

  (1996) 6 SCC 734 · Supreme Court of India · 1996

  A non-member of Parliament may be appointed Prime Minister under Article 75(5) provided he becomes a member within six months.

• Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd v. Coca Cola Co.

  (1995) 5 SCC 545 · Supreme Court of India · 1995

  Negative stipulations operating during the contract are enforceable by injunction and are not restraints of trade.

• Jay Laxmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat

  (1994) 4 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 1994

  A public authority which negligently constructs a public work is liable for the resulting damage like a private person, and the cause of action for such damage accrues when the damage occurs.

• Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das

  (1994) 4 SCC 225 · Supreme Court of India · 1994

  A prospective investor who has only applied for shares or units has not bought goods or hired services and is not a consumer.

• Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd

  [1991] 1 QB 564 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1991

  There is no sale by description without reliance on the description; an expert buyer who judges for himself buys at his own risk.

• Morris v. Murray

  [1991] 2 QB 6 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1991

  A plaintiff who joins an activity with a defendant whose intoxication makes the risk flagrant is volens and cannot recover.

• Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India

  (1990) 1 SCC 613 · Supreme Court of India · 1990

  The State may, as parens patriae, be made the exclusive representative of the victims of a mass disaster, subject to a duty to act in their interest and provide interim relief.

• Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden

  (1990) 2 SCC 117 · Supreme Court of India · 1990

  Interim mandatory injunction needs a strong case for trial, irreparable injury and balance of convenience.

• Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh

  AIR 1990 SC 1173 · Supreme Court of India · 1990

  A deed signed under a fraud as to its character is void; one signed under a fraud as to its contents is voidable.

• Krishena Kumar v. Union of India

  (1990) 4 SCC 207 · Supreme Court of India · 1990

  The ratio decidendi is the general principle on which the decision rests, abstracted from the facts; only that binds.

• Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi

  (1990) 1 SCC 422 · Supreme Court of India · 1990

  The State must compensate for deaths caused by police violence and may recover the amount from the officers responsible.

• Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao

  (1989) 4 SCC 131 · Supreme Court of India · 1989

  Settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession by anyone, including the owner, except by due process of law.

• Mahabir Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh

  (1989) 4 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · 1989

  Unjust enrichment needs enrichment, at the plaintiff's expense, that is unjust to retain; s. 72 enforces it and time runs from discovery of the mistake.

• Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee

  (1989) 4 SCC 155 · Supreme Court of India · 1989

  Street trading is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable municipal regulation.

• Union of India v. Raghubir Singh

  (1989) 2 SCC 754 · Supreme Court of India · 1989

  A smaller bench of the Supreme Court is bound by a larger bench; the Court overrules itself only in exceptional cases, because certainty is the purpose of precedent.

• Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai

  (1987) 3 SCC 234 · Supreme Court of India · 1987

  A legal representative entitled to claim compensation for death in a motor accident includes any person who represents the estate and suffers by the death, such as a brother.

• Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan

  (1987) 2 SCC 654 · Supreme Court of India · 1987

  An insurer can rely on an exclusion for unlicensed driving only where the insured himself was in breach; such clauses are read down to serve the purpose of third-party insurance.

• Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

  AIR 1986 SC 494 · Supreme Court of India · 1985

  Illegal detention in violation of Articles 21 and 22 may be remedied under Article 32 by exemplary compensation against the State even when the detention has ended.

• Collins v. Wilcock

  [1984] 1 WLR 1172 · Queen's Bench Divisional Court (England) · 1984

  Physical contact beyond what is generally acceptable in ordinary daily life, without lawful justification, is a battery, even by a police officer.

• Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan

  AIR 1984 Mad 103 · Madras High Court · 1984

  Protection of property by a hidden live wire without warning is excessive, and the owner is liable to a person injured by it.

• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab

  AIR 1983 SC 957 · Supreme Court of India · 1983

  Death penalty follows a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances under five indicative categories.

• Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal

  AIR 1982 All 285 · Allahabad High Court · 1982

  Dust pollution from a neighbour's machinery causing substantial discomfort and harm to health is an actionable private nuisance.

• Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

  (1981) 4 SCC 335 · Supreme Court of India · 1981

  Unreasonable and arbitrary service conditions violate Article 14; termination on first pregnancy is arbitrary.

• Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi

  AIR 1980 Cal 165 · Calcutta High Court · 1980

  Contributory negligence of a passenger who rides on the roof of a bus reduces, but does not bar, his claim against the negligent bus operators.

• Superintendence Company of India v. Krishan Murgai

  AIR 1980 SC 1717 · Supreme Court of India · 1980

  A covenant restraining an employee from competing after his service has ended is void under s. 27.

• Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan

  (1979) 2 SCC 170 · Supreme Court of India · 1979

  A second marriage valid in form under the parties' law or custom, contracted while the first spouse is living, is bigamy.

• Excel Wear v. Union of India

  (1978) 4 SCC 224 · Supreme Court of India · 1978

  The right to carry on business includes the right to close it; restrictions without reasons, time limit or review are unreasonable.

• Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad Sharma

  AIR 1978 All 86 · Allahabad High Court · 1978

  A substantial addition to noise and vibration in a residential locality that seriously disturbs neighbours' comfort is an actionable nuisance.

• State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi

  AIR 1978 SC 1263 · Supreme Court of India · 1978

  A servant acting in a personal capacity outside the course of business does not make the employer liable.

• State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi

  1978 Cri LJ 1305 (Ori) · Orissa High Court · 1978

  Accidental death in the course of a lawful act done with proper care and without criminal intention or knowledge is excused under s. 18 BNS.

• Hiralal Mallick v. State of Bihar

  AIR 1977 SC 2236 · Supreme Court of India · 1977

  A child offender above twelve is liable, but his intention is judged by his own maturity and his sentence must aim at reform.

• Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan

  (1977) 2 SCC 441 · Supreme Court of India · 1977

  A claim under the motor accident provisions is a claim in tort, so the owner and his insurer are liable only on proof of the driver's negligence in the course of employment.

• Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co.

  AIR 1977 SC 1735 · Supreme Court of India · 1977

  An employer is vicariously liable for its manager's negligent driving in the course of employment, and an unexplained accident may raise an inference of negligence.

• State of Rajasthan v. Union of IndiaPartly overruled

  (1977) 3 SCC 592 · Supreme Court of India · 1977

  Article 356 satisfaction is political and largely non-justiciable but reviewable for mala fides or extraneous grounds; the Constitution is amphibian, federal or unitary as circumstances require.

• Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab

  (1977) 4 SCC 540 · Supreme Court of India · 1977

  Conspirators need not know every detail of the plan; it is enough that they are co-participators in the main object, which may be achieved through a division of performances.

• Rose v. Plenty

  [1976] 1 WLR 141 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1976

  A prohibited act done to further the employer's business remains within the course of employment.

• Padmavati v. Dugganaika

  1975 ACJ 222 (Kant) · Karnataka High Court · 1975

  A person who voluntarily takes a lift accepts the ordinary risks of the journey, and no liability arises for a pure accident not caused by negligence.

• Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal

  AIR 1975 All 132 · Allahabad High Court · 1975

  Loss from the demolition of an illegal construction is damnum sine injuria, and malice does not make it actionable.

• Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

  AIR 1973 SC 947 · Supreme Court of India · 1973

  Capital punishment awarded in judicial discretion is constitutionally valid.

• Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling

  (1973) 2 SCC 674 · Supreme Court of India · 1973

  Production of the detenu is not essential to habeas corpus; legality of detention is judged at the date of the return.

• Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal

  AIR 1973 SC 2655 · Supreme Court of India · 1973

  An act towards the commission of an offence, done after preparation with intent to commit it, is an attempt even though it is not the penultimate act.

• Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi

  AIR 1972 SC 2685 · Supreme Court of India · 1972

  No bare declaration of title where consequential relief (possession) could have been, but was not, claimed.

• Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar

  AIR 1971 Ker 197 · Kerala High Court · 1971

  Mob violence is a human act and not an act of God; it does not excuse a common carrier.

• Sushila Devi v. Hari Singh

  AIR 1971 SC 1756 · Supreme Court of India · 1971

  Impossibility under s. 56 includes impracticability that destroys the object of the contract; money paid is then recoverable under s. 65.

• U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi

  AIR 1971 SC 1002 · Supreme Court of India · 1971

  Article 74(1) is mandatory; the Council of Ministers continues in office after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

• Bashir Ahmed v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

  AIR 1970 SC 1089 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  A term about the manner of performance that lies in the promisor's own hands is not a collateral contingency; the contract is absolute and the promisor cannot plead its own default.

• Lakshmi Amma v. Talengala Narayana Bhatta

  AIR 1970 SC 1367 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  A gift of all his property by an ailing, dependent man to the child caring for him, excluding the rest of the family, raises the presumption of undue influence.

• Maula Bux v. Union of India

  AIR 1970 SC 1955 · Supreme Court of India · 1970

  A security deposit cannot be forfeited as a penalty without proof of loss where loss is provable; only reasonable compensation is recoverable.

• Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax

  AIR 1969 SC 1089 · Supreme Court of India · 1969

  A Hindu idol is a juristic person which owns the dedicated property and may be taxed on its income through the shebait.

• Beswick v. Beswick

  [1968] AC 58 · House of Lords · 1968

  A third party cannot sue on a contract in his own right, but the promisee may obtain specific performance for the third party's benefit.

• Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh

  AIR 1968 SC 620 · Supreme Court of India · 1968

  A landlord must recover possession from a holding-over tenant by due process, not by force.

• Naihati Jute Mills Ltd v. Khyaliram Jagannath

  AIR 1968 SC 522 · Supreme Court of India · 1968

  No frustration where the risk was assumed, the difficulty self-induced, or performance merely onerous.

• Chandulal Harjivandas v. Commissioner of Income Tax

  AIR 1967 SC 816 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  A contract of insurance is a contingent contract because the insurer's liability depends on an uncertain collateral event.

• Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar

  AIR 1967 SC 868 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  A fixed completion date does not make time of the essence in a sale of land; but the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness.

• Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar

  AIR 1967 SC 553 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  An abettor may be convicted although the person abetted is acquitted; abetment by instigation is complete when the instigation is given.

• Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib

  AIR 1967 SC 878 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  Mere relationship or opportunity to influence does not prove undue influence; a position to dominate and its actual use must be shown before the burden shifts.

• Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy v. Konduru Seshu Reddy

  AIR 1967 SC 436 · Supreme Court of India · 1967

  Section 34 does not exhaust the court's power to make declarations.

• Kanwal Ram v. Himachal Pradesh Administration

  AIR 1966 SC 614 · Supreme Court of India · 1966

  The second marriage in a bigamy prosecution must be proved by evidence of its essential ceremonies, not by admissions.

• Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan

  AIR 1966 SC 1773 · Supreme Court of India · 1966

  Harm so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of it is no offence.

• Anwar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

  AIR 1965 SC 1651 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  A judicial officer acting without jurisdiction is protected under the 1850 Act only on proof of a good-faith belief that he had jurisdiction.

• Keshav Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

  AIR 1965 SC 1636 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  The Supreme Court revises its own decisions only for substantial and compelling reasons, weighing certainty against error.

• Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtra

  AIR 1965 SC 1616 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  The negligent act must be the causa causans of the death, not merely a causa sine qua non.

• Sajjan Singh v. State of RajasthanPartly overruled

  AIR 1965 SC 845 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  A constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Article 13(2); Shankari Prasad reaffirmed, with doubts expressed.

• University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao

  AIR 1965 SC 491 · Supreme Court of India · 1965

  Quo warranto lies for a substantive public office held without legal authority; expert appointments are not reviewed on merits.

• Hughes v. Lord Advocate

  [1963] AC 837 · House of Lords (Scottish appeal) · 1963

  If the kind of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable though the manner of its occurrence was not.

• Jai Dev v. State of Punjab

  AIR 1963 SC 612 · Supreme Court of India · 1963

  Private defence ends when the apprehension of danger ends; force used thereafter exceeds the right.

• State of West Bengal v. Union of India

  AIR 1963 SC 1241 · Supreme Court of India · 1963

  The States are not sovereign; the Constitution is not truly federal; Parliament may acquire State property under its legislative power.

• Wooldridge v. Sumner

  [1963] 2 QB 43 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1963

  A sports competitor owes spectators only a duty not to act with reckless disregard of their safety; errors of judgment in the heat of play are not negligence.

• Glinski v. McIver

  [1962] AC 726 · House of Lords · 1962

  Where a prosecutor has reasonable and probable cause, an action for malicious prosecution fails even if he was actuated by malice.

• Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas

  AIR 1962 SC 366 · Supreme Court of India · 1962

  Damages put the injured party in the position performance would have given, measured by the market price at the place and date of delivery, subject to mitigation.

• Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

  AIR 1962 SC 305 · Supreme Court of India · 1962

  Restrictions whose direct effect is on circulation of a newspaper violate Article 19(1)(a) unless within Article 19(2).

• Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions

  [1962] AC 220 · House of Lords · 1962

  The courts are custodians of public morals and may punish a conspiracy to corrupt public morals at common law; law may enforce society's shared morality.

• Smith v. Leech Brain and Co.

  [1962] 2 QB 405 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1962

  A tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him and is liable for the full extent of harm caused by a foreseeable kind of injury.

• Theaker v. Richardson

  [1962] 1 WLR 151 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1962

  Publication is established when a third person's reading of the statement was a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's conduct.

• Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh

  AIR 1961 SC 1457 · Supreme Court of India · 1961

  Res judicata applies to Article 32 petitions where the High Court has decided the same matter on merits.

• Om Parkash v. State of Punjab

  AIR 1961 SC 1782 · Supreme Court of India · 1961

  Attempt to murder under s. 307 IPC (s. 109 BNS) does not require the penultimate act; a course of conduct with intent to kill suffices.

• Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India

  AIR 1960 SC 554 · Supreme Court of India · 1960

  Delegation without a policy or standard to guide the delegate is excessive delegation and void.

• State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

  AIR 1960 Ori 161 · Orissa High Court · 1960

  Good faith is judged by the care a person in the accused's situation could take; an honest, situationally reasonable mistake of fact excuses.

• Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax

  AIR 1959 SC 149 · Supreme Court of India · 1959

  Fundamental rights cannot be waived.

• Dhannalal v. Thakur Chittarsingh

  AIR 1959 MP 240 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1959

  Noise that materially interferes with a neighbour's comfort and health is an actionable private nuisance without proof of injury to property.

• Faguna Kanta Nath v. State of AssamDistinguished

  AIR 1959 SC 673 · Supreme Court of India · 1959

  An abettor charged under s. 109 IPC (s. 49 BNS) cannot be convicted when the person abetted is acquitted on the finding that the offence was never committed.

• Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar

  AIR 1958 Pat 190 · Patna High Court · 1958

  Valid consent to death by an adult mitigates murder to culpable homicide; it is not a complete defence.

• Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad

  AIR 1958 Pat 445 · Patna High Court · 1958

  A defamatory letter sent only to the plaintiff is not published by the writer when a third person reads it at the plaintiff's instance, unless the writer knew that would happen.

• Kelsen v. Imperial Tobacco Co.

  [1957] 2 QB 334 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1957

  An intrusion into the airspace above another's land by a projecting structure is a trespass actionable per se.

• Davis Contractors Ltd v. Fareham Urban District Council

  [1956] AC 696 · House of Lords · 1956

  Hardship, delay or extra expense does not frustrate a contract; only a radical change in the obligation does.

• Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation

  [1955] 2 QB 327 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1955

  An acceptance by an instantaneous mode is complete only on receipt, and the contract is made where it is received.

• Simpkins v. Pays

  [1955] 1 WLR 975 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1955

  A social or domestic arrangement is a contract if, on the facts, the parties intended it to have legal consequences.

• Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd

  [1953] 1 QB 401 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1953

  Display of goods in a shop is an invitation to treat; the customer is the offeror and the shop the acceptor.

• Chirangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

  AIR 1952 Nag 282 · Nagpur High Court · 1952

  A good-faith mistake of fact that the thing attacked is an animal, not a human being, negatives the offence.

• Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari

  AIR 1952 SC 231 · Supreme Court of India · 1952

  A custom must be ancient, certain and reasonable, construed strictly and proved by clear and unambiguous evidence.

• State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali

  AIR 1952 Bom 84 · Bombay High Court · 1952

  Personal law is not "law" under Article 13; custom having the force of law is.

• Bolton v. Stone

  [1951] AC 850 · House of Lords · 1951

  A defendant is not negligent in failing to guard against a risk so small that a reasonable man would disregard it.

• Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay

  AIR 1951 SC 128 · Supreme Court of India · 1951

  Article 13(1) is prospective: pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights become void only from 26 January 1950 and only to the extent of the inconsistency.

• Ravule Hariprasada Rao v. State

  AIR 1951 SC 204 · Supreme Court of India · 1951

  No vicarious criminal liability of a master unless the statute clearly imposes it; mens rea is presumed.

• Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria v. State of Gondal

  AIR 1950 PC 99 · Privy Council · 1950

  Under s. 69 an interested payer recovers from the person bound to pay, whether that person's liability is statutory or contractual.

• Raj Rani v. Prem Adib

  AIR 1949 Bom 215 · Bombay High Court · 1949

  A minor's promise cannot be consideration, so a service contract made for a minor by her guardian is void.

• Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v. Newman Industries Ltd

  [1949] 2 KB 528 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1949

  Only loss reasonably foreseeable on the defendant's knowledge at the time of contracting is recoverable; special profits unknown to him are too remote.

• Sri Kakulam Subrahmanyam v. Kurra Subba Rao

  AIR 1948 PC 95 · Privy Council · 1948

  A guardian's contract for the minor's benefit, within the guardian's authority, binds the minor.

• Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffith

  [1947] AC 1 · House of Lords · 1947

  A general employer remains liable for a lent servant unless control over the manner of work has passed to the hirer.

• Mohammad Amin v. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee

  AIR 1947 PC 108 · Privy Council · 1947

  A criminal complaint which reaches a stage at which it causes damage to the accused is a prosecution for the purposes of malicious prosecution, even if no process was issued.

• Read v. J. Lyons and Co.

  [1947] AC 156 · House of Lords · 1947

  Without an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's premises, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher does not apply.

• Hannah v. Peel

  [1945] KB 509 · King's Bench Division · 1945

  An owner who has never occupied premises and does not know of a loose chattel on them does not possess it; the honest finder's title is good against all but the true owner.

• Glasgow Corporation v. Muir

  [1943] AC 448 · House of Lords · 1943

  The reasonable man's standard of foresight is objective and impersonal; there is no breach in failing to foresee what such a man would not foresee.

• Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

  [1942] AC 509 · House of Lords · 1942

  A negligent act done while performing authorised work is within the course of employment.

• Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia

  AIR 1940 All 486 · Allahabad High Court · 1940

  Knowledge that death is likely, without intention to cause it, makes the act culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• Newstead v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.

  [1940] 1 KB 377 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1940

  A true statement about one person is actionable by another person reasonably understood to be referred to, since as to him it is false.

• Dann v. Hamilton

  [1939] 1 KB 509 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1939

  A passenger who knows that the driver has been drinking is not volens unless the intoxication is so extreme that the risk is flagrant.

• Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal

  AIR 1937 All 610 · Allahabad High Court (Full Bench) · 1937

  No estoppel and no money decree against a minor who fraudulently induced a void mortgage once the money is spent.

• Warner Bros Pictures Inc v. Nelson

  [1937] 1 KB 209 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1937

  A negative covenant is enforced by injunction only so far as it does not amount to indirect specific performance of personal service.

• Craven-Ellis v. Canons Ltd

  [1936] 2 KB 403 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1936

  Services rendered under a void contract and accepted by the other party must be paid for at their reasonable value, by an obligation imposed by law.

• Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v. Emmett

  [1936] 2 KB 468 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1936

  Malice can make an otherwise lawful use of one's land an actionable nuisance.

• With v. O'Flanagan

  [1936] Ch 575 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1936

  A representation is continuing; if it becomes false before the contract is made, the representor must disclose the change.

• Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd.

  (1934) 50 TLR 581 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1934

  A statement that causes others to shun or avoid the plaintiff is defamatory even without imputing fault, and defamation in a film is libel.

• Asgarali Pradhania v. EmperorDistinguished

  AIR 1933 Cal 893 · Calcutta High Court · 1933

  Use of means inherently incapable of producing the offence was held not to amount to an attempt; the view is now doubted.

• Cutler v. United Dairies (London) Ltd.

  [1933] 2 KB 297 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1933

  A volunteer who faces a known risk where no emergency exists is volens and cannot claim from the defendant.

• Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club

  [1933] 1 KB 205 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1933

  A spectator at a dangerous sport impliedly consents to the risks inherent in it that reasonable care cannot guard against.

• Tolley v. J.S. Fry and Sons Ltd.

  [1931] AC 333 · House of Lords · 1931

  An apparently harmless publication is defamatory if, read with facts known to readers, it conveys a defamatory meaning about the plaintiff.

• Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd.

  [1929] 2 KB 331 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1929

  A statement innocent on its face is defamatory if readers who know extrinsic facts reasonably understand it in a defamatory sense, regardless of the publisher's knowledge or intention.

• Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh

  AIR 1928 Lah 609 · Lahore High Court · 1928

  A minor who lies about his age must restore the benefit received, even though the contract is void.

• Baldry v. Marshall

  [1925] 1 KB 260 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1925

  Sale under a trade name excludes the fitness condition only if the buyer did not rely on the seller; excluding 'warranties' does not exclude conditions.

• Niblett Ltd v. Confectioners' Materials Co.

  [1921] 3 KB 387 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1921

  A seller who cannot lawfully sell the goods in the state they are in has no 'right to sell', whatever his title.

• Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co.Overruled

  [1921] 3 KB 560 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1921

  Under the directness test a negligent defendant was liable for all direct consequences of his act, foreseeable or not.

• Wagner v. International Railway Co.

  (1921) 232 NY 176 · Court of Appeals of New York · 1921

  Danger invites rescue: the negligent creator of a danger is liable to a rescuer injured in a reasonable attempt to save the imperilled person.

• Phillips v. Brooks Ltd

  [1919] 2 KB 243 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1919

  Face to face, a mistake about the other party's name or attributes makes the contract voidable, not void.

• Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma

  (1917) ILR 41 Mad 33 · Madras High Court · 1917

  A threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion.

• Booth Steamship Co. Ltd v. Cargo Fleet Iron Co. Ltd

  [1916] 2 KB 570 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1916

  After notice of stoppage the carrier holds for the seller and is liable if he delivers to the buyer, subject to his lien for freight.

• British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Loach

  [1916] 1 AC 719 · Privy Council · 1916

  A defendant cannot rely on an inability to avoid an accident created by its own prior negligence; it is treated as having had the last opportunity.

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd

  [1915] AC 847 · House of Lords · 1915

  A stranger to a contract cannot sue on it.

• Herd v. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co.

  [1915] AC 67 · House of Lords · 1915

  A person who enters premises on agreed terms as to the time and means of leaving is not falsely imprisoned when the occupier declines to provide the means of exit earlier than agreed.

• Huth v. Huth

  [1915] 3 KB 32 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1915

  A writer does not publish a defamatory letter when a third person reads it in a way the writer could not reasonably foresee.

• Newman v. Bourne and Hollingsworth

  (1915) 31 TLR 209 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1915

  A finder who takes goods into custody is a bailee and must take reasonable care of them, failing which he is liable for their loss.

• Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali

  AIR 1914 All 22 · Allahabad High Court · 1914

  A promise of a charitable subscription is unenforceable unless something has been done on its faith at the promisor's desire.

• Leslie v. Sheill

  [1914] 3 KB 607 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1914

  A fraudulent minor cannot be sued in deceit or in equity for the amount of a void loan once the money is spent.

• Cope v. Sharpe

  [1912] 1 KB 496 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1912

  Reasonable action to avert a real and imminent danger to property is justified by necessity even if it proves unnecessary in the event.

• Jamna Das v. Ram Autar

  (1911-12) 39 IA 7 · Privy Council · 1912

  A stranger to a contract cannot sue on it in India, even if it is for his benefit.

• Robinson v. Balmain New Ferry Co.

  [1910] AC 295 · Privy Council · 1910

  Insisting on a reasonable, notified condition for leaving premises by a route other than the one contracted for is not false imprisonment.

• Leigh v. Gladstone

  (1909) 26 TLR 139 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1909

  Reasonable force used to save the life of a person in custody may be justified by necessity.

• Nash v. Inman

  [1908] 2 KB 1 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1908

  Necessaries are goods suited to the minor's condition in life and actually required; the supplier bears the burden of proof.

• Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co.

  [1905] 1 KB 608 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1905

  The implied condition of fitness for purpose is absolute; want of negligence is no defence.

• Herne Bay Steam Boat Co. v. Hutton

  [1903] 2 KB 683 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1903

  Failure of one purpose does not frustrate a contract whose other purpose remains possible.

• Priest v. Last

  [1903] 2 KB 148 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1903

  Goods with a single obvious purpose carry an implied condition of fitness for that purpose.

• Beard v. London General Omnibus Co.

  [1900] 2 QB 530 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1900

  An act wholly outside the servant's employment does not make the master liable.

• South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman

  [1896] 2 QB 44 · Queen's Bench Division · 1896

  An occupier possesses things in or under his land without knowing of them, and a servant who finds a thing while employed takes possession for the master.

• Damodara Mudaliar v. Secretary of State for India

  (1894) ILR 18 Mad 88 · Madras High Court · 1894

  Enjoyment of the benefit of a lawful, non-gratuitous act creates a duty to compensate under s. 70 without any request or contract.

• Christie v. Davey

  [1893] 1 Ch 316 · Chancery Division (England) · 1893

  An interference made maliciously to annoy a neighbour is an unreasonable and actionable nuisance.

• Cleary v. Booth

  [1893] 1 QB 465 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1893

  A teacher's delegated parental authority to discipline extends to a pupil's misconduct on the way to and from school that affects school discipline.

• Harvey v. Facey

  [1893] AC 552 · Judicial Committee of the Privy Council · 1893

  A quotation of price is an invitation to treat, not an offer.

• Lee v. Butler

  [1893] 2 QB 318 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1893

  A hirer bound to complete the purchase has agreed to buy and, in possession, can pass a good title to an innocent purchaser.

• Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow and Co.

  [1892] AC 25 · House of Lords · 1892

  Loss inflicted on a rival by lawful trade competition, even in combination, is not a tort.

• Great Indian Peninsula Railway Co. v. Hanmandas

  (1890) ILR 14 Bom 57 · Bombay High Court · 1890

  Delivery to a carrier does not end the seller's lien where the railway receipt is taken in the seller's own name.

• Lyons v. Hoffnung

  (1890) 15 App Cas 391 · Privy Council (on appeal from New South Wales) · 1890

  Goods are in transit while a carrier holds them for carriage to the buyer, whoever arranged the shipment; stoppage is available until the buyer or his agent takes delivery.

• Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande

  (1890) ILR 12 All 523 · Allahabad High Court · 1890

  A gift by a devotee to his guru of all his property is presumed to be under undue influence.

• Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti

  (1889) ILR 13 Mad 214 · Madras High Court · 1889

  Consent obtained by preventing the cremation of a dead body, an act forbidden by the Penal Code, is caused by coercion under s. 15.

• Riggs v. Palmer

  115 N.Y. 506 (1889) · New York Court of Appeals · 1889

  No one shall be permitted to profit by his own wrong; statutes are read subject to the fundamental principles of law.

• Robinson v. Kilvert

  (1889) 41 Ch D 88 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1889

  No action lies in nuisance where the damage results only from the plaintiff's abnormally sensitive use of his property.

• Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas

  (1888) 13 App Cas 222 · Privy Council · 1888

  Formerly held that nervous shock without physical impact was too remote a consequence of negligence; no longer followed.

• Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed

  (1886) ILR 14 Cal 64 · Calcutta High Court · 1886

  A charitable promise is binding once the promisee has incurred liability in reliance on it.

• R v. Dudley and Stephens

  (1884) 14 QBD 273 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1884

  Necessity is not a defence to murder.

• Kemp v. Falk

  (1882) 7 App Cas 573 · House of Lords · 1882

  Only a transfer of a document of title to a bona fide purchaser for value defeats stoppage in transit; a sub-sale alone does not.

• Scarf v. Jardine

  (1882) 7 App Cas 345 · House of Lords · 1882

  Novation substitutes a new contract for the old one with the consent of all; an election between alternative debtors, once made with knowledge, is final.

• Durga Prasad v. Baldeo

  (1880) ILR 3 All 221 · Allahabad High Court · 1880

  Consideration must be given at the desire of the promisor, not of a third person.

• Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co. v. Grant

  (1879) 4 Ex D 216 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1879

  An acceptance by post binds the offeror on posting even if it never arrives.

• Cundy v. Lindsay

  (1878) 3 App Cas 459 · House of Lords · 1878

  A mistake as to the identity of the contracting party renders the agreement void.

• Currie v. Misa

  (1875) LR 10 Ex 153 · Court of Exchequer Chamber (England) · 1875

  Consideration is a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee, given at the promisor's request.

• Frost v. Knight

  (1872) LR 7 Ex 111 · Exchequer Chamber (England) · 1872

  On anticipatory repudiation the promisee may sue at once or keep the contract alive, even where performance depended on a future contingency.

• Hammersmith and City Railway Co. v. Brand

  (1869) LR 4 HL 171 · House of Lords · 1869

  The inevitable consequences of an authorised act done without negligence are not actionable; compensation lies only under the statute.

• Felthouse v. Bindley

  (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 · Court of Common Pleas (England) · 1862

  Silence is not acceptance; acceptance must be communicated.

• Boulton v. Jones

  (1857) 2 H & N 564 · Court of Exchequer (England) · 1857

  An offer addressed to a particular person can be accepted only by that person; a stranger who performs it acquires no contract.

• Couturier v. Hastie

  (1856) 5 HLC 673 · House of Lords · 1856

  A sale of specific goods that have already perished unknown to both parties is void; the buyer need not pay.

• Brown v. Kendall

  60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292 (1850) · Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1850

  No liability arises for a purely accidental injury caused while doing a lawful act with ordinary care.

• Startup v. Macdonald

  (1843) 6 Man & G 593 · Exchequer Chamber (England) · 1843

  A tender within time that gives the promisee a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods is a valid offer of performance.

• Planche v. Colburn

  (1831) 8 Bing 14 · Court of Common Pleas (England) · 1831

  A party prevented from completing performance by the other's breach may recover reasonable remuneration for the part performed.

• Jones v. Boyce

  (1816) 1 Stark 493 · Court of King's Bench (England), nisi prius · 1816

  A reasonable choice made in the agony of the moment, in a peril created by the defendant's negligence, is not contributory negligence even if it proves wrong.

• Butterfield v. ForresterOverruled

  (1809) 11 East 60 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1809

  Under the old common-law rule, a plaintiff who failed to use ordinary care for his own safety, contributing to his injury, recovered nothing.

• Exall v. Partridge

  (1799) 8 TR 308 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1799

  Money paid under compulsion to discharge another's legal liability is recoverable from that person.

• Payne v. Cave

  (1789) 3 Term Rep 148 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1789

  A bid is an offer revocable until the fall of the hammer; the auctioneer's announcement of completion is the acceptance.

• Scott v. Shepherd

  (1773) 2 Wm Bl 892 · Court of Common Pleas (England) · 1773

  Instinctive acts of self-preservation by intermediaries do not break the chain of causation from the original wrongdoer's act.

• Lowe v. Peers

  (1768) 4 Burr 2225 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1768

  An agreement in restraint of marriage is void as against public policy.

• Basely v. Clarkson

  (1681) 3 Lev 37 · Court of Common Pleas · 1681

  An intentional entry on another's land is a trespass even if made under a mistaken belief that the land is the defendant's own.

• Tuberville v. Savage

  (1669) 1 Mod 3 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1669

  Words that show the speaker has no intention to strike prevent his gesture from being an assault.

• Six Carpenters' Case

  (1610) 8 Co Rep 146a · Court of Common Pleas · 1610

  Abuse of an authority of law by a positive wrongful act makes the entrant a trespasser ab initio; a mere non-feasance does not.

• Sadashiv Shyama Sawant v. Anita Anant Sawant

  (2010) 3 SCC 385 · Supreme Court of India · 2010

  Section 6 protects possession held personally or through another; only possession, dispossession and limitation are in issue.

• Satvir v. State of Uttar Pradesh

  Supreme Court of India · 2009

  Common intention under s. 34 IPC (s. 3(5) BNS) may be inferred from conduct and may form on the spot; participation with that intention makes each accused liable as if he did the whole act.

• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sukhpal Singh

  Supreme Court of India · 2009

  Dacoity with murder (s. 310(3) BNS, s. 396 IPC) imposes liability on every member of the gang for a murder committed by any one of them in the course of the dacoity.

• Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corporation

  (2007) 4 SCC 579 · Supreme Court of India · 2007

  Medical services under a contributory statutory scheme are services hired for consideration, and the consumer remedy is available in addition to the remedy under the special statute.

• Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.

  AIR 1997 Del 201 · Delhi High Court · 1997

  The standard of care owed by a hotel to its guests rises with the class of service it offers, and gross breach may attract heavy damages.

• Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi

  (1994) 4 SCC 18 · Supreme Court of India · 1994

  Readiness means capacity to perform; willingness means conduct showing intention; both must continue up to the decree.

• Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

  (1988) 3 SCC 513 · Supreme Court of India · 1988

  The woman deceived into a bigamous marriage is a person aggrieved and can prosecute; concealment of the earlier marriage attracts the aggravated offence.

• Bhagwani Bai v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

  AIR 1984 MP 126 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1984

  Non-disclosure in an insurance proposal avoids the policy only if the fact suppressed was material and the suppression fraudulent.

• R.C. Thakkar v. Gujarat Housing Board

  AIR 1973 Guj 34 · Gujarat High Court · 1973

  A materially wrong estimate in a tender is misrepresentation under s. 18 even if honestly made, and the tenderer need not verify it by ordinary diligence.

• National Coal Board v. J.E. Evans and Co.

  [1951] 2 KB 861 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1951

  An unintentional and non-negligent interference with another's goods is an inevitable accident and not a trespass.

• Bishambhar v. Roomal

  AIR 1951 All 500 · Allahabad High Court · 1950

  Consent to minor harm given to avoid a greater harm from others is a valid defence under s. 25 BNS.

• Cresswell v. Sirl

  [1948] 1 KB 241 · Court of Appeal (England) · 1948

  A defendant who shoots an animal to protect property must prove a real and imminent danger and that shooting was the practicable or reasonable means of averting it.

• Morelli v. Fitch and Gibbons

  [1928] 2 KB 636 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1928

  Goods asked for by name are sold by description, and merchantable quality covers the container as well as the contents.

• Tilley v. Bowman Ltd

  [1910] 1 KB 745 · King's Bench Division (England) · 1910

  A thing delivered under a transaction voidable for fraud must be returned when the transaction is avoided, even against the recipient's trustee in bankruptcy.

• Carter v. Thomas

  [1893] 1 QB 673 · Queen's Bench Division (England) · 1893

  An entry on land that is not necessary because the danger is already being dealt with is a trespass, despite good faith.

• Kirk v. Gregory

  (1876) 1 Ex D 55 · Exchequer Division (England) · 1876

  An interference with another's property that is not reasonably necessary to avert an imminent danger is not excused by necessity, however well meant.

• Hollins v. Fowler

  (1875) LR 7 HL 757 · House of Lords · 1875

  A person who deals with another's goods inconsistently with the owner's title is liable in conversion even when acting innocently.

• Holmes v. Mather

  (1875) LR 10 Ex 261 · Court of Exchequer (England) · 1875

  No liability arises for injury on the highway caused by an accident that could not be prevented by reasonable care.

• Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co.

  (1860) 5 H and N 679 · Court of Exchequer Chamber (England) · 1860

  Statutory authority excuses the inevitable consequences of an authorised act done without negligence.

• Chasemore v. Richards

  (1859) 7 HLC 349 · House of Lords · 1859

  Loss caused by a neighbour's lawful abstraction of percolating underground water gives no cause of action.

• Marzetti v. Williams

  (1830) 1 B and Ad 415 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1830

  Wrongful dishonour of a customer's cheque is actionable without proof of loss.

• Collins v. Renison

  (1754) Sayer 138 · Court of King's Bench (England) · 1754

  Force used to defend land against a trespasser must be reasonable and proportionate; throwing a man off a ladder is excessive.

• Omychund v. Barker

  (1744) 1 Atk 21 · Court of Chancery · 1744

  The common law works itself pure: courts adapt the law to new circumstances and usages without waiting for statute.

• Nalwah Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh

  Supreme Court of India

  Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object (s. 190 BNS, s. 149 IPC).