Cases42 in the database
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of KeralaLandmark
(1973) 4 SCC 225 · Supreme Court of India · 1973
Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
- 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Fundamental rights were held beyond Parliament's amending power - superseded by the basic structure doctrine.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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Chinnaya v. RamayyaLandmark
(1882) ILR 4 Mad 137 · Madras High Court · 1882
Consideration may move from a third party, not only from the promisee.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma
(1917) ILR 41 Mad 33 · Madras High Court · 1917
A threat to commit suicide amounts to coercion.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Felthouse v. Bindley
(1862) 11 CB (NS) 869 · Court of Common Pleas (England) · 1862
Silence is not acceptance; acceptance must be communicated.