Law Student Reference Library

Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose

(1903) 30 IA 114

Held that a contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio and not merely voidable, establishing that no restitution can be ordered against a minor even if the consideration was obtained by fraud.

Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt

(1913) 11 ALJ 489

Ruled that an offer of reward must be communicated to the offeree before performance; Lalman, unaware of the reward for finding the missing boy, could not claim it as he lacked knowledge of the offer.

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

[1893] 1 QB 256

Established that a general offer to the world at large can be accepted by conduct, and advertisement of a reward constitutes a binding offer that ripens into a contract upon performance.

Hadley v Baxendale

(1854) 9 Exch 341

Established the foundational rule for remoteness of damages in contract — recoverable damages are limited to those that were in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting.

MC Mehta v Union of India

AIR 1987 SC 1086

Evolved the doctrine of absolute liability, holding that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for harm caused without any exceptions, departing from the English rule of strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher.

Donoghue v Stevenson

[1932] AC 562

Established the modern law of negligence by articulating the neighbour principle — one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that one can reasonably foresee would injure one's neighbour.

Rylands v Fletcher

(1868) LR 3 HL 330

Established the rule of strict liability — a person who brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is prima facie liable for all damage that naturally flows from the escape.

Bhim Singh v State of Jammu & Kashmir

AIR 1986 SC 494

Recognised the tort of wrongful arrest and detention by the state and awarded exemplary damages, holding that the Supreme Court can award compensation in writ proceedings under Article 32.

K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra

AIR 1962 SC 605

Examined the law of culpable homicide and murder under Sections 299 and 300 IPC; the last jury trial in India, it clarified the distinction between sudden provocation and premeditated killing.

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab

(1980) 2 SCC 684

Upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty and established the 'rarest of rare cases' doctrine as the guiding principle for imposing capital punishment.

State of Maharashtra v MH George

AIR 1965 SC 722

Ruled that knowledge of a prohibition is not essential to constitute an offence of strict liability, distinguishing between mens rea requirements in regulatory and traditional criminal offences.

Alister Anthony Pareira v State of Maharashtra

(2012) 2 SCC 648

Clarified the distinction between rash and negligent acts under culpable homicide and the threshold for imposing imprisonment versus fines in motor accident fatalities.

Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar

(2014) 8 SCC 273

Laid down binding guidelines restricting arrest in offences punishable up to seven years, requiring magistrates to independently apply their mind before authorising detention and mandating compliance checklists for police officers.

Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh

(2014) 2 SCC 1

Held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC upon receipt of information disclosing a cognisable offence, and a preliminary inquiry is not permissible before registration.

Joginder Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh

(1994) 4 SCC 260

Established that arrest should not be made as a matter of course, and the arrested person has the right to have a friend, relative, or nominee informed of the arrest.

D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal

AIR 1997 SC 610

Issued comprehensive guidelines on arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence and torture, now codified in BNSS, including the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala

(1973) 4 SCC 225

Established the Basic Structure doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that destroys its basic or essential features.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

AIR 1978 SC 597

Expanded the scope of Article 21 by reading it with Articles 14 and 19, requiring that any procedure depriving personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India

(1980) 3 SCC 625

Reaffirmed the Basic Structure doctrine and struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that had given Parliament unlimited power to amend Fundamental Rights.

Golaknath v State of Punjab

AIR 1967 SC 1643

Held that Fundamental Rights are beyond the amending power of Parliament under Article 368, a position later overruled but which triggered the Basic Structure doctrine debate.

Anvar PV v PK Basheer

(2014) 10 SCC 473

Held that electronic records are admissible only when accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 BSA), establishing strict procedural requirements for digital evidence.

State of Himachal Pradesh v Jai Lal

AIR 1999 SC 3318

Explained the principles governing expert testimony under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, holding that expert opinion is only advisory and must be tested against other evidence on record.

Tomaso Bruno v State of Uttar Pradesh

(2015) 7 SCC 178

Clarified the 'last seen theory' as a piece of circumstantial evidence, holding that mere proximity of the accused to the deceased is insufficient for conviction without corroboration or an explanation.

Sharda v Dharmpal

(2003) 4 SCC 493

Held that a court in matrimonial proceedings can direct a party to undergo medical examination, and refusal to comply can be used as adverse evidence under the principle of best evidence.

Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India

(2005) 6 SCC 344

Upheld the constitutional validity of CPC amendments introducing case management, time-bound hearings, and restrictions on adjournments, holding that they advance access to justice.

Sangram Singh v Election Tribunal

AIR 1955 SC 425

Articulated that procedural law must be the handmaiden of justice and not its mistress, and courts should not allow technical objections to defeat substantive rights.

Kiran Singh v Chaman Paswan

AIR 1954 SC 340

Held that a decree passed by a court without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, even in execution proceedings.

Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh

AIR 1961 SC 1457

Applied the doctrine of res judicata to writ petitions, holding that a final decision of a High Court dismissing a writ bars a subsequent writ petition on the same facts under Article 32.

Sarla Mudgal v Union of India

(1995) 3 SCC 635

Held that conversion to Islam by a Hindu husband to contract a second marriage without dissolving the first is an offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, as the first marriage subsists under Hindu law.

Shamim Ara v State of Uttar Pradesh

(2002) 7 SCC 518

Although primarily a Muslim law case, it clarified the court's role in examining the validity of divorce and reinforced that maintenance rights of women must be protected against arbitrary dissolution of marriage.

Danamma @ Suman Surpur v Amar

(2018) 3 SCC 343

Held that daughters who were alive on the date of the amendment in 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act are entitled to coparcenary rights, even if their father had died before the amendment.

Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma

(2020) 9 SCC 1

Constitution Bench settled the law on daughters' coparcenary rights, confirming that a daughter has equal rights in the Hindu Undivided Family property by birth, regardless of whether the father was alive on 9 September 2005.

Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum

AIR 1985 SC 945

Held that a Muslim woman divorced by her husband is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC beyond the iddat period if she is unable to maintain herself, despite the provisions of Muslim personal law.

Shayara Bano v Union of India

(2017) 9 SCC 1

By a 3:2 majority, declared instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14, paving the way for the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

Daniel Latifi v Union of India

(2001) 7 SCC 740

Upheld the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, interpreting it to require that a divorced Muslim woman's entire future needs be provided for within the iddat period.

Ahmedabad Women Action Group v Union of India

(1997) 3 SCC 573

Declined to strike down polygamy and unilateral divorce under Muslim personal law on the ground that reform of personal laws is a matter for the legislature and not the courts.

Suraj Lamp & Industries v State of Haryana

(2012) 1 SCC 656

Held that immovable property above a specified value cannot be transferred by a general power of attorney (GPA) or will; sales by GPA are not valid modes of transfer and convey no title to the buyer.

Vidyadhar v Manikrao

(1999) 3 SCC 573

Articulated the essential requirements of a valid sale under the TPA — there must be transfer of ownership, the property must be defined, the price must be paid or promised, and the transfer must be by a registered instrument.

K.J. Shivshankar Pillai v K.P. Mani

AIR 1994 SC 853

Applied the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A TPA, holding that a transferee in possession on the strength of a written and signed agreement can defend possession even without a registered deed.

Rajbir Kaur v Chokosiri & Co.

AIR 1988 SC 1845

Distinguished between a mortgage, a lease, and a licence in the context of Section 58 TPA, clarifying that an exclusive right to possession for a definite period in consideration of rent creates a lease and not a licence.

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd

(2021) 9 SCC 449

Examined the law of oppression and mismanagement under Sections 241–244 of the Companies Act, 2013, clarifying the threshold for court intervention and the weight to be given to business judgment of a board.

Salomon v Salomon & Co. Ltd

[1897] AC 22

Established the foundational principle of separate corporate personality — a company is a legal person distinct from its members, and shareholders are not personally liable for the company's debts.

Life Insurance Corporation of India v Escorts Ltd

(1986) 1 SCC 264

Lifted the corporate veil on grounds of public interest and the doctrine of alter ego, holding that the court can look behind the corporate form when it is used as a vehicle for fraud or evasion.

Dale & Carrington Invt Ltd v PK Prathapan

(2005) 1 SCC 212

Held that directors of a company owe fiduciary duties to the company and cannot allot shares to defeat existing shareholders' rights, confirming the court's power to set aside oppressive acts.

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v Rajappa

(1978) 2 SCC 213

Defined the term 'industry' expansively under the Industrial Disputes Act to include all organised activity where capital and labour cooperate for production of goods or services, bringing government undertakings and hospitals within its scope.

People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India

(1982) 3 SCC 235

Held that payment of wages below the minimum wage violates the right against forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution, treating minimum wage compliance as a fundamental rights issue.

Workmen v Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd

(1992) 1 SCC 290

Identified the components of a living wage for the purpose of minimum wage fixation — food, clothing, housing, fuel and lighting, education, and medical expenses — providing a constitutional benchmark for wage policy.

Hindustan Lever Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate

(1995) 6 SCC 326

Clarified the law on retrenchment and the requirements of notice, compensation, and government approval under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act for establishments employing 300 or more workmen.