1. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore v.

Union of India
The appellant is engaged in drilling operations for exploration of offshore oil, gas and
other related activities under contracts awarded by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission.
The drilling operations are carried on at oil rigs/vessels which are situated outside the
territorial waters of India. Until November 1993 the appellant and all other similarly
situated companies which were engaged in oil and gas exploration and exploitation were
permitted to tranship stores to the oil rigs without levy of any customs duty. From
November 1993 onwards, the Revenue Authorities refused to permit companies engaged
in onward offshore operations to tranship stores to the oil rigs without payment of
customs duty.

The appellants challenged the levy of customs duty. The Bombay High Court held that
the appellant should not be permitted to clear the consignments without payment of duty.
The appellant appealed.
Held: Appeal dismissed with costs. In absence of codified law, international treaties can
be looked into.
2. Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat
The sole point which arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the trial
became illegal by reason of the search not having been conducted strictly in accordance
with the provisions of s. 15 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women & Girls
Act, 1956 (Act CIV of 1956), hereinafter called the "Act". The appellant and two other
persons were tried for various offences under the provisions of the Act, the charge
substantially against her being that she was keeping a brothel in her house and knowingly
lived on the earnings of the prostitution of women and girls. All the three accused persons
were acquitted by the magistrate. The State preferred an appeal to the High Court against
the appellant and the third accused only. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal
in respect of the appellant and convicted her for offences punishable under ss. 3(1) and
4(1) of the Act. She was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to
pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, (in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months)
and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months on the second count, the sentences of
imprisonment being concurrent.
3. Beckford v. The Queen
 The defendant, a police officer, was charged with murder. The prosecution case was that
the defendant and another armed officer had chased the deceased, who was unarmed,
shooting at him and eventually killing him when he had his hands raised and was begging
them not to shoot him.
Held that if the defendant honestly believed the circumstances to be such as would, if
true, justify his use of force to defend himself or another from attack and the force used
was no more than was reasonable to resist the attack, he was entitled to be acquitted of
murder, since the intent to act unlawfully would be negatived by his belief, however
mistaken or unreasonable, although the reasonableness of the alleged belief was material
in deciding whether the defendant had a genuine belief; that, accordingly, the trial judge
misdirected the jury as to self-defence; and that, as it could not be concluded with the
utter certainty required in a case of capital murder that the jury properly directed would
necessarily have returned the same verdict, the proviso to section 14(1) of the Judicature
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Act could not be applied and the conviction would be quashed
(post, pp. 616A–B, 619B–E, 620F–G, 621H).
4. Chy Lung v. Freeman
The Supreme Court sided with twenty-two women who sailed from China to San
Francisco, deciding that Congress, not states, had the power to regulate immigration.
Because the women traveled alone, the California Commissioner of Immigration
determined that they were “lewd”, or prostitutes. They were detained and held on a $500
bond in gold until the Supreme Court ordered their release, declaring that only a federal
immigration authority was empowered to determine the women’s status.
5. Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka
https://www.shoneekapoor.com/illegally-collected-evidence-admissible/#:~:text=Brief
%20Facts%20of%20the%20Case,the%20Hindu%20Marriage%20Act%2C%201955.
The petitioner has approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Indian
Constitution. It challenges an order passed by the Family Court, Saket in ongoing divorce
proceedings going on between the parties.
The respondent-husband had filed the divorce petition. Further, he submitted a CD
containing an audio-video recording of the petitioner-wife. She is speaking with her
friend on phone about the respondent and his family in a derogatory manner.
 Therefore, the present petition questions the admissibility of this CD as it was recorded in
reach of the petitioner’s fundamental right to privacy.
6. DRC v. Belgium
On 11 April 2000, a Belgian Magistrate issued an international arrest warrant against Mr.
Yerodia. At the time, Yerodia was the Foreign Minister of the Congo. The Court issued
the warrant based on universal jurisdiction. It accused Yerodia of inciting racial hatred.
These speeches, allegedly, incited the population to attack Tutsi residents in Rwanda,
which resulted in many deaths. The warrant alleged that Yerodia committed grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocols and crimes
against humanity. Belgium sent the arrest warrant to Interpol and circulated it to all
States, including to the Congo. The warrant asked States to arrest, detain, and extradite
Yerodia to Belgium. After Belgium issued the warrant, in November 2000, Yerodia
became the Education Minister. At the time of the ICJ’s judgement, he did not hold a
Ministerial post in Congo.
7. E.D.F. v. Romania
Interests in two joint venture companies with Romanian entities owned by the Romanian
Government, engaged in providing duty-free services. Claims arising out of the alleged
arbitrary taking of a concession to provide duty free and other retail services at several
Romanian airports and on board airplanes.
8. Elkins v. United States
Evidence of illegal wiretapping had been seized from the home of James Butler
Elkins by Portland, Oregon police officers on an unrelated search warrant, and he was
subsequently convicted in federal court. Elkins appealed, arguing that evidence found by
the officers should have been inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, which forbids the
introduction of most evidence gathered through Fourth Amendment violations in criminal
court.
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960), was a US Supreme Court decision that held
the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally
gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
 In a 5–4 decision, the Court overturned the silver platter doctrine and Elkins' conviction.
Associate Justice Potter Stewart wrote the majority opinion, while Associate
Justices Felix Frankfurter and John M. Harlan II dissented. By giving a rationale for a
broader interpretation of Fourth Amendment rights, the decision prepared the way
for Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which applied the exclusionary rule to the states.
9. Island of Palmas
The Island of Palmas Case (Scott, Hague Court Reports 2d 83 (1932), (Perm. Ct. Arb.
1928), 2 U.N. Rep. Intl. Arb. Awards 829) was a territorial dispute over the Island of
Palmas (or Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States which was heard by
the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Palmas (Indonesian: Pulau Miangas) was declared to
be a part of the Netherlands East Indies and is now part of Indonesia.
10. Johnson v. United States
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme
Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. In this case,
where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a
warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable.
11. Mathanex v. United States
Methanex alleged that the ban on MTBE constituted a breach of three obligations on the
host state under NAFTA’s Chapter Eleven: (1) the national treatment obligation in
Article 1102 of NAFTA, which requires a NAFTA party to accord foreign investors
“treatment no less favorable” than that it accords, “in like circumstances,” domestic
investors in the host state; (2) the obligation to accord minimum international standards
of treatment to protected investors, including fair and equitable treatment, as per Article
1105 of NAFTA; and (3) the obligation not to take measures tantamount to expropriation
without paying compensation, in accordance with Article 1110 of NAFTA.
The Tribunal rejected each of these arguments, finding in favour of the United States on
each claim. In addition, the Methanex decision was the first published decision in which
the Tribunal awarded full costs to the defending state party following the final award in
its favour

12. Nardone v. United States

 Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which
the Court ruled that evidence obtained via warrantless wiretaps, in violation of
the Communications Act of 1934, was inadmissible in federal court.[1] The Court ruled
that use of evidence directly obtained from wiretapping, such as the conversations
themselves, and indirectly, such as evidence obtained through knowledge gained from
wiretapped conversations, was inadmissible in trial court
13. Portugal v. Germany,
14. R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affair
At the time, the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) was under the supervision
of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, its primary remit
being to promote UK exports to the developing world ("aid through trade"). During this
period, it has been alleged that there was a connection between the granting of aid and the
achievement of either foreign policy goals or British companies winning export orders.
A scandal erupted concerning the UK funding of a hydroelectric dam on the Pergau
River in Malaysia, near the Thai border. Building work began in 1991 with money from
the UK foreign aid budget. Concurrently, the Malaysian government bought around £1
billion worth of arms from the UK. The suggested linkage of arms deals to aid became
the subject of a UK government inquiry from March 1994. In November 1994, the World
Development Movement applied for judicial review.
The High Court of England and Wales held that the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd,
had acted ultra vires (outside of his power, and therefore unlawfully) by allocating £234
million towards the funding of the dam, on the grounds that legislation only empowered
him to allocate funds to economically sound projects.
15. R. v. Fulling
16. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
In this case, the Supreme Court of India concluded that the right to be searched before a
gazetted officer or magistrate is an extremely valuable right that Parliament has provided
to an accused, given the serious consequences that possessing illegal items under the Act
may entail. The Court further noted that such a search provides the search and seizure
procedure far greater credibility and legitimacy. The Constitution bench in this case,
therefore, held that personal search under the Act is a crucial way of collecting evidence
of possession, thus the safeguards provided in Section 50 must be strictly followed. It was
also ruled that non-compliance with Section 50 would invalidate the conviction of the
accused.
17. State v. Miclau Jr.
18. T.N. Govarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, popularly known as “the green man” for his
litigation efforts for conservation, filed a writ petition with the India Supreme Court to
 halt illegal timber operations in the area out of concern for the destruction of the
Sandalwood Forest and Sandalwood becoming an endangered species. He claimed the
timber operations violated section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, which says no state
government or any other authority can make use of land of the forest for any non-forestry
activities through the prior permission of the Central Government. The case was
concerned with the question of whether sandalwood could be stated to be an endangered
species and declared as a “specified plant” (9). The court found it did, and all licenses
with wood-based industries were canceled. The court ruled in favor of Thirumulpad,
directing sustainable use of the forest. The ruling also established an implementation
system.
19. Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra
On account of injuries received in amotor accidentthe appellant was taken to the hospital
at 6 A. M. on April 3,1961.As he was found smelling of alcohol, a specimen of his
blood was taken and collected in a phial. Subsequently, when investigation started this
phial was taken by the In-vestigation Officer on April 13 and sent to the Chemical
Examiner on April 18. On examination, it was found to have a concentration of alcohol
in excess of that mentioned in s.66 (2) of Bombay Prohibition Act. The trial Court
convicted the appellant relying upon the presumption arising on the report -of the
Chemical Examiner. On appeal, the Sessions judge found that no evidence had been
produced regarding the safe custody of the phial from April 3 to April 18, regarding its
storage at a place where itwas not liable todeteriorate and regarding its delivery to
the ChemicalExaminer, and ordered a retrial. This order was upheld bythe High Court.
20. United States of America v. Douglas Barry Kent
The district court, applying the Restatement (Second) of Agency, concluded that Kent
was not acting within the scope of employment, and denied Kent's petition for
certification Kent also petitioned the district court for certification. Kent sought
certification from the Department of Justice that he was acting within the scope of
employment at the time of the accident, which, if granted, would substitute the United
States for Kent as the defendant in the action. The Department of Justice refused to grant
the certification. ppellant, Douglas Barry Kent, is a senior foreign service officer
 seeking to avoid exposure to personal liability for an automobile accident that occurred in
Russia while he was driving home from work in his personal vehicle.
21. United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran
The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the
occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the
capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the
United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no
more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of
diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the
immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the
hostages.
22. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
Para 12 onwards of the judgement