LEAC Classroom Material

50 MOST IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1.
Kesavananda Bharti
v. State of Kerala
[AIR 1973 SC 1461]
The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution. The court,
in this case, gave the concept of the ‘Doctrine of basic structure’. The court further
held that the Preamble can be amended without altering the basic structure of the
Constitution.
Note: one must also refer to the following cases:

preamble is not the part of constitution

c o m
1. In Re Berubari Union Case, AIR 1960 SC 8451: In this case it was held that

.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 SC 845 : In this case it was held

rs
that preamble is the part of constitution.
2. The Supreme Court, in this case, laid down a new concept of equality, which is

e
different from the traditional concept of reasonable classification. The new
E.P Royappa v. State concept is based on the ‘Doctrine of Non-arbitrariness’. Note: one must also
of Tamil Nadu
[AIR 1974 SC 555]
PYQ 2023
refer to the following cases:

n k
1. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SCR (2) 621 : The court in this case held

a
that procedure established by law should be just, fair and reasonable.

p r
2. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) 1 S.C.C. 722: It established that entities
performing public functions or possessing public powers can be considered a

o
‘State’ under Article 12. This expanded the accountability of such entities for
upholding fundamental rights.

3.

Selvi v. State of
T
Karnataka AIR [2010
This case is based on Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. The Article deals
with self-incrimination. The court, in this case, held that Lie Detector should be
administered only with the consent of the accused; if it is obtained without the
consent of the accused, it will be violative of Article 20(3).
SC 1974] Note: One must also refer to the case of
1. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1977 SC 1025 it is also related to A.20
(3) in this case the court held that the protection of A. 20(3) is available from
the stage of Police Interrogation.
4. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the right to life includes the ‘Right to
Livelihood’.
Note: One must also refer to the following cases:
Olga Tellis v. Bombay 1. PUDR v. UOI AIR 1982 SC 1473: Non-payment of minimum wages is a
Municipal violation of Article
tr-5T21
6Q9R9T0S1L1S
Corporation
1L1S [AIR 2. Parmanand Kataria v. UOI AIR 1989 SC 2039: The Supreme Court, in this
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1986 SC 180] case, held that all doctors are obliged to extend medical help without asking
for legal formalities.
3. Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, UOI AIR (2012) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme
Court held that ‘Right to sleep’ is the fundamental right.
1H1D
4. tr-
Laxmibai
5A6H9K9B0GChandaragi v. State of Karnataka AIR (2021) 3 SCC 360: The
Supreme Court, in this case, held that the right to marry a person of one’s
choice is an integral part of Article 21.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 1 of 12
 S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY
5. In this, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of HC under Article 226 and
the Supreme Court under Article 32 is the ‘Basic Structure of the Constitution’.
Note: one must also refer to the following cases:
L. Chandra Kumar v. 1. S.P. Gupta v. UOI AIR 1982 SC 149: SP Gupta vs Union of India, also known
UOI [AIR 1997 SC as the “Judges’ Transfer Case” (1981), was a landmark legal case in India. The
1125] main issue revolved around the constitutional validity of the Central
Government’s orders regarding the non-extension of an additional judge’s
term and their transfer.
2. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124: The court ruled that
the petitioner had the right to directly approach the Supreme Court under
Article 32 without first seeking relief from the High Court under Article 226.

c o m
rs .
k e
r an
o p
T

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 2 of 12
 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1. Major Landmark case with respect to ‘Death Sentence’. The Supreme Court, in
Bacchan Singh v. this case, held that the death sentence should not be passed except in the rarest
State of Punjab of cases.
[AIR 1980 SC] Note: one must also refer to the following case:
1. Mithu v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC: The Supreme Court in this case held
section 303 of the Indian Penal Code as ‘Unconstitutional’ as it was against
A. 14 and A. 21 of the constitution.
2. In this case, the court held that common intention implies pre-arranged plans and
prior meetings of mind. The court laid down. Principles under Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code:
a. The essence of liability under Section 34 is to be found in the existence of a
Mahboob Shah v. common intention
Emperor [AIR b. To invoke section 34, one must prove that the act was done in furtherance of

m
1945 PC 118] common intention
c. Common intention implies pre-arranged plans and prior meetings of mind

Note: one must also refer to the following case:

.c o
d. For the intention to be common, it must be known by all the members.

rs
1. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, 52 I.A. 40 (P.C.) : The court in this
case categorically said that person who does not do anything but if he has

e
common intention he will be liable.
3. This Case is related to Insanity as a general defence under the Indian Penal Code.

that:

a k
It states that a defendant wishing to rely on the defence of insanity must show

n
a) They laboured under a defect of reason
McNaughten’s Case
[8 ER 718, Volume
8]
r
b) Caused by a disease of the mind so that either

p
(i) He did not know the nature and quality of his acts or.
(ii) that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

4.
To Note: one must also refer to the following cases:
1. D.P.P v. Beard (1920) AC 479 and Bausdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956
SC498: These cases are related to intoxication as a general defence.

The Supreme Court, in this case, struck down Article 497 of the Indian Penal
Joseph Shine v. UOI Code, which criminalizes adultery as unconstitutional.
[AIR (2019) 3 SCC
39]

5. The court held that if all the essential elements of Section 304-B of the Act are
established, then presumption under Section 113-B under the Indian Evidence
Act mandatorily operates against the accused.
Satbir Singh v.
State of Haryana Note: one must also refer to the following case:
[(2021) 6 SCC 1] 1. Gurmeet Singh5T v. State of1LPunjab
1S (2021) 6 SCC 108: The Supreme Court,
tr- 6Q9R9T0S
in this case, states that the phrase ‘soon before’ used in section 304-B cannot
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S be construed to be immediately before. The prosecution must establish the
existence of a ‘proximate and live link’ between dowry death and cruelty
for the demand of dowry.

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 3 of 12
 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1. The Supreme Court, in this case, laid down guidelines for arrest.
(a) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation
should bear an accurate and clear identification mark with their designation.
(b) The police officer carrying out the arrest shall prepare the memo of arrest,
which shall be attested by at least one witness.
(c) An arrested person shall be entitled to have his friend or relative informed of
his arrest.
(d) He must be aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest.
(e) The arrestee must be examined at the time of arrest, and every major or
minor injury must be recorded.
(f) The arrestee should be subject to a medical examination by a trained doctor
every 48 hours.

D.K Basu v. State of

the Magistrate for record.
m
(g) The copies of all documents, including the memo of arrest, should be sent to

o
(h) The arrestee must be produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours.

c
West Bengal [AIR
(1997) 6 SC 642]

rs .
(i) He must be permitted to meet a lawyer during interrogation.
(j) A police control room should be provided at every district and State
Headquarters.

k e
Note: one must also refer to the following case:
1. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P (1994) 4 SCC 260: The main issue of the

n
case was when can an arrest be made and grounds of arrest. The court

a
stated that no arrest can be made as it is lawful for the police officer to do so.

r
It was also mentioned that the existence of the power to arrest is one thing

o p
while the justification for the exercise of it is another. Hence, the police
officer is needed to be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do
so.

T 2. State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 3 SCC 222: Court held that in
case of civil case it would amount to custody not arrest which could be
further materialized into arrest and in criminal cases in order to obtain the
benefit of bail an accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court or the
police authorities before he can be granted the benefit thereunder.
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273: This is the landmark
case where the Supreme Court provided directions to the Police to use their
power enshrined under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(CrPC).

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 4 of 12
 S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY
2. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the daughter who attained majority
and is still unmarried is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father in
proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she is not suffering from any physical or
mental abnormality/injury. An unmarried Hindu daughter can claim
maintenance from her father till she is married, relying on Section 20(3) of the
Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance, Act1956 provided she pleads and proves that
Abhilasha v. she is unable to maintain herself, for enforcement of which right her
Parkash [(2020) application/suit has to be under Section 20 of Act.
SCC 736] Note: one must also refer to the following cases:
1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SC 945: The Supreme
Court ruled that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to all
citizens, irrespective of their religion, without discrimination. The court
clarified that Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
applicable to Muslims as well.
2. Rajesh v. Neha AIR 2021 (2) SCC 324: The Supreme Court solved various
questions of maintenance and provided important guidelines for

3.
Serious Fraud
o m
determining maintenance allowance, so it is a very important case.
The Court, in this case, held that an accused cannot seek default bail merely on

c
the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of 60 days or 90
Investigation
Office v. Rahul
Modi, .
days, as the case may be. The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory

rs
bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises only if the
charge sheet has not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period.
[SC-2022],
Criminal Appeal

k e
Note: one must also refer to the case following case:
1. Fakhrey Alam v State of Uttar Pradesh, [SC-2021] SLP No. 618/2020:

n
No. 185-186 of Default Bail Is a Fundamental Right and Not Merely a Statutory Right;
2022 Supplementary Chargesheet Under UAPA Cannot be Used to Extend Time
[PYQ 2022]

r a
Limit u/s 167 Cr.P.C

p
o
4. The Supreme Court held that the basic rule should be 'bail, not jail' except where
there are circumstances suggesting the accused fleeing from justice, the

1978 SC 429]
T
Gudikanti v. Public
Prosecutor [AIR
possibility of repeating the offences and the like.

Note: The legal principle ‘bail is a rule and jail is an exception ‘was given by the
Supreme Court in its landmark judgement of the State of Rajasthan vs Balchand
@ Baliay in 1977.

5. The Supreme Court laid down the following principles in respect of anticipatory
bail:-
a. Registration of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise the power under
Gurubaksh Singh Section 438.
Sibba v. State of b. An interim order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor, but
6Q9R9T0S1L1S
Punjab AIR before passing the final order, notice must be given.
tr- 5T

tr- 5T 6Q9R [(1980)

9T 0S1L1S 2 SCC 565] c. Order under Section 438 would not affect the right of police to conduct an
investigation.
d. Where a case has been made for remand under Section 167(2) or a
reasonable claim to secure incriminating material under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act,
0G1Hthe
1D power under Section 438 should not be exercised.
tr-5A6H9K9B
e. Blanket order of anticipatory bail should not be made.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 5 of 12
 S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY
Note: one must also refer to the following case:
1. Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2020) SCC 98: Life or duration
of an anticipatory bail order does not normally end at the time and stage
when the accused is summoned by the court or when charges are framed but
can continue till the end of the trial.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908

1
S.NO CASE NAME
Salem Advocates
SUMMARY

c o m
The court, in this case, held that the Preamble of the Code states that the object of
Bar Association
(II) v. Union of
India, [AIR 2005 SC .
the Code is twofold: (1) to consolidate and (2) to amend the laws relating to the

rs
procedure to be followed in civil courts. It is a procedure designed to facilitate
justice and further its ends, not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties

2
3353]

k e
This case is majorly dealt with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which

n
deals with the Inherent Power of the court. The court states that the code is

a
exhaustive on the matters specifically dealt in it. However, the legislature is

r
incapable of contemplating all possible circumstances that may arise in civil
Manohar Lal v.

o
Seth Hiralal, [AIR
1962 SC 527] p
litigation; therefore, with regard to those circumstances, the court has inherent
powers to act according to principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Such
inherent powers of the court are saved under Section 151 of the Code.

T Note: one must also refer to the following case:

1. State of U.P. v. C.B. Mishra, AIR 1980 SC 591: The word ‘code’ not only
includes sections but also rules in the first schedule and rules made by the
High Court amending the Rules in the First Schedule.

3. Dhulabhai v. State Every presumption is made in favour of the jurisdiction of the court. Provision of
of M.P., [AIR 1969 exclusion of jurisdiction of the courts must be strictly construed. In case of doubt
SC 78] as to jurisdiction, the courts will lean in favour of jurisdiction.

4. Daryao v. State of The court, in this case, laid down that the ‘Doctrine of res judicata is of universal
U.P. [AIR 1961 SC application and it is a part of the rule of law’.
1457]
9R 9T0S1L1S
5. M. Siddiq v. Suresh Section 11, Explanation
tr-5T6QVI is not confined to cases covered by Order 1 Rule 8. It
Das,
tr-5T6Q9R9T 0S1L[(2020)
1S 1 SCC extends to include any litigation in which, apart from Order 1 Rule 8, parties are
1] entitled to represent interested persons other than themselves. Provisions of
Order 1 Rule 8 do not control the applicability of Section 11, Explanation VI

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 6 of 12
 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1. R. v. Foster [(1834) The witnesses had seen only the speeding vehicle and not the accident. The
6 C & P 325] injured person explained to him the nature of the accident. He was allowed to
give evidence of what the deceased said because it was part of the res gestae.

2 Dudh Nath Pandey The case dealt with the principle of ‘Plea of Alibi’. Plea of alibi postulates the
v. State of U.P. physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime by
[(1981) 2 SCC 166] reason of his presence at another place.
Note: one must also refer to the following case:
1. Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1883: only a prima
facie case of conspiracy has to be made out to bring section 10 into
operation.
3 R.M Malkani v. The tape-recorded conversation is admissible provided that the conversation is
State of relevant to the matters in issue, there is the identification of the voice, and the

4.
Maharashtra, [AIR
1973 SC 157]
Pakala Narayan

o m
accuracy of the conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing
the tape record.
The term 'confession' was defined by Lord Atkin. The definition given by the

c
.
Swami v. Emperor Privy Council was approved by the Indian Supreme Court in Palvinder Kaur's

rs
[AIR 1939 PC 47] case. The court held that 'a confession must either admit in terms the offence or
at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence'.

e
Note: one must also refer to the following case:
a) Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354: Confession must either

k
be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole.

n
b) Queen Empress v. Abdullah (1885) 7 A 11 385 FB: It was held that dying

a
declaration made by sign and node is also relevant.

p r
o
5. Nand Lal Wasudeo The Supreme Court opined that conclusive proof under Section 112 is final and,
Badwaick v. Lata in general, cannot be rebutted by any other fact. However, DNA testing is an

T
Nandlal Badwaick,
[(2014) 4 SCC (Cri)
65]
accurate science, and once a DNA test report is available, it can rebut the
presumption of Section 112.

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 7 of 12
 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1 The test of determination of such intention is objective. It is not what parties had
in mind, but what a reasonable man would think in the circumstances is to be
inferred.
Carlill v. Carbolic Ltd. The court, in this case, observed the following points with regard to general
Smoke Ball (1893) offers:
1 QB 256 (CA) (a) An offer can be made to the world at large, and a contract is made with the
person who comes forward and accepts the offer;
(b) In such cases, communication of acceptance is not necessary. Performance of
conditions is a sufficient acceptance without communication.
(c) General offer is continuing in nature, and it is open for acceptance to any
number of persons until it is retracted

2. Lalman Shukla v. A proposal cannot be accepted unless it comes to the knowledge of the person

m
Gauri Dutt (1913) accepting it.
11 A11 LJ 489
3.

.c o
Acceptance must be communicated to the offeror only. Communication with any
other person is no communication in the eyes of the law.

rs
Felthouse v. An offeror cannot impose upon the offeree the burden of refusal or duty to reply.
Bindley (1863) 7 In other words, silence cannot be prescribed as a mode of acceptance.

e
LT 835 Note: one must also refer to the following case:
1. Powell v. Lee (1908) 24 TLR 606: communication must be received from

4
Mohiri Bibee v.
authorized person only.

n k
Indian Contract Act does not specifically lay down the fate of an agreement if it

a
has been entered into by a minor. However, it was authoritatively settled that the
Dharmodas Ghose,
(1902-03) 30 1A
114 r
minor's agreement is absolutely void. A minor cannot make a promise enforceable

p
by law. Indian law with respect to restitution is slightly different from English law.
The court held that the minor is not liable under Sections 64 and 65 of the

To
Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill,
(1914) 3 K.B. 607
Contract Act to repay any money or compensate for any benefit.
The court laid down the following propositions regarding the doctrine of
restitution in English law:-
1. If the minor obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be
made liable to restore it, but only so long it is traceable in his possession;
2. If the minor has sold the goods or converted them, he cannot be made to
repay the value of the goods;
3. The doctrine of restitution has no application where the minor has obtained
money or cash instead of goods because 'restitution stops where repayment
begins'.

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 8 of 12
 FAMILY LAW

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1 The Supreme Court held that there was no automatic dissolution of marriage by
apostasy of a spouse to another religion. The second marriage of a Hindu apostate
to Islam during the subsistence of the first marriage is a violation of provisions of
HMA.
Sarla Mudgal v. The decision in Sarla Mudgal's case was reviewed in Lily Thomas's case. The
Union of India, court held that a marriage solemnized according to one personal law cannot be
[AIR 1995 SC dissolved according to another personal law because of a change of religion of the
1531] parties.

Note: one must also refer to the following case:

1. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 224: The case is considered a
landmark judgment in India. The Supreme Court of India took a preventive
measure in order to avoid solemnizing the second marriage without a

m
proper and legal dissolution of the first marriage.

2
Saroj Rani v.
Surdarshan Kumar o
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 9. Conjugal rights are

c
inherent in the institution of marriage. Section 9 only codifies the pre-existing

.
law. The provision of 'reasonable excuse' is the built-in safeguard against the

rs
AIR 1984 SC 1562 misuse of Section 9
[PYQ 2022] Note: one must also refer to the following case:

k e
1. T. Sareetha v. T.V. Subbaih, AIR 1983 A.P. 356: In this case, it was held
that section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is unconstitutional as it violates

n
Article 21.
3 The Supreme Court held that cruelty is a conduct that causes a reasonable

Dastane v. Dastane,
(1975) 2 SCC 326
r a
apprehension that it is harmful or injurious for one spouse to live with another.
Note: one must also refer to the following case:

p
1. Russel v. Russel (1897) AC 395: The term cruelty was defined for the first

T
Daniel Latifi v.
Union of India
o time.

While upholding the constitutionality of The Muslim Women (Protection of

Rights in Divorce) Act, 1986 Supreme Court clarified that the fair and just
provision of maintenance under Section 3 (1) (a) of the 1986 Act shall extend
(2001) 7 SCC 74 beyond the period of iddat period of his wife and it shall be made within iddat
period.

5 The Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as

Shayara Bano v. unconstitutional. It was held that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the
Union of India sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim
(2017) 9 SCC 1 man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq
must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court held that triple talaq is not
fundamental to Islam. 1S 1L
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 9 of 12
 LAW OF TORTS

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1 The plaintiff was a qualified voter but was wrongfully denied voting in elections
by the defendant (returning officer). Although the candidate of the plaintiff won
Ashby v. White still the plaintiff was allowed to recover damages because his legal right was
(1703) 2 Ld. Raym violated.
938
[Injuria Sine Note: one must also refer to the following case
Damnum] 1. Gloucester Grammar School case (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 [Damnum Sine
Injuria]: The Defendant set up a rival school. As a result, the plaintiff had
to reduce the fee because of the competition. The court did not allow any
remedy as there was no violation of legal rights.

2 The test of directness was first upheld. In this case, the railway company was
Smith v. London & negligent in keeping a heap of grass trimmings near the track. A spark from the

m
Western Railway engine set fire to the material. The fire was carried to the plaintiff's cottage due to
Co. (1870) L.R. 6 high wind. The railway company was held liable, although they could not have
C.P. 14 foreseen the accident.

.c o
rs
3 The rule laid down is generally known as the rule of strict liability. In this case the
defendant got a reservoir constructed through independent contractors over his

e
land. The reservoir had unused shafts, which the contractors failed to observe.
When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded
Rylands v.
Fletcher, (1868)
L.R. 3 H.L. 330 k
the adjoining coal fields of the plaintiff. The court held the defendant liable and

n
observed that if a person, for his own purpose, brings on his land anything that is

a
likely to escape and cause mischief, then he is prima facie answerable to all the

p r
damage, which is the natural consequence of escape.

Note: one must also refer to the following case:

4 Donoghue v.
To 1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 [popularly known as Oleum
Gas Leak Case]: The Supreme Court evolved the principle of ‘Absolute
Liability’.

It is a leading judgment on negligence. The court held that a person must take
Stevenson, (1932) reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which he can reasonably foresee will
A.C. 562 injure the neighbour. The court defined 'neighbour' as 'person so closely affected
by my act I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected
when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in
question.
5 Bird vs. Jones, It was held that if a person is prevented from moving in a particular direction but
(1845) 7 QB 742 is allowed to go back, then there is no false imprisonment.

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 10 of 12
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1. Vellore Citizens This is a leading case in which the Supreme Court critically analysed the
Welfare Forum v. relationship between environment and development. The Court, in this case, also
Union of India emphasized the constitution of Green Benches in India, dealing specifically with
[AIR 1996] matters relating to environmental protection and also for speedy and expeditious
disposal of environmental cases.
2 M.C. Mehta and In this case, the court discusses the concept of Public Liability. This case is also
Anr. Etc v. Union known as the Oleum Leakage Case. It is a landmark judgment in which the
of India and Ors. principle of Absolute Liability was laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The
Etc [1986 SCR (1) Court held that permission for carrying out any hazardous industry very close to
312] human habitation could not be given, and the industry was relocated.
3. Rural Litigation In this case the court introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development”. An
and Entitlement NGO named RLEK filed a case against limestone quarrying in the valley in 1987.
Kendra, Dehradun It was stated that the permanent assets of mankind are not to be exhausted in one
vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [AIR 1987
SC 2187]
m
generation. The natural resources should be used with requisite attention and
care so that ecology and the environment may not be affected in any serious way.

c o
.
4 Indian Council for The court held that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused

rs
Enviro-Legal by pollution should lie with the undertakings that cause the pollution by adopting
Action vs. Union of the “Polluter Pays Principle”.

e
India [AIR 1999 SC
1502]
5 TN Godavarman
Thirumulpad v.
Union of India and
•
•
k
A landmark judgement of ‘continuing mandamus’

n
In the order of 1996, the court imposed a complete ban on tree felling all

a
across the nation and on carrying out any non-forest activity as defined in
Ors [WP (Civil) No.
202 of 1995]

p r
section 2 of the Forest Conversation Act, except in cases where the Central
Government has approved.

To

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 11 of 12
 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

S.NO CASE NAME SUMMARY

1. The North Sea Continental Shelf cases in 1969 involved the delimitation of the
North Sea continental shelf areas in the North Sea between Germany and Denmark and
Continental Shelf Germany and Netherlands beyond the partial boundaries previously agreed upon
cases, 1969 by these States. The parties requested the Court to decide the principles and rules
of international law that are applicable to the above delimitation because the
parties disagreed on the applicable principles or rules of delimitation.
2 Colombia v Peru [1950] ICJ 6 (also known as the Asylum Case) is a public
international law case decided by the International Court of Justice. The ICJ
Asylum case, 1950 recognised that the scope of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of
(Columbia v. Peru) Justice encompassed bilateral and regional international customary norms as well
as general customary norms in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral
and multilateral treaties. The Court also clarified that for custom to be definitively
proven, it must be continuously and uniformly executed.
3 Anglo-Norway
Fisheries case
United Kingdom v
m
United Kingdom v Norway [1951] ICJ 3, also known as the Fisheries Case, was the
culmination of a dispute, originating in 1933, over how large an area of water

o
surrounding Norway was Norwegian waters (that Norway thus had exclusive

c
.
Norway fishing rights to) and how much was 'high seas' (that the UK could thus fish).

rs
4 The Island of Palmas Case was a territorial dispute over the Island of Palmas (or
Islands of Palmas Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States, which was heard by the

e
case, 1928 Permanent Court of Arbitration. Palmas (Indonesian: Pulau Miangas) was
Netherland v. declared to be a part of the Netherlands East Indies and is now part of Indonesia.
United States

a
were applied.
n k
The case is one of the most influential precedents dealing with island territorial
conflicts. In this case, General Principles of law recognized by civilized nations

5
Temple of Preah

p r
The Preah Vihear dispute was a territorial dispute between Cambodia and
Thailand over the Preah Vihear Temple, located in the disputed area between the

o
Vihar – 1962 Preah Vihear Province of Cambodia and the Sisaket Province of Thailand, which
(Cambodia v. Thai authority stationed troops there since 1954. Cambodia complained to the
Thailand)

T International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1959, and it judged in 1962 that the temple
is situated in Cambodian territory.

1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S
1L1S
tr-5T6Q9R9T0S

0G 1H1D
tr-5A6H9K9B

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-7676564400| https://www.toprankers.com Page 12 of 12