CARLIL Vs. CARBOLIC SMOKE BALL COMPANY (1893) 1 Q.B. 256 In our day to day lives most of the relationships are governed by the agreements. The agreements which are enforceable by law are contracts. However, to constitute any agreement the foremost requirement is the offer and its acceptance. The offer is constituted when there is a proposal by one i.e. the willingness to do or abstain to do something with an intention of obtaining assent of the other party. Although,....
Read MoreREG V. GOVINDA In India the criminal law is governed by the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Chapter 16 of the Code deals with "Offences Affecting the Human Body." The most important provision of the Chapter is Section 299 and Section 300. The former defines culpable homicide while the latter defines murder. The language of these provisions suggests that there is no difference between Section 299 and Section 300. The similarity of the language of these provisions is the reason....
Read MoreDONOGHUE VS. STEVENSON Negligence in layman's terms means carelessness or absence of duty of care. However, the legal meaning of the term negligence means 'absence of reasonable duty of care.' Legally, negligence is of two types i.e. civil and criminal; the differentiating factor between the two is the gravity of absence of care and mens rea. The concept of 'reasonability' of the duty of care has been laid down by the House of Lords in 1932....
Read MoreARJUN PANDIT RAO KHOTKAR vs. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL & Ors. [civil appl no. 20825-20826 of 2017] DATE OF THE VERDICT- July 14th, 2020 BENCH- R F Nariman, S. R. Bhat, V. Ramasubhramaniam. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- the decision was given in this amidst of conflicting decisions pronounced by the SC previously, regarding admissibility of electronic evidence. In the present case two petitions were filed against the election of the appellant to the Maharashtra legislative assembly elections. One petition was filed....
Read MoreM.C. MEHTA & ANR. vs. SHRI RAM FOODS AND FERTILISER INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS [AIR 1987 SC 965] - also known as ‘the Oleum Gas Leak Case’. DATE OF THE VERDICT- 17/02/1986 BENCH- P N Bhagwati, D P Madon, G L Oza BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- While the case of Bhopal gas tragedy awaited verdict of the Hon’ble SC, another gas disaster took place at Shri Ram Foods and fertiliser industries which was a subsidiary of the Delhi Textile Mills.....
Read MoreDanial Latifi & Anr. vs. Union Of India [AIR 2001 SC 3958] DATE OF THE JUDGMENT- 28.09.2001 BENCH- D. Raju, D P Mohapatra, G B Pattanaik, S R Babu, S V Patil BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- this case was filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986” [herein after referred to as MWPRD Act], which was enacted by the Government to nullify the verdict given by the SC in ‘Mohd. Ahmed....
Read MoreMohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SCR (3) 844] DATE OF JUDGMENT- 23rd April, 1985. BENCH- D A Desai, E S Venkataramiah, Rangnath Mishra, O C Reddy, Y V Chandrachud. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The case revolves around a long battle fought by a muslim woman, Shah Bano (appellant) against the system of triple talaq for the price of hatred by the community as well as her husband. The appellant got married to the respondent in 1932,....
Read MoreSmt. Selvi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and another [2010 (7) SCC/263] DATE OF THE VERDICT- 05/05/2010 BENCH- J M Panchal, K G Balakrishnan (CJI), R V Raveendran BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- the present case is a compilation of various criminal appeals taken up the honourable SC challenging the prominent techniques used by the police personnel to interrogate people who are either accused or suspects or even the witnesses as well on the ground that these techniques are employed....
Read MoreLaxmi vs. Union Of India and Ors. [2014 SCC (4) 427]- DATE OF JUDGMENT- 10.04.2015 BENCH- M B Lokur, U U Lalit. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- This is basically public interest litigation that was filed Laxmi, a survivor of an acid attack, who drives a campaign against preventing these attacks and runs an NGO named ‘Chaanv Foundation’ to support the victims and survivors. The victim Laxmi in this case at the age of 15 was attacked with acid in New Delhi, by three....
Read MoreRanjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra [1965 AIR 881, 1965 SCR (1) 65] BENCH- P.B. Gajendragadkar (CJ), M Hidayatullah, K N Wanchoo, J C Shah, N.R.Ayyangar DATE OF JUDGMENT- 19th August, 1964. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE – the appellant Ranjit who being an owner of a book store along with four other partners were charged under Sec. 292 of the IPC (which penalizes the act of possessing, circulating and selling of obscene material) for possessing and selling off....
Read More
