Case Summary

The Maharaj Libel Case

The Maharaj Libel Case

The Maharaj Libel Case of 1862 stands as a pivotal moment in colonial India’s legal and social history, highlighting the clash between traditional religious authority and emerging reformist ideals. This case not only underscored the role of the press in challenging entrenched societal norms but also emphasized the judiciary’s function in upholding truth and accountability. […]

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854): A Landmark Case in Contract Law

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) is a landmark case in English contract law, establishing the fundamental principle for determining consequential damages in contract breaches. The case set the “foreseeability rule”, which states that damages are only recoverable if they were reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract formation. This case is frequently cited in contract law,

Shankari Prasad Case

Shankari Prasad Case: A Landmark Constitutional Battle

In India’s early years, the Shankari Prasad case was a key legal fight. It changed how we see fundamental rights and the power of Parliament. This case in 1951 questioned the heart of the Indian Constitution, starting a deep debate on legislative limits. This case was a turning point in Indian law, focusing on constitutional

Shayara Bano v Union of India

Shayara Bano v Union of India: A Landmark Triple Talaq Case

The Shayara Bano case was a key moment in Indian law. It challenged the practice of triple talaq in Muslim personal law. In October 2015, Rizwan Ahmed divorced Shayara Bano with a quick and one-sided talaq-e-biddat. This started a big fight over women’s rights in India. This case showed how challenging a long-standing practice can

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation: A Legal Study

In the 1980s, Bombay saw a case that changed India’s laws. The Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation case was key. It changed how people saw the right to make a living. The battle started in 1981. The State of Maharashtra wanted to kick out slum and pavement dwellers. Back then, half of Bombay’s people

Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball

Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball: A Legal Landmark Case

The Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball case is a key moment in contract law. It changed how we see commercial ads and contracts in the late 1800s. The case happened during a time of great trouble. The 1889-1890 flu pandemic killed almost one million people. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company made a bold claim. They

KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra

KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra: Historic Indian Case

The KM Nanavati case is a key moment in Indian legal history. It caught the nation’s attention with its story of love, betrayal, and justice. On 27 April 1959, Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati shot Prem Ahuja, his wife’s lover, in a moment of intense emotional turmoil. This trial was more than a criminal case.

Lalita Kumari v State of UP

Lalita Kumari v State of UP – Supreme Court Guidelines

The Lalita Kumari case is a big deal in Indian law. It changed how police handle First Information Reports (FIRs) in India. The Supreme Court set rules for police to follow when they start an investigation. A five-judge panel looked into how police decide to start investigations. They made rules to make sure police follow

Foss v Harbottle Case

Foss v Harbottle Case: A Landmark Rule in Company Law

The Foss v Harbottle case is a key moment in company law. It changed how shareholders and companies work together. This case happened in 1843, when two minority shareholders, Richard Foss and Edward Starkie Turton, sued the directors of Victoria Park Company. This case is important in legal history. It set rules that help protect

SP Gupta vs Union of India

SP Gupta vs Union of India: Historic RTI Case Analysis

The SP Gupta case was a turning point in Indian law. It started in 1981 as Writ Petition Number 274. This case changed how India views legal decisions and government power. This case questioned how judges are chosen and how open government should be. A panel of seven judges, with a 5:2 majority, looked into

Scroll to Top