IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

CONTRACT LAW
1. Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

Case Summary: In this landmark case, the Court of Appeal

(England and Wales) addressed the issue of whether an agreement
between a husband and wife can be considered a legally binding
contract. Mr. Balfour, who was working in Ceylon, verbally agreed
to provide maintenance to his wife while they were separated.
However, when their relationship deteriorated further, Mr. Balfour
stopped making the agreed payments. Mrs. Balfour filed a lawsuit
against him, claiming breach of contract.

Key Takeaway: The court ruled that agreements made between

spouses in a domestic setting are generally not binding contracts as
the parties do not intend to create legal relations. This case
established the principle that for a contract to be enforceable, the
parties must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement.

2. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt (1913)

Case Summary: In this case, the Allahabad High Court examined

the importance of knowledge and communication in the formation
of a contract. Lalman Shukla, an employee, was asked by his
employer to find his missing nephew. Meanwhile, the employer
published handbills offering a reward for finding the missing boy.
Lalman Shukla found the boy without being aware of the reward
and claimed the reward later. However, the court held that Lalman
Shukla was not entitled to the reward as he was unaware of the offer
at the time he found the boy.

Key Takeaway: The court emphasized that for a contract to be

valid, the offeree must have knowledge of and assent to the proposal.
In this case, Lalman Shukla's act of finding the boy did not amount
to acceptance of the offer as he was unaware of the reward at the
time.

3. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893)

Case Summary: The Court of Appeal (England and Wales)

examined the concept of offer and acceptance in this case. The
Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised that their product could
prevent influenza, and they offered a reward of £100 to anyone who
contracted the flu after using their product as directed. Mrs. Carlill
bought and used the smoke ball but still caught the flu. She claimed
the reward, but the company refused to pay. The court held that
Mrs. Carlill was entitled to the reward as she had accepted the offer
by performing the required actions.

Key Takeaway: This case established the principle of unilateral

contracts, where an offer can be accepted by performance rather
than formal notification. Mrs. Carlill's act of using the smoke ball
constituted acceptance, and she was entitled to the reward.

4. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

Case Summary: In this case, the Privy Council examined the issue of
contracts involving minors. Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, borrowed
money from Brahmodutt, misrepresenting his age and executing a
mortgage deed. When the minor discovered his status, he filed a
lawsuit to nullify the mortgage deed. The Privy Council held that
the contract was void as it involved a minor, and the minor was not
liable to repay the borrowed amount.

Key Takeaway: The case established that contracts made by minors

are void from the beginning, and a minor cannot be held liable for
any obligations arising from such contracts.

5. Chinnaya v. Ramayya (1882)

Case Summary: The Madras High Court examined the concept of
consideration in this case. An elderly widow provided funds to her
sister, and in return, her sister's daughter agreed to pay an annuity
to the widow. After the widow's death, the daughter refused to pay
the annuity. The court held that the agreement between the parties
constituted a valid contract, and the daughter was obligated to pay
the annuity as promised.

Key Takeaway: This case emphasized the importance of

consideration in a contract. The court held that the widow's
provision of funds constituted good consideration, and the daughter
was bound by her promise to pay the annuity.

6. Hyde v. Wrench (1840)

Case Summary: The Rolls Court examined the issue of

counteroffers in this case. Mr. Wrench offered to sell his farm to
Mr. Hyde for £1,200, but Mr. Hyde rejected the offer. Mr. Wrench
made a subsequent offer to sell the farm for £1,000, to which Mr.
Hyde responded with a counteroffer of £950. Mr. Wrench rejected
the counteroffer, and Mr. Hyde later attempted to accept the
original offer of £1,000. However, Mr. Wrench refused to sell his
farm. The court held that there was no valid contract between the
parties.

Key Takeaway: This case established the principle that a

counteroffer extinguishes the original offer, and the parties cannot
later accept the original offer after making a counteroffer.

7. Harvey v. Facey (1893)

Case Summary: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

examined the distinction between an invitation to treat and an offer
in this case. Mr. Harvey sent a telegram to Mr. Facey inquiring
about the lowest cash price for the sale of a property. Mr. Facey
responded with the price but did not explicitly offer to sell the
property. Mr. Harvey claimed that there was a contract based on
the telegram exchange. However, the court held that the telegram
was merely an indication of price and did not constitute an offer.

Key Takeaway: This case clarified that an invitation to treat, such

as providing price information, does not amount to an offer. A
contract is formed only when an offer is made and accepted.

8. Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)

Case Summary: The Court of Exchequer examined the issue of

consequential damages in this case. The plaintiff's mill had a broken
crankshaft, and the defendant was responsible for transporting the
broken piece for repair. Due to the defendant's delay in delivering
the part, the plaintiff suffered losses in their business. The court
held that the defendant was not liable for the consequential damages
as they were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract
formation.

Key Takeaway: This case established the principle that a party can
only be liable for damages that were reasonably foreseeable at the
time of contract formation. Consequential damages that could not
have been reasonably anticipated are not recoverable.

9. Felthouse v. Bindley (1862)

Case Summary: The Court of Common Pleas examined the issue of

acceptance and silence in this case. Mr. Felthouse negotiated with
his nephew for the purchase of a horse. However, they could not
agree on the price. Mr. Felthouse later sent a letter stating that if he
did not hear back from his nephew, he would consider the horse his
property. The nephew remained silent, and the horse was sold in an
auction. Mr. Felthouse sued the auctioneer, claiming that the horse
should not have been sold. The court held that there was no valid
contract between Mr. Felthouse and his nephew as silence does not
constitute acceptance.

Key Takeaway: This case established the principle that silence or

inaction cannot be considered acceptance of an offer. Acceptance
must be communicated explicitly to create a valid contract.

10. Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880)

Case Summary: The Allahabad High Court examined the issue of

consideration and promise in this case. The plaintiff demanded that
the defendant establish outlets in his neighborhood, and in return,
the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a commission on the goods
sold. However, the defendant later refused to pay the commission.
The court held that there was a valid contract between the parties,
and the defendant was obligated to pay the commission as promised.

Key Takeaway: This case emphasized the importance of

consideration in a contract. The court held that the plaintiff's
promise to establish outlets constituted good consideration, and the
defendant was bound by their promise to pay the commission.

The following are the list of Landmark cases for Code of Criminal
Procedure –
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This pivotal case contributed significantly to broadening the
understanding of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This
constitutional article commits to securing citizens their essential
right to life and individual freedom. The verdict underscored the
necessity for abiding by fair practices, regardless of whether legally
justifying restrictions on a person's liberties, establishing a firmer
foundation for due process under Indian laws. This stressed the
need for all administrative or lawful actions seeking to restrict an
individual's liberty to adhere to a process that is rational, fair and
devoid of prejudice.
2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
This notable case established directives for the detention of people
under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stressing the
significance of the rights of the accused. The guidelines make clear
that an individual can only be apprehended if compelling reasons
exist, such as the prevention of further offense or influencing of
witnesses. Police action must be judicious and carefully weigh public
security concerns against protecting civil liberties
3. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004):
This particular case highlighted the need to guarantee a fair legal
procedure and protect the rights of those victimized and bearing
witness, during court trials drawing significant public attention. It
underscored the vital need for all involved to receive equitable and
respectful treatment under the law, regardless of public attention
surrounding the case.
4. Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi (2005):
This was a landmark case that shed light about anticipatory bail,
laid out in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The apex
court instructed lower courts about the parameters they should
consider when they must decide on granting or denying anticipatory
bail pleas. Importantly, the judgment stressed that anticipatory bail
applications should not be dismissed simply based on the seriousness
or nature of the accusations or charges implicated against an
individual.
5. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014):
This case centred on the misuse of Section 498A under the Indian
Penal Code. It also aimed to set guidelines that would help curb
arbitrary detentions related to women's cruelty affairs. The courts
noted that Section 498A, initially created to safeguard women, was
being turned around and used dishonestly to instigate unmerited
accusations during marital conflicts. In view of ensuring
impartiality for both the complainants and the accused, the courts
introduced protective measures. This included scrutinizing
complaints and arresting individuals concerned and testing the
legitimacy of accusations before executing legally enforceable
actions.
6. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014):
This landmark case examined important concerns surrounding
capital punishment and established protocols for carrying out the
sentences of individuals condemned to death, specifically in regard
to postponements of executions and evaluating a prisoner's
psychological state. The ruling provided direction for legal
procedures involving inmates on death row to help ensure fair and
humane treatment throughout the process.
7. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (1995)
The case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi
(1995) clarified the authority and limitations of law enforcement
officials during investigations. It emphasized following proper legal
processes and procedures. The ruling ensured police powers are
exercised judiciously and citizen’s' rights are protected according to
the law. This balance is important to maintain fairness and justice
for all.
8. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013)
The case made it mandatory for police to register First Information
Rports (FIRs) and established guidelines for preliminary inquiries
before recording reports. The Supreme Court ruled that all
cognizable offenses must be registered and investigated
immediately. This aims to ensure swift justice and prevent cover
ups. However, preliminary checks are permitted to verify facts and
avoid frivolous/false complaints clogging the system. But these must
be time bound without undue delay to filing an official report.
9. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
This pivotal ruling established protocols to avoid torment and
mortality during confinement, highlighting the rights of individuals
in police guardianship. The judgement stressed the significance of
humane treatment and respect for basic human dignity for all
people subject to arrest or detention by law enforcement. Protecting
vulnerable groups from harm and upholding civil liberties was the
main point of discussion of this case.
10. Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008)
This case brought clarity around the rights of the accused during an
investigation, especially concerning the documentation of statements
according to Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
ruling specified the entitlement of suspects to fair treatment when
furnishing details to authorities. By recording exchanges officially
and completely, the decision ensured transparency for all parties
involved.
These cases have considerably shaped the understanding and
application of the Criminal Procedure Code in India. They ensure
impartiality, justice, and safeguard individual liberties within the
judicial architecture.

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS – IPC

Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay (1975)

In the case of Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay (1975) the

Supreme Court had observed that the presence of an accused
in the Indian territory at the time the offense had been
committed, would not be an essential ingredient for the
person to be charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

In this present case, the Apex Court convicted the petitioner

on the grounds that the jurisdiction under Section 2 was the
locality where the offense had been committed, and the
corporal presence of the accused in India stood immaterial.

Chirangi v. the State of M.P., (1952) 53 CrLJ 1212 (M.P.)

In this case, a widower holding axe accompanied by his son,

went to the woods to gather ‘siadi’ leaves. After some time,
his nephew discovered that the accused was sleeping under
the tree and the child was missing.

Later the child was found dead. It was transpired in evidence

that the accused at the time was seized of the state of mind in
which he visualized that a tiger was going to attack him as by
mistake he killed his son considering his son as the tiger.

The court stated that it was a mistake of fact that immunized

him from liability. He had no intention to kill his son.

State of Orrisa v. Khora Ghasi

The accused while guarding his field shot an arrow at the

moving object in good faith that it was a bear, but the shot
resulted in the death of a person. Here, he gets immunity
under the mistake of fact.

Regina V. Dudley and Stephens (1884)

In this case, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens were the

defendants. The said defendants and a cabin boy named
Richard Parker were cast adrift in a boat without food and
water due to a shipwreck.

Later, on the eighteenth day, when the three of them had been
without food for seven days and without water for five days,
Dudley proposed to Stephen that one should be put to death to
save the rest.

Accordingly, they decided that it would be better to kill

Parker so that they could save their own lives. Dudley and
Stephens killed Parker on the twentieth day and fed on his
flesh for four days. Later, a vessel rescued them and they
were charged with committing the murder of Richard Parker.

It was held by the Court that killing an innocent person in

order to save one's own life does not justify murder even
though it was committed under the extreme necessity of
hunger Subsequently, the defendants were sentenced to death,
however, it was later reduced to six months Imprisonment.

M ‘Naughten’s Case

 If the person knew what he was doing or was only under

a partial delusion, then he is punishable.
 There is an assumption that every man is prudent or sane
and knows what he is doing and is responsible for the
same.
 To establish a defense based on insanity, it must be
ascertained, at the time of perpetrating the act, the
accused was in such a state of mind as was unable to
know the nature of the act committed by him.
 A person who has sufficient medical knowledge, or is a
medical man and is familiar with the disease of insanity
cannot be asked to give his opinion because it is for the
jury to determine, and decide upon the questions.
Basdev vs State of Pepsu, 1956

The law of dominance has been very briefly summarised. The

appellant Basdev of the village Harigarh was a retired
military jamadar, who was charged with the murder of a
young boy named Magarh Singh (15 or 16 years old).

The two of them and others of the same village went to attend
a wedding and to take the mid-day meal; some had settled
down in their seats and some had not. T

he appellant asked Magar Singh, the young boy to step aside a

little so that he could occupy a convenient seat but Magar
Singh did not move in a fit of anger, the appellant whipped
out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. The injury
proved fatal.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925

Two people demanded money from a postman as he was

counting the money, and when they shot a handgun at the
postmaster, he died on the spot. All of the suspects fled
without taking any money.

In this instance, Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not

shoot the gun and was only standing by, but the courts
rejected his appeal and found him guilty of murder under
Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court further held that it is not required that all

participants participate equally. It is possible to accomplish
more or less. However, this does not mean that the individual
who did less should be exempt from blame. His Legal
responsibility is the same.
Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955) SC

In this case, the appellant and three others were charged with
the offense under Section 1208 read with Sections 471 and 420
I.P.C. for conspiracy to use forged documents. The Trial
Court acquitted all the accused, but the High Court, in
appeal, reversed the appellant's acquittal and convicted him
for the substantive offense and criminal conspiracy.

In the appeal, the Supreme Court held that it is a matter of

common sense that one person alone can never be held guilty
of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that he cannot
conspire. It was held that the appellant could not be convicted
under Section 120B when his alleged co-conspirators were
acquitted of that offense.

When all the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted, the

accused alone cannot be held guilty of conspiracy unless it can
be proved that he conspired to commit an offense not only
with the co-accused but with some third person(s) who has not
been tired, because he is minor or is absconding.

Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (4)

“Where only five named persons have been charged for

constituting an unlawful assembly, and one or more of them
are acquitted, the remaining accused (who are less than five)
cannot be convicted as members of unlawful assembly, unless
it is proved that the unlawful assembly, besides convicted
persons consisted of some other persons as well who were not
identified and so could not be named."

Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab

 First, it should establish, fairly objectively, that a

physical injury exists.
  Second, the nature of the injury has to be proved. These
are purely objective investigations.
 Third, it must be proved that that particular bodily
injury was intended to inflame, that is to say, it was not
accidental or unintentional, or that any other type of
injury was intended. Once these three elements are
proven to exist, the investigation proceeds.
 Fourth, it must be proved that the type of inquiry made
by the above three elements stated above is enough to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of
the investigation is purely objective and impractical and
has nothing to do with the intent of the criminal.

Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh

 A woman can never be held guilty of committing Gang

Rape.
 She can never form an intention to commit rape. Thus,
she can never be held liable for committing gang rape.

Suneeta Pandey v. State of UP

The Allahabad High Court recently held that although a

woman cannot commit the offense of rape, if she facilitates the
act of gang-rape of any woman by a group of people, then she
may be prosecuted for the offense as per the amended
provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Pyare Lal Bhargav v. State of Rajasthan

Even a temporary wrongful gain or wrongful loss comes

within the purview of the offense of theft.

Dhananjoy v. Provat Chandra Biswas

The subject matter of the offense of Criminal Trespass is both

movable and immovable property.
Navtej Johar and ors. V. Union of India

The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual unnatural

sexual intercourse (Section 377).

Sherras V. De Rutzen

There is a presumption that means rea is essential for every

offense. But this presumption is liable to be displaced either
by the words of the statute creating offense or by the subject
matter with which it deals

Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC

Supreme Court held that the death sentence should not be

passed except in rarest of the rare case.

Mahbooh Shah V Emperor (Indus River Case) AIR 1945 PC

118

The court held that common intention implies a pre-arranged

plan a prior meeting of minds or prior consultation between
all persons constituting the group. The laid down the
following principle under Section 34:

 Essence of liability under Section 34 is found in common

intention.
 To invoke Sanction 34 it must be shown that act was done
in furtherance of common intention.
 Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and it must
be proved that a criminal act was done in concern
pursuant to a pre-arranged plan.
 For the intention to be common it must be known to all
members and must also be shared by them.

Rishidev Pandey V. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 331

Supreme Court held that common intention can develop on
the spot also during the course of the commission of the office.

Pandurang V. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216

Supreme Court differentiated between similar intention and

common intention. The court held that several persons can
simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same
intention, namely the intention to kill, and each can
individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would
have the common intention required by the specific section
because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-
arranged plan.

Director of Public Prosecutions V. Beard. (1920) AC 479

 The House of Lords laid down three rules regarding

drunkenness
 Insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise
is a defense to the crime charged.
 Evidence of drunkenness that renders the accused
incapable of forming the specific intent essential to
constitute the crime should be taken into consideration
with the other facts proved in order to determine
whether or not he had the intent.
 Evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved.
Incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to
constitute the crime and merely establishing that his
mind was affected by drink so that he more readily way
to come violent passion, does not rebut the presumption
that man intends that natural consequences of his acts.

Dominic Varkey V. State of Kerala AIR 1971 SC 1208

 The Right to Private Defence rests on three ideas.

  That there must be no more harm inflicted than
necessary for the purpose of the defense.

 There must be reasonable apprehension of danger to the

body from the attempt or threat to commit the offense.
 The right does not commence until there is a reasonable
apprehension.

Abhayanand Mishra V. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698

 Supreme Court held that a person commits the offense of

attempt when
 He intends to commit that offense;
 Having made preparations and with the intention to
commit the offense does an act towards its commission;
 Such an act need not be a penultimate act towards the
commission of offense but must be an act during the
course of committing the offense.

State of Maharashtra V. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 1111

Supreme Court held that some action must be done towards

the commission of an offense and such act must be 'proximate'
to the intended result.

Proximity need not be in relation to time and action but in

relation to intention.

R.S. Nayak V. A.R. Antulay and Anr., 1986 Cri 1J J 922 (SC)

Supreme Court held that for an offense of extortion, fear or

threat must be used. There can be no extortion without fear.

R.K Dalmia V. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821

The words of Section 405 are wide enough to include the case
of a partner if it is proved that he was in fact entrusted with
the partnership property, or with a dominion over it, and had
dishonestly misappropriated it or converted it to his own will.

State of Tamil Nadu V. Nalini 1999 Cri. LJ 3124 (SC)

Supreme Court held that association of the accused with the

main accused or knowledge of conspiracy would not make the
accused a circumstance agreement is a sine qua none for the
offense.

Kedar Nath V. State AIR 1962 SC 955

Supreme Court held that Section 124-A does not violate

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution as it is a reasonable
restriction.

K M Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605

Supreme Court observed that if an accused pleads exceptions

contained in Indian Penal Code then there is a presumption
against him and the burden to rebut that presumption is on
him.

Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab 2005 Cri LJ 3710 (SC)

The word ‘Gross’ has not been used in Section 304 A but it is
settled that in criminal law negligence must be of such high
degrees as to be gross the express ‘rash and negligent act’ is
to be qualified by the world.

Om Prakash V. State of Punjab. AIR 1961 SC 1782

A person commits an offense with the intention to murder and

in pursuance of such intention does an act towards its
commission, he will be liable to attempt murder. It is not
necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been caused.
Vardarajan V. State of Madras, AIR 1962 SC 942

The Supreme Court said that there was a distinction between

the ‘taking’ and ‘allowing’ a minor to accompany any person
something more has to be shown, some kind of inducement or
active participation of the accused in taking the person.

T.D Vadgama, V. State of Gujarat AIR, 1973 SC 2313

Supreme Court held that the word ‘entice’ seems to involve

the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to or
desire on the other.

Independent Thought V. Union Of India (2007) 10 SCC 800

Supreme Court read down Exception 2 of Section 375 court

held that sexual intercourse with a wife below the age of 18
years constitutes rape. Therefore, after the decision of the
Supreme Court, in this case, fifteen years, ‘in Exception 2 of
Section 375 should be read as eighteen years.

IMPORTANT CASES ON PIL

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

In this PIL, Bhanwari Devi sought to prevent the marriage of a one-year-
old girl in rural Rajasthan as part of a government campaign against
child marriage.
First, locals retaliated by threatening Bhanwari Devi and her family.
after they also imposed a socioeconomic boycott on them. Afterwards,
on September 22, 1992, five men raped Bhanwari Devi.
When Bhanwari Devi tried to pursue justice, she faced numerous
obstacles. Naina Kapur, a lawyer who had attended Bhanwari Devi’s
criminal trial, became frustrated by the criminal justice system’s
inability to offer concrete remedies or restore the victim’s dignity,
And she made the decision to file a PIL case action in the Supreme
Court to protest workplace sexual harassment.

In 1992, five NGOs filed the Vishaka writ petition against the State of
Rajasthan, its Women and Child Welfare Department, the Department of
Social Welfare, and the Union of India.
After Vishaka decision, sexual harassment is a “clear violation” of the
fundamental constitutional rights to equality non-discrimination, life,
and liberty as well as the freedom to engage in any occupation. These
instructions were given to employers prevent harassment,
It also has a description of the complaint procedures that needed to be
“strictly observed in all workplaces. it should be done for the
preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality.”
It has promoted greater international law compliance and women’s
rights enforcement at the highest judicial level.
Thus, the case has been referred to as “groundbreaking,” “one of the
most powerful legacies” of the PIL case, and a “trendsetter” that “caused
a revolution.”
2. Javed v. State of Haryana
A coercive population control legislation that oversaw panchayat
elections were challenged by the Javed litigants as being
unconstitutional.
A “person having more than two living children” was prohibited from
holding certain panchayat offices under the Haryana Provision.
The idea behind this two-child standard was to make family planning
more widely accepted. it was accepted with the hope that other people
would follow their elected officials’ restraint in having children.
In this PIL case law, both parties were people who had been barred from
running for election or continuing in a panchayat position. It was
because they had more than two children.
The Court’s primary focus was on “the problem of population growth as
a national and global concern” at the expense of upholding human
rights,
While upholding the Haryana Provision as “salutary and in the public
interest.”
The Javed decision did not conduct a thorough analysis of whether the
impugned provision was truly having the desired impact on family
planning.
The clause was found “well-defined” and “based on understandable
differentia” by the court.
And they also predicated on a clear objective to promote family
planning.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Among all cases, many have recognized this one as the first and most
well-known case of PIL in India, or the first Public Interest Litigation
Case.
In this PIL case, the court’s attention was brought to the extraordinary
circumstance of Bihar’s undertrials,
Who had been held in custody pending trial for lengths well in excess of
the maximum term for the offenses they were charged with.
The court not only proceeded to make the right to a speedy trial the main
issue in the case,
but it also issued an order for the general release of nearly 40,000 people
who were awaiting trial but had been held longer than the allotted time.
For more clarity you can contact Vakilsearch, they will solve all your
queries.
4. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India
The judgment delivered on January 12, 1988, criticized the local
government for permitting untreated sewage from Kanpur’s tanneries to
enter the Ganges.
Over the course of time, over 50,000 polluting companies in the Ganga
basin have been subject to many Orders and three historic decisions.
More than 250 towns and localities have been told to build sewage
treatment plants in this case, in addition to the industries.
A planned leather complex in the state of West Bengal has received 600
tanneries. It was originally situated in congested residential areas of
Kolkata.
Six hundred tanneries that were formerly located in Kolkata’s most
crowded residential districts have been transferred to the State of West
Bengal’s proposed Leather Complex. The Court then forced the closure
of many factories.
And these businesses could only return after installing effluent treatment
facilities and implementing pollution control measures.
These directions have prevented the consequences of air and water
pollution on millions of people in the Ganga basin.
5. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India
Human rights advocate Parmanand Katara petitioned the Supreme Court
with a writ on the basis of a newspaper article about the death of a
scooterist who was hit by a speeding car.
He was told to be transported to a hospital 20 km distant that was
permitted to handle medico-legal matters after doctors refused to treat
him.
The Supreme Court ruled in this PIL case law on the grounds of petition
that
 Life preservation is of the greatest priority.
 Every doctor has a duty to extend their services with the
expertise for life protection. Whether they work in a government
institution or not.
 There should be no question that the effort to save the person
should be given first priority.
By everyone involved in the situation, including the police, other people,
and legal professionals.
Conclusion
Numerous changes and amendments have resulted from these cases
of PIL in India.
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES of CONTRACT LAW

Doctrine of Privity of Consideration

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act defines consideration:

When at the desire of the promisor, promisee or any other person has
done or abstained from doing or does or abstains from doing or
promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or
abstinence, or promise is called a consideration for the promise.

In layman’s language, anything in return for something is called

consideration, also known as quid pro quo in Latin legal maxim.
Consideration is the most essential ingredient of a contract, and besides
that, some of the essentials of consideration are:

1. Consideration should move at the desire of the promisor only.

Otherwise, it will not be acknowledged in the eyes of the law if decided
voluntarily by the third party.

2. Consideration must be given by the promisee or any of his entities or

person. (The person who makes the promise to another person is called
the promisor, whereas the person to whom the promise is made is called
the promisee.)

3. Consideration must be lawful in nature. If found unlawful, the

contract becomes void.
Circumstances where consideration is considered unlawful are enshrined
under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. They are as follows:

 It is forbidden by law; or
 Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions

of any law; or
 Is fraudulent, or

 Involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or

 The court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.

Consideration should be real in nature. It should not be something

impossible to attain. Impossibility covers physically impossible,
unrealistic as well as illegal considerations.

Types of Consideration

Consideration can be of three types – past, present, and future:

1. Past consideration: When the act to be performed is still left,

and the consideration that needs to be paid is paid, it is known as
past consideration. Earlier, past consideration was not
considered, but now it is acknowledged as a consideration.
2. Present consideration: When the act and the consideration both
are done and paid simultaneously, it is called present
consideration.
 3. Future consideration: When the act to be performed is
performed, and the consideration that needs to be paid is still left,
it is called future consideration.

For More:
1. What Is Consideration and Its 3 Kinds Under Contract Act
2. 6 Essentials of Consideration Under Indian Contract Act

Doctrine of Privity of Contract

The doctrine of privity of contract is not explicitly mentioned in the

Indian Contract Act. The doctrine of privity of contract protects the
obligation of two people towards each other in the contract by debarring
strangers from enforcing their rights and holding the contracting parties
liable as well. Only the parties to a contract can sue each other in the
case of breach of contract and enforce their rights and liabilities in a
court of law.

However, some exceptions to the doctrine are:

Direct Beneficiary

If a person is a direct beneficiary of a contract between two people, then

although being a stranger to the party, he will be entitled to sue and
claim his right. For example, Mr A promises Mr B to pay monthly
maintenance to Mr C, Mr B’s son. But after some time, Mr A stops
paying the amount to Mr C. In this case, Mr C, despite being an outsider,
can claim his right because he is the direct beneficiary of the contract.
Acknowledgement or Admission

When a party considers the admission of a third party in the contract,

then the third party can file a case against that party. For example, Mr A
promises Mr C (third party) to pay Rs. 1000 by considering his
admission to the contract. Then, in any case, Mr A cannot back off from
his promise. This exception is based on the principle of promissory
estoppel.

Contractual Right

If a person enters the contract with some contractual right given to him
by the parties to the contract, then he has the power to enforce his rights
as a party to the contract. For example, Mr A and Mr B are in a
contract. Both parties have given the right to Mr C to enforce his rights
if any problem arises in the performance of the contract. Then the
interference of a third party would be valid as he is given the contractual
right to do so.

Read Full Law Note: Privity of Contract Under English Law and Indian
Law

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

As per the doctrine of promissory estoppel, if a party makes a promise to

the other party and the other party performs its duty as said by the
former party, then the former party gets legally bound to perform his
part of the promise. The former party cannot back off the contract, as he
made the promise intending to form a legal relationship. The doctrine of
promissory estoppel is not applied in the case of minors.

For example, Mr A promised the workers that he would build a

residential area for them if they completed the given work in a month.
Workers did so, and now Mr A cannot refuse his promise.

Related: What Is Estoppel Under the Evidence Act

Doctrine of Restitution

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act lays down the rule of restitution. It
says that any benefit incurred from the void agreement or contract must
be restored by the beneficiary. The doctrine of restitution applies only to
those agreements or contracts which subsequently become void and not
those which are void ab initio (void from the beginning). This principle
is based on the rule of consideration, where one pays consideration when
one gets something in return (quid pro quo).

For example, Mr A orders pizza, but the delivery boy mistakenly

delivers it to Mr B. Now, Mr B is bound to return the pizza to Mr A.

Related: What Is the Doctrine of Restitution in Civil Procedure Code

Doctrine of Absolute Acceptance

The doctrine of absolute acceptance is laid down under section 7 of the

Indian Contract Act. It states how the acceptance of the proposal should
be. As per the section, acceptance should be absolute and unqualified in
nature (without any conditions and restrictions). Acceptance should be
made as prescribed by the proposer, and if not made, the proposer, after
the acceptance, may ask to be made in the prescribed form within a
reasonable time. If the other person fails to do so, the proposer may
continue with the same.

For example, Mr A asked Mr B to send him the letter of acceptance by

Tuesday, via XYZ courier service and to his address only. But Mr B did
not adhere to the mentioned address. So, here Mr A can accept or reject
the same at his discretion.

For More:
1. Definition and Essentials of Acceptance in Contract Act
2. When Communication of Acceptance Is Complete

Doctrine of Expressed and Implied Contracts

Section 9 of the Indian Contract Act states the expressed and implied
contracts. If communication of proposal and acceptance is done through
the medium of words, whether written or oral, contracts are known as
expressed. And if the same is done through conduct, without the
involvement of words are implied contracts.

For example:
  Mr A entered a restaurant. It is implied that he has to pay the bill
for the food he ordered.
 Mr A is asked to pay the interest along with the principal amount

he took as a loan from the bank. All the terms are expressly
written on the documents. Hence, it is expressedcontract.

Related: Essential Elements of Proposal and Kinds of Offer

Doctrine of Necessity

Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act lays down the definition of the
doctrine of necessity. It states that if a person is incapable of entering
into a contract or is legally bound by a person to be supported is liable to
compensate or reimburse everything from his property, for whatever
necessities he has been supplied with, as per his condition of life.

Here, necessity does not mean the bare or basic necessities of life (food,
clothing, and shelter) but the necessities or requirements to sustain
during that condition of life. Necessity also depends upon the status of a
person.

Note: Minor is an exception in the doctrine of necessity. Hence, the

minor will also be liable to compensate.

For example, besides the basic needs, the requirements of a boy are
books and stationery, and a person supplies the boy with his needs along
with a bike (which is not a need for him). So, under this doctrine, he
would only be liable to compensate the person with books and not with
the bike.

Related: Necessity as General Exception – Section 81 IPC

Doctrine of Frustration

The doctrine of frustration is given in section 56 of the Indian Contract

Act as an agreement to do an impossible act. It says that “an agreement
to do an act impossible in itself is void.”

A couple of scenarios where this section is dealt with are:

1. Subsequent impossibility: When an agreement was enforceable

by law at a point in time, but at a later stage, due to some issues,
illegality, or impossibility, it became void. For example, there
was a contract to deliver rice from state A to B, but the
government later banned such inter-state dealings. So, such a
contract would come under the Doctrine of Frustration.
2. Non-performance of an act: When the promisor promises
something to the promisee which he already knows, with
reasonable diligence, is impossible to perform, or is unlawful,
due to which the promisor suffers damages, then the promisor
gets liable to compensate the promisee. Compensation is done on
the basis of non-performance of an act that was already void, but
the promisee was ignorant about it.