Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881): Past Consideration and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Author: Krish Gaur Student,Student, Apex School of Law, Apex University, Jaipur. ————————————————————————————— 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A promise of guarantee executed after a loan has already been advanced is not legally enforceable — the prior loan constitutes past consideration, which is […]
Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882): Third Party Consideration and the Autonomy of Indian Contract Law Author: Priyanshi Khichi Student, Indore Institute of Law ————————————————————————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, consideration can move from a third party — not just the promisee — which
Felthouse v. Bindley [1862]: When Silence Is Not Consent Author: Rashneet KaurStudent, Apex University, Jaipur ————————————————————————————————————- 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Silence cannot amount to acceptance in contract law — an offeror cannot impose a contract on another person simply by declaring that their silence will be treated as consent. 2. For a binding contract to
Felthouse v. Bindley [1862]: When Silence Is Not Consent Read More »
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorai Mohammed (1886): Custom, Equity, and the Protection of Tenant Rights Author: Shreya JaiswalStudent, Usha Martin University 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Long and continuous possession of agricultural land, when coupled with regular payment of rent and local custom, can give rise to enforceable occupancy rights — even without an express statutory provision.
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorai Mohammed (1886) Read More »
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. V. SAW PIPES (2003) 5 SCC 705 Author: Roshan KumarICFAI University, Dehradun —————————————————————————————————————- Key Takeaways Facts The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) placed an order with Saw Pipes for the supply of equipment for offshore exploration, which was to be sourced from approved European suppliers. Due to a
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. V. SAW PIPES (2003) 5 SCC 705 Read More »
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Author- Lahari kandharapu December 2, 2025 BENCH: The case was heard by a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, and Justices J. Chelameswar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Rohinton Fali Nariman, R.K. Agarwal, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S.A. Bobde,
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Read More »
Case Commentary: Shakti Vahini v. Union of India Author- The Lawscape Team November 23, 2025 1. Case Name and Citation Case Name: Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others Citation: (2018) 7 SCC 192 Alternative Citation: AIR 2018 SC 1601 2. Bench The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court
Case Commentary: Shakti Vahini v. Union of India Read More »
