Cases

Smt. Sushila Devi and Another v. Hari Singh and Others (AIR 1971 SC 1756): Frustration, Partition, and the Limits of Contractual Obligation

Leave a Comment / Cases /

Smt. Sushila Devi and Another v. Hari Singh and Others (AIR 1971 SC 1756): Frustration, Partition, and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Author: Akansha AlangeStudent, Amity University, Mumbai ————————————————————————– 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies to executory contracts — including agreements to lease — but not to […]

Smt. Sushila Devi and Another v. Hari Singh and Others (AIR 1971 SC 1756): Frustration, Partition, and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Read More »

Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts

Leave a Comment / Cases /

Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts Author: Khan Husnaara Khatoon Iqrar AhmedStudent, Amity Law School —————————————————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. An intention to create legal relations is an essential element of a valid contract — without it, even a clear promise supported by consideration will not be legally enforceable. 2.

Balfour v. Balfour [1919]: Why Domestic Promises Are Not Contracts Read More »

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void — Not Voidable

Leave a Comment / Cases /

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void — Not Voidable Author: Sadhana TiwariStudent, NLIU Bhopal ————————————————- 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 — it has no legal existence from the very beginning and cannot be

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903): A Minor’s Contract is Void — Not Voidable Read More »

Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority

Leave a Comment / Cases /

Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority Author: JyotiStudent, Rayat Bahra College of Law ————————————————————— 💡 3 Quick Takeaways 1. A contract entered into by a minor is void — and courts will not allow a creditor to recover money advanced under such a contract by simply re-framing the

Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914]: When Fraud Cannot Override the Protection of Minority Read More »

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881): Past Consideration and the Limits of Contractual Obligation

Leave a Comment / Cases /

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

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881): Past Consideration and the Limits of Contractual Obligation Read More »

Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882): Third Party Consideration and the Autonomy of Indian Contract Law

Leave a Comment / Cases /

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

Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882): Third Party Consideration and the Autonomy of Indian Contract Law Read More »

Felthouse v. Bindley [1862]: When Silence Is Not Consent

Leave a Comment / Cases /

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)

Leave a Comment / Cases /

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

Leave a Comment / Cases /

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.

Leave a Comment / Cases /

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 »