Legal Vidhiya
  • Home
  • Case Laws
    • Supreme Court
      • 2010-2011
      • 2012-2013
      • 2011-2012
      • 2013-2014
      • 2015-2016
      • 2014-2015
      • 2016-2017
      • 2017-2018
      • 2018-2019
      • 2019-2020
      • 2020-2021
      • 2021-2022
      • 2022-2023
      • 2023-2024
      • 2024-2025
  • Article
  • Law As A Career!
  • Contents
    • Advocates Act, 1961
    • Administrative Law
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
    • Banking Law
    • Business Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Criminology
    • Code of Civil Procedure
    • Code of Criminal Procedure
      • Bail
    • Cyber Law
    • Family Law
      • Muslim Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Law of Evidence
    • Law of Tort
    • Human Rights
    • Indian Contract Act, 1872
    • International Law
    • Indian Partnership Act, 1932
    • Intellectual Property Rights
    • Interpretation of Statues
    • Jurisprudence
    • Juvenile Justice Act
    • Medical Law
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
    • Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace
    • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
    • NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881
    • Property Law
    • Right to Information
    • Taxation Law
    • Trademark Law
    • SPACE LAW
    • SPORTS LAW
    • Unlawful activities prevention act, 1967 (UAPA)
  • OPPORTUNITY
    • Internship
    • Moot
    • Call For Paper
    • Debate
    • Quiz
    • Workshop/Seminar/Webinar
    • Get Published at Legal Vidhiya
  • About
    • Advisory Board
    • HONORARY BOARD
    • Our Team
      • FOUNDER’S
      • Executive Committee
      • Core Team
  • Youtube
  • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Code of Conduct
    • Disclaimer Policy
  • Contact Us

Case Laws

Case Laws

Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Delhi, (1950) SCR 605, Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and reasonable restrictions

CASE NAME Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Delhi, 1950 EQUIVALENT CITATION (1950) SCR 605 DATE OF JUDGMENT 5th December 1950 CASE NO. Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1949 CASE TYPE criminal appeal before Supreme Court PETITIONER BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER RESPONDENT THE STATE OF DELHI BENCH/JUDGE Chief Justice Sir Saiyid Fazl Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
Case Laws

CHACKO AND ORS. V. MAHADEVAN

CASE NAME: CHACKO AND ORS. V. MAHADEVAN LEGAL MAXIM: INTODUCTION: In this case the contract is declared void because one or both parties were mentally incapable of entering into a contract. The name of the case is Chakho & Ors v. Mahadevan.[1] Due to Alcoholic psychosis brought on by alcohol Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
Case Laws

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), Doctrine of Judicial Review in United States

Introduction: Facts of the case: Issue raised: The following are the main issues raised in the case, Contentions of the Petitioners: Overall, the Petitioners argued that they had a legal right to their commissions and that the Supreme Court had the power to enforce that right by issuing a writ Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
Case Laws

AIR INDIA v. NARGESH MEERZA , 1981, Unconstitutionality of clause regarding retirement and pregnancy

SUBJECT :  The judgment is based on gender justice and discrimination based on the biological features of women. INTRODUCTION: In today’s world discrimination based on gender is an offense in modern society. Although India has developed a lot still there exist some flaws in the system. People are reluctant to Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
Case Laws

(Nicaragua v. The United States of America,1986)

CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (Nicaragua v. The United States of America,1986) Case Name Case Concerning Military And Paramilitary Activities In And Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. The United States of America, 1986) Equivalent Citation Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (The Republic of Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
SECR.,MINISTRY OF DEFENCE VS. BABITA PUNIYA 17 FEBRUARY, 2020,CIVIL APPEAL NOS 9367-9369 OF 2011, Rights Of Female Officers In The Armed Forces
Case Laws

SECR.,MINISTRY OF DEFENCE VS. BABITA PUNIYA 17 FEBRUARY, 2020,CIVIL APPEAL NOS 9367-9369 OF 2011, Rights Of Female Officers In The Armed Forces

Introduction The case of Secr., Ministry of Defence vs Babita Puniya on 17 February, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos 9367-9369 of 2011 is a landmark case relating to gender discrimination in the Indian armed forces. The case included a test to the strategy of the Indian Armed force which denied long-lasting Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
FOSS V. HARBOTTLE [1843] 67 ER 189, (1843) 2 HARE 461
Case Laws

FOSS V. HARBOTTLE [1843] 67 ER 189, (1843) 2 HARE 461

FOSS V. HARBOTTLE [1843] 67 ER 189, (1843) 2 HARE 461 Introduction: Foss v. Harbottle is a landmark case in the field of corporate law. The case was heard in 1843 in the Court of Chancery in England. The case was based on the principles of minority shareholder rights and Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 8, 2023 ago
Donoghue v. Stevenson Donoghue, a Scottish dispute, is a famous case in English law which was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and the doctrine of negligence in particular Donoghue, a Scottish dispute, is a famous case in English law which was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and the doctrine of negligence in particular
Case Laws

Donoghue v. Stevenson Citation – [1932] A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 S.C. (H.L.) 31, 1932 S.L.T. 317, [1932] W.N. 139

Donoghue, a Scottish dispute, is a famous case in English law which was instrumental in shaping the law of tort and the doctrine of negligence in particular Court   House of lords Full case name M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson Decided 26 May 1932 Citation(s) [1932] UKHL 100 [1932] SC (HL) Read more

By Admin, 2 years ago
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 (Fundamental right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.)
Case Laws

Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 (Fundamental right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of Indian Constitution.)

CASE NAME Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 EQUIVALENT CITATION 1992 AIR 1858, 1992 SCR (3) 658 DATE OF JUDGMENT 30 JULY 1992 Case no. (1992) 3 SCC Case type : Writ petition (civil) case Petitioner MISS MOHINI JAIN RESPONDENT STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. BENCH/JUDGE KULDIP SINGH(J), SAHAI, R.M. Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 7, 2023 ago
State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960, Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ 1349 Section 79 if IPC 1860 is a provision which states that if an act is done under mistake of fact then no punishment will be given. It will be considered under good faith.
Case Laws

  State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960, Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ  1349

Section 79 if IPC 1860 is a provision which states that if an act is done under mistake of fact then no punishment will be given. It will be considered under good faith.           Case Analysis: State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960, Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ Read more

By Admin, 2 yearsApril 7, 2023 ago

Posts pagination

Previous 1 … 187 188 189 … 193 Next

Visitor Count
2418261
Users Today : 1391
Click Here To Join Our WhatsApp Grouplogo

Hestia | Developed by ThemeIsle