Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited v. Brojo Nath Ganguly

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this landmark judgment held that if from the face of the contract, it seems that the contract has been entered in between parties with unequal bargaining power, and the contract evidence that the party didn’t have any meaningful choice but to sign the contract, such contracts ought to be set aside if the contract or clauses are unreasonable, unfair, and unconscionable.

Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zilla Parishad Muzaffar Nagar

Before a High court exercises its jurisdiction, it ought to take into consideration, whether an adequate legal remedy is available somewhere else. If the remedy is so available the High Court may restrain itself from granting the remedy. The crucial word herein is restrained, as it is the self-restraint that is being observed by the courts and not a hard and fast rule which bars the jurisdiction of the court. Though in wanting situations the Hon’ble Supreme Court through this judgment has carved out exceptions to this rule.

T T Antony v State of Kerala

Although in this particular landmark judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that multiple complaints/ FIRs in respect of the same act might go on violating the Fundamental Rights of the accused, as the same may subject to unnecessary harassment. But at the same time, a grave concern remains, what if in a situation accused himself takes first opportunity to register a false complaint, and thereby depriving the victim to exercise his/ her rights, and in consequence thereof fail the justice system itself.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms

In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India mandated the Election Commission to publicly disclose the information relating to candidates running for office, including information on their criminal records, assets, and educational background. Tracing this particular right to information back constitutional right to freedom of expression.

Gujarat Bottling Co. v Coca Cola Co.

Grant of Injunctions by the court is an extraordinary remedy, granted to ex debito justitiae i.e. to meet the ends of justice. Thus this particular remedy is being granted very cautiously by the court.

Shiv Shankar Singh v State of Bihar

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence based on the complaint. It is recourse available to the complainant (private citizen) in addition to Section 154 of the CrPC. In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deliberates on certain practical problems that might arise concerning the filing of a complaint under section 200 of the CrPC.

Bundy v Jackson

Passive Tolerance cannot be equated to consent, especially in a scenario where there is the lingering fear of consequences arising from any action that may be taken. It may be argued that in such scenarios presence of fear may even vitiate the consent.

Munshi Ram v Banwari Lal

Whether parties can enter a compromise after an Arbitration award has been passed?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an opportunity to deliberate on the issue in this particular landmark judgment and held that it was not open for the court to pass a decree on such terms, and therefore such compromise was unacceptable.

Common Cause v Union of India

The Supreme Court, in this case, noted that there was a need for the Court to lay down guidelines to check misuse of public funds by the government for political advertising.

State of Bombay v Bombay Hospital Mazdoor Sabha

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in a number of cases evolved various guiding principles to determine whether an undertaking is analogous to trade or business. In this landmark judgment following observations were made.