After oleum gas leaked from Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries in Delhi in December 1985, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused by an accident, with none of the exceptions available under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Compensation must be proportionate to the size and capacity of the enterprise, so as to have a deterrent effect.
Went beyond strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.
No exceptions allowed.
Quick check: The rule of absolute liability was laid down in the case arising from:
The Bhopal gas leak (1984)
The Chernobyl disaster (1986)
The Vizag gas leak (2020)
The oleum gas leak in Delhi (1985)
Answer: D.
1983
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar
Compensation for illegal detention
Rudul Sah remained in jail for 14 years after he was acquitted. The Supreme Court ordered his release and, for the first time, awarded monetary compensation under Article 32 for the violation of his fundamental right to liberty, laying the foundation of public law compensation in India.
First award of compensation under Article 32.
Detained for 14 years after acquittal.
Quick check: Rudul Sah (1983) is known for the first award of:
Punitive damages for pollution
Exemplary damages in defamation
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
Compensation for violation of fundamental rights
Answer: D.
1993
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
Custodial death and State liability
A young man died in police custody. The Court held that the State is strictly liable to pay compensation for violating fundamental rights, and that the defence of sovereign immunity does not apply to public law claims under Articles 32 and 226.
Sovereign immunity is no defence to public law compensation.
Quick check: Nilabati Behera (1993) held that sovereign immunity is not a defence to:
Public law compensation for violation of fundamental rights
Suits for breach of contract
Tax refunds
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act
Answer: A.
1965
Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Sovereign immunity
Gold seized from a trader by the police was misappropriated by a constable. The Supreme Court held the State not liable, because the police were exercising sovereign powers. The decision has been widely criticised, and later cases confined it narrowly.
Quick check: Kasturi Lal (1965) held the State not liable because the police were exercising:
Statutory duties
Sovereign powers
Delegated powers
Commercial functions
Answer: B.
1962
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
The State is vicariously liable
A government jeep driven negligently by a State employee killed a pedestrian. The Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable, observing that the State cannot claim immunity for acts done by its employees in the course of non-sovereign functions.
57 more entries under this heading
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti · The Chandni Chowk clock tower
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab · Doctors and criminal negligence
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha · Medical services are "services"
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta · Housing and consumer rights
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose · A minor's contract is void
Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt · You cannot accept an offer you do not know of
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur · Frustration of contract
Chinnaya v. Ramayya · Consideration from a third party
Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas · Contracts made by telephone
Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh · A minor who lies about his age
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum · Maintenance for divorced Muslim women
Danial Latifi v. Union of India · Reading the 1986 Act generously
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana · Section 125 applies to all
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India · Conversion to marry again
Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India · The mother as natural guardian
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma · Daughters as coparceners
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan · Divorce by the Supreme Court
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur · The cooling-off period is directory
Rajnesh v. Neha · Maintenance guidelines
Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India · Inter-country adoption
Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India · Adoption for people of all faiths
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) and D. Velusamy (2010) · Live-in relationships
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal · Atypical families
Seema v. Ashwani Kumar · Compulsory registration of marriages
Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India · The Bhopal settlement of US$470 million
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India · The Bhopal Act upheld on the parens patriae principle
N. Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh · Sovereign immunity cannot shield negligence in ordinary functions
Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi · The State pays for police brutality
Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra · A mop left in a patient's abdomen
Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel · A homeopath prescribing allopathic drugs is negligent per se
Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia · Parents of a child patient are also consumers
Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha · Record compensation for medical negligence
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation · A table of multipliers for motor accident claims
National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi · Future prospects included in accident compensation
Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das · Only reasonable compensation up to the stipulated sum
Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA · Earnest money cannot be forfeited without loss
Energy Watchdog v. CERC · A rise in fuel prices does not frustrate a contract
Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana · GPA sales do not transfer title
Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur · A person in adverse possession can sue to protect title
Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu · Settled possession is protected even against the true owner
Dastane v. Dastane · Cruelty need be proved only on a preponderance of probabilities
Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha · Restitution of conjugal rights upheld
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli · Urged irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh · Illustrations of mental cruelty
Shamim Ara v. State of Uttar Pradesh · A mere plea of talaq in a written statement is not a valid divorce
Jorden Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra · A call for a uniform law of marriage and divorce
Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse · A second wife unaware of the first marriage can claim maintenance
Tulsa v. Durghatiya · Long cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal · Live-in relationships are not an offence
Mary Roy v. State of Kerala · Syrian Christian women got equal inheritance rights
John Vallamattom v. Union of India · A restriction on Christian charitable bequests struck down
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun · Children of void marriages share in their parent's coparcenary share
Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy · A daughter inherits her father's self-acquired property over his brother's sons
Durga Prasad v. Baldeo · Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor
Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed · A promise to subscribe is enforceable when the promisee acts on it
Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti · Consent obtained by coercion makes an act voidable
Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad · The test for undue influence
PlusAll 62 entries, and every heading in the LibraryYours from ₹1,499, till CLAT 2028See Plus
