The Supreme Court held that an operational creditor's insolvency application must be rejected if a real dispute about the debt existed before the demand notice. The dispute does not have to be pending in a suit or arbitration. The tribunal only checks whether there is a plausible contention that needs further investigation, not whether the defence will finally succeed. The case matters because it makes clear that the Code is not a recovery forum for genuinely disputed operational dues.
The House of Lords held that a validly registered company is a separate legal person from its members, even when one person holds almost all its shares. So Aron Salomon was not personally liable for the company's debts, and as a secured debenture holder he was paid before the unsecured creditors. The case is the foundation of modern company law and the leading authority on corporate personality.
After a French ship collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas, the P.C.I.J. held in 1927 that Turkey could try the French officer, because international law did not forbid it. The case gave the 'Lotus principle': a State is free to act unless a rule of international law prohibits it. Its specific rule on collisions at sea was later reversed by treaty, now Article 97 of UNCLOS, 1982.
In Adamson v. Jarvis, the Court of Common Pleas (Chief Justice Best, 1827) held that an auctioneer who honestly sold goods at another person's request, and was later made liable to the true owner, could recover his loss from the person who asked him to sell. The case matters because it shows that an indemnity may be implied by law from a request, even when no express promise to indemnify was made.
In Vidarbha Industries, the Supreme Court held that the old wording of Section 7(5) ("may admit") gave the N.C.L.T. a discretion over a financial creditor's application. Even after a proved default, the Tribunal could weigh factors such as the company's overall financial health and viability. The ruling caused great uncertainty. It was later confined to its own facts in M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank, and the lecture says a 2026 amendment settled the point by statute, so it matters mainly as a historical stage in insolvency law.
The House of Lords held that Macaura, who held almost all the shares of a company and was also its large unsecured creditor, had no insurable interest in timber owned by that company. The case matters because it shows clearly that the property of a company is not the property of its shareholders.
Lipman agreed to sell a property to Jones, changed his mind, and transferred the property to a company he had acquired so that he could not be forced to complete the sale. The court ordered specific performance against both Lipman and the company, calling the company a device, a sham and a mask. The case shows that a company used to evade an existing legal obligation will be ignored, which is one of the grounds for lifting the corporate veil.
In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a 3:2 majority, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (B.C.C.I.) is not a 'State' under Article 12. So a writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable against it. However, because B.C.C.I. performs public functions, High Courts can issue writs against it under Article 226. The case is a key part of the Article 12 line of cases that follows Pradeep Kumar Biswas.
During the First World War, the House of Lords held that a company registered in England may acquire an enemy character if the persons in real control of its affairs are enemies. The case matters because it shows that in wartime the court may look behind a company's separate legal personality to see who really controls it. It is the leading example of the 'enemy character' ground for lifting the corporate veil.
Two shareholders sued the directors of their company for selling their own land to the company at an excessive price and misapplying its property. The court dismissed the suit because a wrong done to the company must be remedied by the company itself, and the majority could decide whether to sue or could approve what had been done. The case is the foundation of the majority rule in company law and gave rise to the proper plaintiff rule and the rule of internal management.
After the 2005 cash for query sting operation, both Houses of Parliament expelled eleven M.P.s. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by a 4:1 majority that Parliament has the power under Article 105(3) to expel a member for serious misconduct, and upheld the expulsion. It also held that such privilege decisions are subject to judicial review for illegality, though not for mere procedural irregularity. The case is a landmark on the balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial review.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Parliament can make laws on matters outside India (extra-territorial aspects or causes) only if they have a real, not imaginary or fanciful, nexus with India, meaning some impact on or connection with India or the interest, welfare or security of its people. Parliament cannot make a law only for a foreign territory that has nothing to do with India. Such a law would be ultra vires and void. The case matters because it explains the limits of Parliament's power under Article 245 and stresses that the Indian Parliament is not an unlimited sovereign.
