This case established the principle that a contract is void if there is no "meeting of the minds" (consensus ad idem) . It deals with mutual mistake , where both parties misunderstood an essential contract term.
Case law library
Landmark judgments, explained
Facts, issues, judgment and the legal principle of each case, in plain English. Citations are shown only after they have been verified.
83 cases explained
Gherulal Parakh vs Mahadeodas Maiya
Supreme Court of India · 1959
First, let us understand the basic meaning. Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 says a wagering agreement — where two parties bet on an uncertain event, one winning and one losing depending on the outcome — is void : the law simply will not enforce it, and neither party can go to court over…
Felthouse v. Bindley
1862
⚖️ Felthouse v. Bindley [1862] EWHC CP J35: Case Summary ⚖️ A landmark case on silence and acceptance in contract law 📌 Introduction This case established the principle that silence does not constitute acceptance in contract law and clarified that an offeror cannot impose an obligation on the offer…
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Law of Contract I (General Principles)
A landmark case on unilateral contracts and acceptance by performance
Harvey v. Facey
Law of Contract I (General Principles)
Understanding the fine line between an offer and an invitation to treat
GVK Industries Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 2011
First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 245 of the Constitution deals with how far laws made by Parliament and State legislatures can extend. GVK Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (2011) answers a precise question: can Parliament make laws about things that happen outside the terri…
P.A. Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 2005
First, let us understand the basic meaning. T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) laid down broad principles on the rights of private educational institutions — but because those principles were stated broadly, different High Courts interpreted them differently, and petitions piled up…
Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan
Supreme Court of India · 1997
First, let us understand the basic meaning. Before 1997, India had no specific law defining or prohibiting sexual harassment at the workplace. Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) answers a foundational question: when Parliament has made no law on a subject, can the Supreme Court still step…
Shankari Prasad vs Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 1951
First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 13(2) of the Constitution says: the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law that does so is void. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951) asked one sharp question: does the word "law" i…
Modern Dental College vs State of MP
Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) · 2016
First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution gives every citizen the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business — and running an educational institution counts as exercising this right. But no right in the Constitution is absol…
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala
Supreme Court of India (13-Judge Constitution Bench) · 1973
First, let us understand the basic meaning. The Basic Structure Doctrine is a rule created by the Supreme Court of India which says: Parliament can amend (change) almost any part of the Constitution, but it cannot change the parts that form the Constitution's core identity — its "basic structure."…