0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views3 pages

Legal Principles and Case Law Overview

The document outlines various legal cases and principles related to vicarious liability, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and mens rea, referencing significant court rulings and constitutional articles. It discusses the evolution of legal concepts in India and the implications of technology on law, as well as the definitions and types of presumptions in legal contexts. Additionally, it touches on the history of legal maxims and specific acts such as the Transfer of Property Act and the concept of promissory estoppel.

Uploaded by

gowriforai
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
8 views3 pages

Legal Principles and Case Law Overview

The document outlines various legal cases and principles related to vicarious liability, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and mens rea, referencing significant court rulings and constitutional articles. It discusses the evolution of legal concepts in India and the implications of technology on law, as well as the definitions and types of presumptions in legal contexts. Additionally, it touches on the history of legal maxims and specific acts such as the Transfer of Property Act and the concept of promissory estoppel.

Uploaded by

gowriforai
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Golaknath V.

State of Punjab
Nagaraj V. Union of India
M.C Mehta V. Kamal Nath
Charan Lal Sahu V. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India

Respondeat Superior/Vicarious Liability


 Rudal Shah [Link] of Bihar
 Bhim Singh V. State of Rajasthan
 P & O steamship company V. Secretary of State
 State of Rajasthan V. Vidyawathi
 Followed in a different path in the common law path in India
 Article of association
 Corporate Social responsibility
 Union Carbide case
 Rex V. Huggins
 [Link] case
 Principal offender and accessory offender
 Double jeopardy
Parts of BNS
 Section 190 of BNS
 193(1) of BNS
 Article 20(1)
 20(2)-protection against double jeopardy
 Article 20(3)-protection against self incrimination
 No discretion of the police-due process of law has to be followed-has to be
interrogated in the presence of counsel
 Section 337 of BNSS/Section 300 of CrPC
 5th consti amendment of U.S consti
 Green V. United States
 Nemo debet bis vexari
 Manikantan V. Union of India
 Roshan lal V. State of Punjab(1947)-Gold control Act and Customs act
 Proper jurisdiction
 Reinvestigation-possible in certain cases

 Superintendent remembrance of legal affairs,


Constructive Liability west Bengal V. Corporation of Calcutta

 Moreland V. State(1927)
 Autrefois acquit-meaning "previously acquitted" in old French, is a legal plea used
when a defendant argues they've already been tried and acquitted for the same
offense, preventing a retrial.
 Revision, pardoning powers,
 14th amendment of the U.S constitution
 MCOCA-Maharastra prevention of crime in Mumbai act
 Coke lord
 Sir William Blackstone had enumerated the rules of application of autrofois acquit
applied to all but homicide case:
- Balckstone_
 S.A. Venkataraman V. UOI
 Thomas and Diana V. State of Punjab
 State of Bombay V. Sl apte (1961)-intrepretation of same offence(Answer on
Monday)
26.03.2025
Right against self-incrimination
- Miranda V. State of Arizona
- [Link] rules
- Miranda rules-1960s
- Eeshwara Warrier V. State of Kerala
- M.P Sharma V. Satish Chandra
- State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad
What is compulsion?
- Duress
- Has to be a physical objective act and not the state of mind of the person making
the statement was an accused at the time of making a statement and that it ha
- Yousouf Alli V. State of Maharashtra
- Nandini Satpathy V. PL Dani
- Res judicata
- Mohammed Dastagir V. State of Madras
The advent of technology
- Ram Chandra Ramreddy V. State of Maharasthra
How mens rea changed from objective to subjective?
Degrees of mens rea?

- Knowledge, motive and intention


 R V. Longbottom
02.04.2025
- State of Himachal Pradesh V. Nirmaladevi(2017)-deterrent theory example
- There is connection btwn age and mens rea
- Bharatiya Sakhsya Adhiniyam,2023/Indian Evidence Act
- Definition of presumptions
1. Presumption is a legalinference that must ve in light of certain facts. Most
presumptions are rebuttable meaning that they are rejected if proven to be false or
at least thrown into sufficient doubt by the evidence. other presumptions are
conclusive, meaning tht they must ve accepted ti be true without any opportunity
for rebuttal – cornell law school
- Presumption are of 2 types
 Presumption of fact-permissive;rebuttable;do not constitute a branch of
jurisprudence; indicated in BSA as ‘may presume’ Sec. 2(h)88-90,92,119
 Presumptions of law-obligatory;may be rebuttable or irrebuttable;constitute a
branch of jurisprudence;Rebuttable presumption in BSA indicated by ‘shall
presume’; Irrebuttable presumption in BSA indicated by ‘conclusive proof’
- Section 108 in BSA
- Conclusive proof-when in one fact is declared by this act to be conclusive proof of
another court
- Elavarasan V. State Rep. by inspector of police
- Surendran Mishra V. State of Jharkhand(2011)
- Section 116 BSA-112 of Indian evidence act
HISTORY OF MAXIMUMS IN LAW
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Mothilal Padampat Sugar mills V. State of Uttar Pradesh

25.04.2025

Section 40 of transfer of property act-Crystallisation

- Standardisation
- 1726 Charter act-Mayor’s courts
- Article 368- constitutional amendments
- Transformative constitutions
- 1949-Pakisthan’s consti

You might also like