Mohammad Arbaaz

Kesavananda Bharati commonly known as "Fundamental Rights Case" was a watershed moment in India's political history, an important struggle between the Judiciary and the Government. This case of many changes resulting from the controversy took questioning the integrity of the several amendments of the constitution, especially 24[1], 25[2] and 29[3], which sought to curtail Judicial Power and Fundamental Civil Rights. It raised a fundamental question: Whether the power to amend the Constitution extended without limit; or is it limited by discernible constraints?

kesavananda-bharati-sripadagalvaru-and-ors-v-state-of-keralaand-anr

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors v. State of Keralaand Anr.

Bhopal gas leak case, Union Carbide Corporation v. UOI, marks a pivotal moment in corporate social responsibility (CSR) within India, emphasizing the principles of strict liability and total liability. The disaster caused by the escape of highly toxic Methyl Isocyanate Gas from the premises of Union Carbide Ltd. (UCIL) caused severe loss of population, flora and fauna in response to which the Environment Protection Act 1986[1] and Public Insurance Liability Act 1991[2] were enacted to prevent disasters of such nature in future and expanded the definition to give everyone the right to life and personal liberty. Presently it includes the fundamental right to live in a pollution-free environment[3] which is necessary for full enjoyment of life, as recognized in Subhash Kumar v. India. State of Bihar[4]. These principles emphasize the broad scope of responsibilities of companies under the Indian Companies Act, 1961[5]. As a result of the Bhopal disaster, companies need to prioritize environmental protection and community health as a top priority in their business strategy. This includes strict adherence to safety standards, proactive risk management, and transparent environmental reporting.

union-carbide-corporation-vs-union-of-india-etc

Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc

Every day, people engage in different forms of agreements, whether they realize it or not. However, not all of these contracts are legally binding. For example, if a father promises to buy a bicycle if he scores well on a test, he is not legally obligated to honour his promise. Here the Indian Contract Act, 1872 comes into play. The Act was framed by the Third Law Council of India[1] and is based on the principles of English common law, and prescribes the circumstances in which promises are legally enforceable. The law of contract, which forms an integral part of Indian law and has been instrumental in many important decisions related to its complex policies. This special case focuses on legal contracts with minors, defined as persons under the age of eighteen. It highlights the fundamental difference between contracts that apply to adults and contracts that apply to minors, on the basis that minors are incapable of seeking the necessary reasoned deliberation and judgment

Mohammad Arbaaz

Legal Cyfle

Opportunities

Company

Resources

Miscellaneous