Sl No

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

Principle
Married daughter is also liable to maintain her parents
Court cannot direct an investigating agency to focus on a
particular offence and investigate according .
(But judicial interference in investigation can only be in
exceptional circumstances.)
Person has a right to protection under Sec 161(2) of CrPC against
questions, the answers of which would have a tendency to a
criminal charge
It was held that , NARCO test is not an evidence. As it is given
under the influence of drugs, it may also be deemed to be
scientific evidence.
( it is an oral evidence)
Presence of lawyer at the time of interrogation cannot be
demanded as a matter of right

6.

Sec 125 CrPc is applicable to all irrespective of their religion

7.

Judges of family Court cannot be considered for elevation as

High Court Judges

8.
9.

Caselaw
Visaya Manohar Arhat v.
Kashirao
Shariff Ahmed v. State

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

Sylvi case

Poolpandi and other v.

Superintendent, Central excise
Senior Intelligence Officer V.
Jugol Kishore Sharmar
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v, Shah
Banu Begum
S.D.Joshi V. High Court of
Judicature at Bombay
Savita Ben v. State of Gujarat
Kirtikant Vadodario v. State of
Gujarat
N. B. Bhikshu v. State of A.P

10.

CrPC

CPC
Sl No
Sl No
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Principle

Caselaw
Caselaws
Jolly George Verghese V. Bank of
Cochin
SC has upheld the constitutionality of CPC Amendments of 1999 Salem
Advocate
Bar
and 2002
Association , Tamil Nadu v. UOI
Rule of Constructive res Judicatais B applicable to Writ Amulgamated coal field Ltd
Petitions
State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain
Public policy considerations underlying res judicata is applicable
to writ petitions
Decreeholder- Need not be a party to the suit
Dhani Ram v. Sri Ram
-The term is not confined to plaintiff
Inherent power has not been conferred on a court, it is a power Manohar lal v. Seth Hiralal
inherent in the court
Law relating to ADR processes and Sec 89
Afcon Infrastructure Ltd v.
Cherian Varkey Construction Co
Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali
Principle
SC has upheld the validity of Sec 51 of CPC

Bimlesh v. New Delhi Insurance

9.

Sl No
1.
2.

3.

Standard Chartered Bank v.

Noble Kumar

Principle
Conduct -Sec 8 of IEA

Caselaw
Queen Empress v. Abdullah

Dying declaration
Statement may be made before the the cause of death has
arisen /before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being
killed
Contract made by minor void ab initio

Pakala Narain
Emperor

4.
5.
6.

Contract through telephone is concluded at the place where

acceptance is heard

7.
8.
9.
10.

If an accused voluntarily consents for brain mapping and narco

analysis, such information is relevant under sec 27
For the formaton of contract , there must be an acceptance of
anoffer and there can be no acceptance unless there is knowledge
of the other

Swamy

v.

Mohri BiBi v. Dharmo Das

Ghosh
Kanhaiyalal v. Giridhari Lal
Mohmmef Saeed v. Vishwambar
Dayal
Bhagawandas Goverdhan Das
Kedia v. M/s Giridhari Lal
Parshottamdas & Co
Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram
Bangur & Co
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co
Selvi v.State of Karnataka
Lalman v. Gauri datta