The Philip Morris v. Uruguay case reaffirmed states' rights to regulate in the public interest, particularly for health measures. The ICSID tribunal ruled that Uruguay's tobacco regulations did not constitute expropriation or unfair treatment, setting a key precedent.

The Siemens v. Argentina case reaffirmed investor protections under BITs, ruling Argentina’s termination of Siemens’ contract as unlawful expropriation. The ICSID tribunal awarded Siemens over $217 million, reinforcing fair treatment and state obligations in investment disputes.

The SD Myers v. Canada case set key precedents in NAFTA arbitration, clarifying national treatment, minimum standard of treatment, and damages in non-expropriation cases. The Tribunal found Canada's PCB export ban discriminatory, awarding SDMI CAN$6 million in compensation.

Metalclad v. Mexico highlights indirect expropriation under NAFTA, where regulatory actions deprived an investor of economic use. The tribunal ruled in favor of Metalclad, awarding $16.5M, but a Canadian court partially annulled the decision, limiting its scope.

The Tecmed v. Mexico case (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2) established that politically motivated regulatory actions can constitute expropriation. The tribunal ruled that Mexico’s refusal to renew a landfill permit violated investor protections, awarding $5.5M in damages.

The Supreme Court ruled that a child witness’s credible and consistent testimony can form the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. It held that mere delay in recording the statement does not render it unreliable, reaffirming legal standards for child testimony.

The Chorzow Factory case (1927) established that unlawful expropriation by a state requires full reparation, restoring the injured party to its original position or providing compensation, setting a precedent in international law on state responsibility.

In Saipem S.p.A. v. Bangladesh, ICSID ruled that judicial interference leading to loss of contractual rights is indirect expropriation. This case broadened protection for foreign investors under international investment law.

The Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) ruled the arrest unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 22(1). It held that merely informing the accused’s wife does not fulfill legal requirements, reinforcing safeguards against unlawful detention.

The Supreme Court in Smt. N. Usha Rani & Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas (2025) upheld maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ruling that even in a void marriage, a woman is entitled to financial support if separation from her first husband is evident and prevents destitution.

The Google LLC v. CCI case (2023) upheld a ₹1337.76 crore penalty for Google’s abuse of dominance in the Android ecosystem. The NCLAT found Google imposed unfair conditions on OEMs, restricting competition. Some CCI directives were modified, but the penalty remained.

In Ramesh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court upheld burial rights as integral to dignity under Article 21, balancing equality and secularism with public order. The split verdict addressed constitutional principles versus adherence to statutory rules.

In Parsvnath Developers v. Brig. Devendra Singh Yadav, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the "seat" of arbitration determines court jurisdiction, not the "venue," and an Order VII Rule 10 CPC order is non-appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court in Central Bank of India & Anr. v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. held that disputes concerning title and validity of transactions fall under civil court jurisdiction, as such matters are beyond the scope of the SARFAESI Act. Partial rejection of plaints is impermissible.

In Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1970 SC 283), the Supreme Court held that sniffer dog evidence, while admissible, has limited reliability and requires corroboration. The appellant's conviction relied on a voluntary confession and discovery of incriminating evidence.

The Supreme Court in Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. held that complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before 20th July 2020 must remain in the same forum despite revised pecuniary limits under CPA 2019, ensuring continuity and fairness.

In Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning convictions under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC. Key issues included a delayed FIR, lack of coercion, and insufficient evidence, leading to doubts about the prosecution's claims.

The Supreme Court in Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Bhonsle (2024) held that courts must confidently reject plaints under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC if barred by limitation, stressing that clever drafting can't bypass statutory deadlines.

The Supreme Court upheld the 2017 Amendment Acts permitting Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-cart races, citing cultural significance and compliance with animal welfare laws. It overruled A. Nagaraja, affirming states’ legislative competence and balancing heritage with cruelty prevention.

The Supreme Court in Giriyappa & Anr. v. Kamalamma & Ors. reaffirmed that Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, including a valid written contract, lawful possession, and willingness to perform obligations.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction over a fee refund dispute involving the Indian Maritime University. It also held that educational institutions are not "service providers" under the Consumer Protection Act.

In Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court ruled that the backyard of a private house does not qualify as a "public view" under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, discharging the appellant from charges of caste-based abuse and related IPC offences.

In Nalin Choksey v. Commissioner of Customs, the SC held that subsequent purchasers aren't liable for customs duty evasion by importers. It ruled that liability arises at importation, not ownership transfer, and set aside duties imposed on the appellant.

The Supreme Court in State of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir upheld procedural compliance under Section 50 NDPS Act, ruling that using "any" instead of "nearest" Gazetted Officer doesn’t invalidate the search if substantive rights aren’t prejudiced. Bail was revoked.

Expert evidence must rely on scientific methodology, adequately explained and backed by credible data, allowing courts to independently evaluate its accuracy and reliability