{ "portal_default": "beta", "subjects": [ { "key": "tort", "name": "Law of Torts", "levels": [ { "level": 1, "name": "LLB Entrance", "topics": [ { "key": "2.1.0.1", "level": 1, "title": "Foundational Digest", "blurb": "What a Tort Is, and the Old Forms of Action · The Interests That Tort Protects · How a Tort Claim Is Discharged · Who May Sue and Who May Not", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.1.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(m) Limitation Act", "Section 9 CPC", "Jayalakshmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat", "Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben", "detinue", "replevin", "conversion", "trover", "waiving the tort", "accord and satisfaction", "distress damage feasant", "misfeasance", "non-feasance" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.1.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.1.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.1.1.1", "level": 1, "title": "Nature of Torts - Definitions, Maxims & Key Distinctions", "blurb": "What is a Tort? Origin & Definitions · The Three Essentials of Tortious Liability · Injuria Sine Damno: Legal Injury Without Damage", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.1.1-nature-of-torts", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "tort", "Section 2(m) Limitation Act", "injuria sine damno", "damnum sine injuria", "ubi jus ibi remedium", "Ashby v. White", "Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir", "Gloucester Grammar School Case", "Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor", "Chasemore v. Richards", "Winfield theory", "Salmond pigeon-hole theory", "Jay Laxmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat", "unliquidated damages" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.1.1-nature-of-torts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.1.1-nature-of-torts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.1.2.1", "level": 1, "title": "Negligence & Famous Cases: Duty of Care, Breach, Damage & Res Ipsa Loquitur", "blurb": "What is Negligence? Definitions and Theories · The Three Essentials of Negligence · Duty of Care and Reasonable Foreseeability · The Historical Precursor: Heaven v. Pender (1883)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.1.2-negligence-famous-cases", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "negligence", "res ipsa loquitur", "neighbour principle", "Donoghue v. Stevenson", "Heaven v. Pender", "Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks", "Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks", "Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington", "Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti", "Latimer v. A.E.C.", "Glasgow Corporation v. Muir", "Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha", "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab", "Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act", "Section 2(11) Consumer Protection Act" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.1.2-negligence-famous-cases-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.1.2-negligence-famous-cases-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.1.3.1", "level": 1, "title": "Nuisance, Trespass & Defamation: Definitions, Elements, Key Maxims & Core Distinctions", "blurb": "Nuisance: Unreasonable Interference · Trespass: Direct Physical Invasion · Defamation: Injury to Reputation · Core Distinctions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.1.3-nuisance-trespass-defamation", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "private nuisance", "public nuisance", "Section 91 CPC", "Robinson v. Kilvert", "Soltau v. De Held", "assault", "battery", "false imprisonment", "Cole v. Turner", "Bird v. Jones", "trespass ab initio", "Six Carpenters' Case", "libel", "slander", "innuendo", "Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons", "Hulton & Co. v. Jones" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.1.3-nuisance-trespass-defamation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.1.3-nuisance-trespass-defamation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.1.4.1", "level": 1, "title": "Strict, Absolute & Vicarious Liability: No-Fault Liability, Rylands Rule, M.C. Mehta Doctrine & Vicarious Liability Basics", "blurb": "No-Fault Liability and the Rule of Strict Liability · Absolute Liability: An Indian Innovation · Vicarious Liability · Strict Liability in the Indian Setting · Core Distinctions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.1.4-strict-absolute-vicarious-liability", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "strict liability", "Rylands v. Fletcher", "absolute liability", "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "Read v. J. Lyons", "non-natural use of land", "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas", "vicarious liability", "respondeat superior", "qui facit per alium facit per se", "independent contractor", "control test", "Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Carvetnagaram", "M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar", "Public Liability Insurance Act 1991" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.1.4-strict-absolute-vicarious-liability-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.1.4-strict-absolute-vicarious-liability-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 2, "name": "LLB Semester", "topics": [ { "key": "2.2.0.1", "level": 2, "title": "Doctrinal Digest", "blurb": "The Statutory Frame of a Judge-Made Subject · Occupiers' Liability: Control, and the Grade of the Entrant · Res Ipsa Loquitur: When the Accident Speaks for Itself", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "occupiers' liability", "duty of ordinary humanity", "allurement doctrine", "Lowery v. Walker", "Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor", "British Railways Board v. Herrington", "Kumari Alka v. Union of India", "res ipsa loquitur", "Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti", "State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators", "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab", "Bolam test", "agony of the moment", "Jones v. Boyce", "Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan", "Bernina Mills v. Armstrong", "quia timet injunction", "continuing trespass" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.2.1.1", "level": 2, "title": "Foundations and Actionable Damage", "blurb": "What a Tort Is · Tort Distinguished from Its Neighbours · One Law of Tort, or Many Torts? The Winfield-Salmond Debate · The Three Essentials of a Tort", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.1-general-principles", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "tort", "Section 2(m) Limitation Act", "Salmond's definition of tort", "Winfield's definition of tort", "pigeon-hole theory", "unliquidated damages", "three essentials of a tort", "injuria sine damno", "damnum sine injuria", "ubi jus ibi remedium", "Ashby v. White", "Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir", "Marzetti v. Williams", "Gloucester Grammar School case", "Mogul Steamship v. McGregor", "Bradford Corporation v. Pickles", "Chasemore v. Richards" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.1-general-principles-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 22 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.1-general-principles-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 27 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.2.1.2", "level": 2, "title": "General Defences", "blurb": "The Six General Defences · Volenti Non Fit Injuria: Consent to the Risk · Inevitable Accident · Act of God (Vis Major) · Private Defence · Necessity · Statutory Authority", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.1-general-principles-pt2-general-defences", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 10, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "general defences", "volenti non fit injuria", "contributory negligence", "Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club", "Nitro-Glycerine Case", "salus populi suprema lex", "scienti non fit injuria", "Smith v. Baker", "Dann v. Hamilton", "Haynes v. Harwood", "rescue cases", "Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell", "inevitable accident", "Stanley v. Powell", "Holmes v. Mather", "act of God", "vis major", "Nichols v. Marsland", "Kallulal v. Hemchand", "private defence", "Bird v. Holbrook", "necessity", "Cope v. Sharpe", "Kirk v. Gregory", "statutory authority", "Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co.", "Baker v. T.E. Hopkins", "Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill", "ex turpi causa", "mistake", "Hollins v. Fowler" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.1-general-principles-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 29 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.1-general-principles-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 25 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.2.1.3", "level": 2, "title": "Remoteness and the Measure of Damages", "blurb": "Remoteness of Damage: Where the Law Draws the Line · The Directness Test: Re Polemis · The Foresight Test: The Wagon Mound (No. 1) · Two Refinements on Foreseeability", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.1-general-principles-pt3-remoteness-and-damages", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "remoteness of damage", "directness test", "Re Polemis", "reasonable foreseeability", "The Wagon Mound", "Hughes v. Lord Advocate", "egg-shell skull rule", "Smith v. Leech Brain", "restitutio in integrum", "measure of damages", "nominal damages", "contemptuous damages", "aggravated damages", "exemplary damages", "Rookes v. Barnard", "Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.1-general-principles-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.1-general-principles-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.2.2.1", "level": 2, "title": "Negligence", "blurb": "What Negligence Means, and Its Three Essentials · The Duty of Care and How It Grew · Breach: The Standard of Care and the Balancing Factors · Psychiatric Harm (Nervous Shock)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.2-negligence-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "duty of care", "neighbour principle", "Donoghue v. Stevenson", "Heaven v. Pender", "Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks", "Bolton v. Stone", "Latimer v. A.E.C.", "pure economic loss", "McFarlane v. Tayside Health Board", "Bolam v. Friern Hospital", "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab", "Section 304A IPC" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.2-negligence-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 24 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.2-negligence-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 25 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "2.2.3.1", "level": 2, "title": "Strict and Absolute Liability", "blurb": "Meaning and the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher · Natural and Non-Natural Use of Land · The Five Exceptions to Strict Liability · Absolute Liability: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.3-liability-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "strict liability", "Rylands v. Fletcher", "Read v. J. Lyons", "non-natural use of land", "Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Carvetnagaram", "Ponting v. Noakes", "Nichols v. Marsland", "Box v. Jubb", "Carstairs v. Taylor", "act of God", "Kallulal v. Hemchand", "M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar", "absolute liability", "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "deep pockets doctrine", "Public Liability Insurance Act 1991", "National Environment Tribunal Act 1995" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.3-strict-absolute-liability-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.3-strict-absolute-liability-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "2.2.4.1", "level": 2, "title": "Nuisance", "blurb": "The Statutory Frame · The Doctrines · Leading Case Law · Illustrations · Comparisons", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.4-nuisance-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "public nuisance", "private nuisance", "special damage", "Section 268 IPC", "Section 91 CPC", "Section 133 CrPC", "Section 15 Easements Act", "prescription", "abatement", "Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal", "Campbell v. Paddington Corporation", "Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan", "Robinson v. Kilvert", "Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad", "Dhanna Lal v. Thakur Chittar Singh", "St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping", "Noble v. Harrison", "Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co." ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.4-nuisance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.4-nuisance-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "2.2.5.1", "level": 2, "title": "Trespass", "blurb": "The Modern Frame: Trespass as an Intentional Wrong · Trespass to the Person · Trespass to Land (Quare Clausum Fregit) · Trespass to Goods, Detinue and Conversion · Illustrations", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.5-trespass-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Fowler v. Lanning", "Letang v. Cooper", "Stephens v. Myers", "Turbervell v. Savage", "Bird v. Jones", "Herring v. Boyle", "Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation", "Murray v. Ministry of Defence", "Basely v. Clarkson", "trespass ab initio", "Six Carpenters' Case", "Elias v. Pasmore", "trespass to goods", "detinue", "conversion", "Fouldes v. Willoughby", "Armory v. Delamirie", "Parker v. British Airways Board", "Section 6 Specific Relief Act" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.5-trespass-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.5-trespass-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "2.2.6.1", "level": 2, "title": "Defamation, Malicious Prosecution and Nervous Shock", "blurb": "The Statutory Frame · Defamation · Malicious Prosecution · Nervous Shock (Psychiatric Injury) · Illustrations · Comparisons", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.6-specific-torts", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "defamation", "innuendo", "Cassidy v. Daily Mirror", "Hulton & Co. v. Jones", "Newstead v. London Express", "Huth v. Huth", "qualified privilege", "absolute privilege", "Section 499 IPC", "malicious prosecution", "reasonable and probable cause", "Hicks v. Faulkner", "nervous shock", "Wilkinson v. Downton", "Page v. Smith", "Bourhill v. Young", "McLoughlin v. O'Brian", "Alcock v. Chief Constable" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.6-specific-torts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.6-specific-torts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "2.2.7.1", "level": 2, "title": "Vicarious Liability & State Liability", "blurb": "The Statutory and Constitutional Frame · The Vicarious Liability Principle · Servant vs Independent Contractor · The Course of Employment · Borrowed Servants", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.7-vicarious-state-liability", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "vicarious liability", "Article 300", "course of employment", "frolic and detour", "borrowed servant", "Mersey Docks v. Coggins & Griffith", "R.S.R.T.C. v. K.N. Kothari", "Century Insurance", "Beard v. London General Omnibus", "Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co.", "sovereign immunity", "State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati", "Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.", "N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.", "constitutional tort", "Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar", "Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das", "Challa Ramakrishna Reddy" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.7-vicarious-state-liability-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.7-vicarious-state-liability-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "2.2.8.1", "level": 2, "title": "Remedies in Tort", "blurb": "The Statutory Frame · Damages · Injunctions · Specific Restitution of Property · Extra-Judicial Remedies (Self-Help)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.2.8-defences-remedies", "format": "study", "read_time": 11, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "remedies in tort", "damages", "restitutio in integrum", "nominal damages", "contemptuous damages", "compensatory damages", "aggravated damages", "exemplary damages", "Rookes v. Barnard", "injunction", "temporary injunction", "perpetual injunction", "mandatory injunction", "quia timet injunction", "Order 39 CPC", "specific restitution", "Specific Relief Act", "Section 6 Specific Relief Act", "self-help remedies", "distress damage feasant", "abatement of nuisance", "recaption of goods", "re-entry on land" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.2.8-defences-remedies-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.2.8-defences-remedies-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 3, "name": "APO / Lower Judiciary + LLM", "topics": [ { "key": "2.3.0.1", "level": 3, "title": "Practitioner's Digest", "blurb": "Occupiers' Liability · Nervous Shock: What It Is, and What It Is Not · Injurious Falsehood · State Liability: The Kasturi Lal Problem in Outline", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nervous shock", "psychiatric injury", "primary victim", "secondary victim", "control mechanisms", "aftermath doctrine", "Victorian Railways Commissioner v. Coultas", "Dulieu v. White", "Hambrook v. Stokes Bros.", "Bourhill v. Young", "King v. Phillips", "McLoughlin v. O'Brian", "Page v. Smith", "Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire", "White v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire", "Chadwick v. British Transport Corpn.", "Attia v. British Gas", "Halligua v. Mohansundaram", "injurious falsehood", "slander of title", "special damage" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.3.1.1", "level": 3, "title": "Applied and Professional Negligence", "blurb": "The Professional Standard of Care · Medical Negligence in Application · Civil versus Criminal Negligence: Jacob Mathew · The Patient as a Consumer · Legal Professional Negligence", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.1-applied-negligence", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Bolam test", "Bolam v. Friern Hospital", "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab", "Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha", "Lakshman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole", "State of Haryana v. Santra", "State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram", "M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Squeria", "Raman Services v. Subhash Kapoor", "Donoghue v. Stevenson", "neighbour principle", "Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills", "Kubach v. Hollands", "intermediate examination", "Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons", "Bowater v. Rowley Regis", "res ipsa loquitur" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.1-applied-negligence-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.1-applied-negligence-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.2.1", "2.2.2.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.2.1", "level": 3, "title": "Strict Liability and the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher", "blurb": "Strict Liability: The Rylands v. Fletcher Rule · The Dangerous Thing, and What Counts as an Escape · Non-Natural Use of Land · The Five Exceptions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.2-liability-environment", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "strict liability", "Rylands v. Fletcher", "Read v. Lyons", "non-natural use of land", "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas", "act of God", "vis major", "act of a stranger", "common benefit", "statutory authority", "Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Carvetnagaram", "Jayalakshmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat", "Kusuma Begum v. New India Assurance", "M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.2-liability-environment-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.2-liability-environment-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1", "2.2.3.1", "2.2.7.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.2.2", "level": 3, "title": "Absolute Liability and the Statutory No-Fault Schemes", "blurb": "Absolute Liability: The M.C. Mehta Rule · The Measure of Compensation, and the Doubt Recorded in Bhopal · Absolute Liability Applied: Hazardous Premises and the Polluter", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.2-liability-environment-pt2-absolute-liability-statutory", "format": "study", "read_time": 31, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "absolute liability", "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "hazardous or inherently dangerous activity", "non-delegable duty", "deep pocket theory", "exemplary damages", "Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India", "Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels", "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India", "polluter pays", "Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India", "precautionary principle", "onus of proof on the developer", "sustainable development", "Article 48A", "Article 51A(g)", "Public Liability Insurance Act 1991", "Environmental Relief Fund", "National Green Tribunal Act 2010" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.2-liability-environment-pt2-absolute-liability-statutory-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.2-liability-environment-pt2-absolute-liability-statutory-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1", "2.2.3.1", "2.2.7.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.3.1", "level": 3, "title": "State Liability and Constitutional Torts", "blurb": "Sovereign Immunity and Article 300 · The Vidyawati and Kasturilal Conflict · Two Doctrines That Ate Into the Immunity · The Modern Collapse: Nagendra Rao", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.3-applied-torts", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Article 300", "sovereign immunity", "jure imperii", "jure gestionis", "P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State", "Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji", "State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati", "Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.", "N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.", "the bailment exception", "State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed", "Basava v. State of Mysore", "State of U.P. v. Hindustan Lever", "constitutional tort", "public-law compensation", "Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar", "Bhim Singh v. State of J&K", "Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa", "Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrima Das", "State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1", "2.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.3.2", "level": 3, "title": "Defamation: The Wrong and Its Three Essentials", "blurb": "What the Tort Protects, and the English Division · The Five Classes in Which Slander Is Actionable Per Se · The First Essential: The Words Must Be Defamatory, and False", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.3-applied-torts-pt2-defamation", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "libel", "slander", "defamation", "actionable per se", "special damage", "innuendo", "Sim v. Stretch", "Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty", "Tolley v. J.S. Fry", "Cassidy v. Daily Mirror", "Morrison v. Ritchie", "D.P. Chowdhry v. Km. Manjulata", "T.V. Ramasubba Iyer v. A.M.A. Mohideen", "Hulton & Co. v. Jones", "Youssoupoff v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer", "Knupffer v. London Express", "Eastwood v. Holmes", "publication", "Huth v. Huth", "Theaker v. Richardson", "T.J. Ponnen v. M.C. Verghese", "defamation of a class", "defamation of a corporation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-pt2-defamation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-pt2-defamation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1", "2.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.3.3", "level": 3, "title": "Defamation: Defences, the Criminal Parallel and Remedies", "blurb": "The Three Defences, and Who Proves What · Justification, or Truth · Fair Comment · Absolute Privilege · Qualified Privilege", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.3-applied-torts-pt3-defamation-defences-remedies", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "justification", "truth", "fair comment", "absolute privilege", "qualified privilege", "express malice", "McPherson v. Daniels", "Radheyshyam Tiwari v. Eknath", "McQuire v. Western Morning News", "Tushar Kanti Ghosh v. Bina Bhowmic", "R.K. Karanjia v. K.M.D. Thackersey", "Adam v. Ward", "Horrocks v. Lowe", "Boxsius v. Goblet", "Reynolds v. Times Newspapers", "Church of Scientology v. Johnson Smith", "Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan", "Section 356 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita", "apology", "mitigation of damages" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-pt3-defamation-defences-remedies-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-pt3-defamation-defences-remedies-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1", "2.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.3.4", "level": 3, "title": "Malicious Prosecution and Occupiers' Liability", "blurb": "Malicious Prosecution: What the Tort Is · When a Prosecution Begins · Reasonable and Probable Cause, and Malice · Termination and Damage", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.3-applied-torts-pt4-malicious-prosecution-occupiers", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "malicious prosecution", "prosecution", "reasonable and probable cause", "malice in fact", "termination in the plaintiff's favour", "Nagendra Nath Ray v. Basanta Das Bairagya", "Yates v. Queen", "Hicks v. Faulkner", "Abrath v. North Eastern Railway", "West Bengal Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray", "occupiers' liability", "allurement", "Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor", "British Railways Board v. Herrington", "duty of common humanity" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-pt4-malicious-prosecution-occupiers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 21 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.3-applied-torts-pt4-malicious-prosecution-occupiers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 21 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1", "2.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.4.1", "level": 3, "title": "Foundations of Tortious Liability", "blurb": "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: Where the Subject Begins · The Definitions, and What Each One Is Doing · Winfield's Definition Under Criticism", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.4-foundations-of-tortious-liability", "format": "study", "read_time": 31, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "ubi jus ibi remedium", "injuria sine damno", "damnum sine injuria", "unliquidated damages", "actionable per se", "pigeonhole theory", "law of tort and law of torts", "alterum non laedere", "waiver of the tort", "malice in law", "malice in fact", "mental element in tort", "ex turpi causa non oritur actio", "Section 2(m) Limitation Act", "Ashby v. White", "Tozer v. Child", "Municipal Board of Agra v. Asharfi Lal", "Bhim Singh v. State of J and K", "Marzetti v. Williams Bank", "Morningstar v. Lafayette Hotel", "Gloucester Grammar School Case", "Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor", "Chasemore v. Richards", "Acton v. Blundell", "P. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmma", "Rouse v. Gravel Works", "Dickson v. Reuter's Telegram Co.", "Dhadphale v. Gurav", "Ushaben Trivedi v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir", "Bradford Corporation v. Pickles", "Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal", "Allen v. Flood", "Skinner v. Shaw", "South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co.", "Chapman v. Honig", "Shearer v. Shields", "S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India", "State of A.P. v. Govardhanlal Pitti", "Balak Glass Emporium v. United India Insurance", "White v. John Warwick and Co.", "Jayalakshmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat", "Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.4-foundations-of-tortious-liability-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.4-foundations-of-tortious-liability-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1", "2.2.3.1", "2.2.7.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.5.1", "level": 3, "title": "General Defences", "blurb": "Defences General and Specific, and the Nine Heads · Volenti Non Fit Injuria: The Two Applications · The First Condition: Free Consent · The Second Condition: Volenti, Not Scienti", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.5-general-defences-in-tort", "format": "study", "read_time": 36, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "volenti non fit injuria", "scienti non fit injuria", "assumption of risk", "free consent", "rescue cases", "inevitable accident", "act of god", "vis major", "private defence", "necessity", "plaintiff the wrongdoer", "mistake", "statutory authority", "absolute and conditional statutory authority", "de minimis non curat lex", "salus populi suprema lex", "Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club", "Woolridge v. Sumner", "Murray v. Harringay Arena", "Cleghorn v. Oldham", "Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.", "Padmavati v. Dugganaika", "Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation", "Read v. J. Lyons and Co.", "Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons", "South Indian Industries v. Madras", "Dann v. Hamilton", "Buckpitt v. Oates", "Nettleship v. Weston", "Illot v. Wilkes", "Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell", "Wheeler v. Mertor Board Mills", "T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian", "Bradon v. Osborne", "Haynes v. Harwood", "Baker v. T.E. Hopkins and Son", "Wagner v. International Railway", "Cutler v. United Dairies", "Videan v. British Transport Commission", "Hyett v. Great Western Railway", "Stanley v. Powell", "Brown v. Kendall", "Nitro-Glycerine Case", "Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation", "Assam State Co-operative v. Anubha Sinha", "Nichols v. Marsland", "Kallulal v. Hemchand", "Slater v. Worthington", "Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar", "Manindra Nath Mukherjee v. Mathuradas Chatturbhuj", "Bird v. Holbrook", "Morris v. Nugent", "Turner v. Jagmohan Singh", "Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar", "Mc. Neill v. Hill", "Cope v. Sharpe", "Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co.", "Hammer Smith Rail Co. v. Brand", "Smith v. London and South Western Railway", "Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill", "Ramchandraram Nargam Rice and Oil Mills v. Purulia Municipality", "Ram Gulam v. U.P. Government", "Coward v. Baddeley", "Holford v. Bailey" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.5-general-defences-in-tort-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.5-general-defences-in-tort-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.2.8.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.6.1", "level": 3, "title": "Negligence: Duty, Breach and Proof", "blurb": "What Negligence Is: Two Theories, and Why the Answer Matters · The Three Essentials · The Duty of Care, and How It Grew · Foreseeability, Likelihood and Proximity: The Three Gates", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.6-negligence-duty-breach-proof", "format": "study", "read_time": 37, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "duty of care", "neighbour principle", "reasonable foreseeability", "proximity", "standard of the reasonable man", "breach of duty", "magnitude of the risk", "res ipsa loquitur", "contributory negligence", "composite negligence", "joint tortfeasors", "last opportunity rule", "constructive last opportunity", "doctrine of alternative danger", "doctrine of identification", "apportionment of damages", "advertent and inadvertent negligence", "subjective and objective theories of negligence", "Heaven v. Pender", "Donoghue v. Stevenson", "Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills", "Home Office v. Dorset Yacht", "Barnett v. Packer", "Austin v. Great Western Railway", "Glasgow Corporation v. Muir", "Safdar Husain v. Union of India", "Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi", "Davies v. Liverpool Corporation", "Farrugia v. Great Western Railway", "Sushma Mitra v. M.P.S.R.T.C.", "Mata Prasad v. Union of India", "Cates v. Mongini Bros.", "Fardon v. Harcourt", "Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks", "Bolton v. Stone", "Dr. M. Mayi Gowda v. State", "Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad", "P. Perl Exporters v. Camden London Borough Council", "Hill v. Chief Constable West Yorkshire", "Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd.", "Smt. Shivkor v. Ram Naresh", "Carmarthenshire County Council v. Lewis", "Nitin Walia v. Union of India", "Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor", "Manchester Corporation v. Markland", "Foster v. Gillingham Corporation", "S. Dhanaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu", "Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks", "Byrne v. Boadle", "Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti", "State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators", "Gobald Motor Services v. Veluswami", "Agya Kaur v. Pepsu R.T.C.", "Amina Begam v. Ram Prakash", "National Small Industries v. Bishambhar Nath", "Shyamal Baran Saha v. State of W.B.", "Roe v. Minister of Health", "Butterfield v. Forrester", "Davies v. Mann", "Radley v. London and North Western Railway", "British Columbia Electric Railway v. Loach", "Swadling v. Cooper", "Jones v. Livox Quarries", "Bhagwat Swarup v. Himalaya Gas Co.", "Jones v. Boyce", "Kessojee Issur v. G.I.P. Railway", "Sayers v. Harlow Urban District Council", "Gee v. Metropolitan Railway", "Union of India v. Lalman Badri Prasad", "Union of India v. Supriya Ghosh", "Motias Costa v. Roque Augustinho Jacinto", "Yachuk v. Oliver Blais Co.", "Bernina Mills v. Armstrong", "Oliver v. Birmingham and Midland Omnibus Co.", "Darshani Devi v. Sheo Ram", "Vidya Devi v. M.P. State R.T.C.", "O'Connell v. Jackson", "Karnataka State R.T.C. v. Krishnan", "Satbir Singh v. Balwant Singh", "Brook v. Bool", "Khusro v. N.A. Guzder", "Merryweather v. Nixan" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.6-negligence-duty-breach-proof-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.6-negligence-duty-breach-proof-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.2.1", "2.2.2.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.7.1", "level": 3, "title": "Public and Private Nuisance", "blurb": "What the Claimant Has to Establish · Unreasonable Interference: How the Court Measures It · Abnormal Sensitivity: The Claimant Cannot Raise the Standard", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.7-public-and-private-nuisance", "format": "study", "read_time": 34, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nuisance", "public nuisance", "private nuisance", "special damage", "actionable per se", "ordinary usages of mankind", "abnormal sensitivity", "adopt or continue", "quia timet injunction", "abatement", "prescription", "statutory authority", "Section 268 IPC", "Section 270 BNS", "Section 292 BNS", "Section 293 BNS", "Section 91 CPC", "Section 133 CrPC", "Section 152 BNSS", "Section 188 IPC", "Section 15 Indian Easements Act", "Municipal Council Ratlam v. Vardhichand", "Durga Prasad v. State", "Sedleigh-Denfield v. O'Callaghan", "Dhanna Lal v. Thakur Chittar Singh", "Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad", "Shaikh Ismail v. Venkatanarasimhu", "Ball v. Ray", "Robinson v. Kilvert", "Eastern and South African Telephone Co. v. Cape Town Tramways", "Heath v. Mayor of Brighton", "St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping", "Noble v. Harrison", "Dollman v. Hillman Ltd.", "Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal", "Campbell v. Paddington Corporation", "A.L. Ranjane v. Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna", "S. Chettiar v. Sri Ramkumar Ginning Firm", "Kuldip Singh v. Subhash Chander Jain", "Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co." ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.7-public-and-private-nuisance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.7-public-and-private-nuisance-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1", "2.2.4.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.8.1", "level": 3, "title": "Trespass to the Person", "blurb": "The Gate: Trespass Is Now an Intentional Wrong · Battery: The Direct Application of Force · When Force Is Justified · Assault: Apprehension, Not Contact", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.8-trespass-pt1-trespass-to-the-person", "format": "study", "read_time": 30, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-07-31", "gloss": [ "trespass to the person", "battery", "assault", "false imprisonment", "total restraint", "actionable per se", "trespass vi et armis", "wrongful restraint", "wrongful confinement", "criminal force", "Section 339 IPC", "Section 340 IPC", "Section 351 IPC", "Section 126 BNS", "Section 127 BNS", "Section 130 BNS", "Fowler v. Lanning", "Letang v. Cooper", "Innes v. Wylie", "Hurst v. Picture Theatres", "P. Kader v. K.A. Alagarswami", "Leigh v. Gladstone", "Turbervell v. Savage", "Stephens v. Myers", "Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muttayya", "Morris v. Marsden", "Bird v. Jones", "Herring v. Boyle", "Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation Co.", "Murray v. Ministry of Defence", "Garikipati v. Araza Biksham", "Shaaban Bin Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam", "Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.", "Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar", "Anwar Hussain v. Ajoy Kumar", "Robinson v. Balmain New Ferry Co.", "Herd v. Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co.", "John Lewis and Co. v. Tims", "Austin v. Dowling" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.8-trespass-pt1-trespass-to-the-person-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.8-trespass-pt1-trespass-to-the-person-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1", "2.2.5.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.8.2", "level": 3, "title": "Trespass to Land and Goods", "blurb": "Possession Is the Interest Protected, and It Decides Who May Sue · The Mental Element: An Intended Entry, Not an Intended Wrong", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.8-trespass-pt2-land-goods-conversion", "format": "study", "read_time": 36, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "trespass to land", "quare clausum fregit", "trespass to goods", "de bonis asportatis", "detinue", "conversion", "trover", "trespass ab initio", "misfeasance", "non-feasance", "licence coupled with a grant", "bare licence", "jus tertii", "mesne profits", "distress damage feasant", "trespass by relation", "continuing trespass", "criminal trespass", "house-trespass", "Section 441 IPC", "Section 329 BNS", "Section 6 Specific Relief Act", "Section 8 Specific Relief Act", "Baxter v. Taylor", "Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co.", "Basely v. Clarkson", "Holmes v. Mather", "Jolliffe v. Willmett", "Perera v. Vandiyar", "Madhav V. Kudwa v. Madhavdas Vallabhdas", "Hurst v. Picture Theatres", "Wood v. Leadbitter", "Winter Garden Theatre v. Millennium", "Six Carpenters' Case", "Elias v. Pasmore", "Gifford v. Dent", "Holmes v. Wilson", "Hemmings v. Stoke Poges Golf Club", "Kirk v. Gregory", "Cresswell v. Sirl", "National Coal Board v. Evans", "Banshi v. Goverdhan", "Dhian Singh v. Union of India", "Richardson v. Atkinson", "Fouldes v. Willoughby", "Hollins v. Fowler", "Consolidated Co. v. Curtis", "Roop Lal v. Union of India", "Moorgate Mercantile v. Finch", "Mills v. Brooker", "Devereux v. Barclay", "Armory v. Delamirie", "Parker v. British Airways Board" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.8-trespass-pt2-land-goods-conversion-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.8-trespass-pt2-land-goods-conversion-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1", "2.2.5.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.9.1", "level": 3, "title": "Vicarious Liability", "blurb": "What the Doctrine Is, and the Two Maxims It Rests On · The Relationships That Generate It · Servant or Independent Contractor: The Test and Its Drift", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.9-vicarious-liability-course-of-employment", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "vicarious liability", "respondeat superior", "qui facit per alium facit per se", "master and servant", "principal and agent", "independent contractor", "the control test", "the hire and fire test", "borrowed servant", "transfer of effective control", "course of employment", "frolic of his own", "prohibited act", "negligent delegation", "doctrine of common employment", "joint tortfeasors", "Dinbai R. Wadia v. Farukh Mobendjina", "Ormrod v. Crosville Motor Services", "Lloyd v. Grace Smith and Co.", "State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi", "Hewitt v. Bonvin", "Brinkly v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance Co.", "Devinder Singh v. Mangal Singh", "Guru Govekar v. Filomena F. Lobo", "Burgess v. Grey", "Tarry v. Ashton", "Morgan v. Incorporated Central Council", "B. Govindarajulu v. M.L.A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar", "Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffith", "Smt. Kundan Kaur v. S. Shankar Singh", "R.S.R.T.C. v. K.N. Kothari", "Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank", "State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijay Singh", "Pushpabai Purshottam Vakal v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co.", "Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board", "Williams v. Jones", "Cheshire v. Bailey", "Roberts v. Shanks", "Joel v. Morison", "Deatons Proprietary Ltd. v. Flew", "Patterson v. Royal Oak Hotel", "Beard v. London General Omnibus Co.", "Nalini Sen Gupta v. Corporation of Calcutta", "Crook v. Derbyshire Stone Ltd.", "Ricketts v. Thomas Tilling Ltd.", "Skandia Insurance Co. v. Kokilaben", "Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy", "Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co.", "Twine v. Beans Express Ltd.", "Conway v. George Wimpey and Co.", "Poulton v. London and South Western Railway", "Bayley v. Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway", "Priestley v. Fowler", "Secretary of State v. Rukminibai", "Governor General in Council v. Constance Zena Wells" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.9-vicarious-liability-course-of-employment-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.9-vicarious-liability-course-of-employment-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1", "2.2.3.1", "2.2.7.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.10.1", "level": 3, "title": "Remoteness and the Measure of Damages", "blurb": "Why the Law Draws a Line at All · The Two Tests, and Why the First Fell · Kind Against Extent: The Rules That Save Foreseeability From Injustice · When Damage Is Excluded as Too Remote", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.10-remedies-pt1-remoteness-measure", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "remoteness of damage", "causa causans", "causa sine qua non", "in jure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur", "test of directness", "test of reasonable foresight", "novus actus interveniens", "eggshell skull rule", "general damages", "special damages", "nominal damages", "exemplary damages", "pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss", "multiplier theory", "interest theory", "assessment of dependency", "Scott v. Shepherd", "Vandenburg v. Truax", "Rigby v. Hewitt", "Greenland v. Chaplin", "King v. Philips", "Smith v. London and South Western Railway", "Re Polemis and Furness Withy and Co.", "Liesbosch Dredger v. Edison", "Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock", "Wagon Mound", "Hughes v. Lord Advocate", "Smith v. Leech Brain and Co.", "Robinson v. The Post Office", "Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co.", "S.C.M. v. W.J. Whittall and Sons", "Sharp v. Powell", "Mi Taw v. Nga Ket", "Glover v. London and South Western Railway", "Haynes v. Harwood", "Sullivan v. Creed", "Secretary of State v. Gokal Chand", "Pigney v. Pointers Transport Services", "Ashby v. White", "Ratcliffe v. Evans", "Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks Co.", "Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation", "Hattangadi v. Pest Control India", "Fateh Singh v. State of U.P.", "Guest v. Warren" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.10-remedies-pt1-remoteness-measure-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.10-remedies-pt1-remoteness-measure-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.2.8.1" ] }, { "key": "2.3.10.2", "level": 3, "title": "Remedies and Limitation", "blurb": "The Two Families of Remedy · The Injunction · Specific Restitution, and the Waiver of the Tort · Limitation: When the Clock Starts · The Periods: Articles 72 to 91", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.3.10-remedies-pt2-injunctions-limitation", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "judicial and extra-judicial remedies", "injunction", "quia timet injunction", "interlocutory injunction", "perpetual injunction", "mandatory injunction", "specific restitution of property", "ejectment", "detinue", "expulsion of trespasser", "re-entry on land", "recaption of chattels", "abatement of nuisance", "distress damage feasant", "waiver of the tort", "continuing tort", "limitation in tort", "accrual of the cause of action", "Article 72 Limitation Act", "Article 73 Limitation Act", "Article 74 Limitation Act", "Article 75 Limitation Act", "Article 76 Limitation Act", "Article 82 Limitation Act", "Article 87 Limitation Act", "Article 91 Limitation Act", "Section 22 Limitation Act", "Section 23 Limitation Act", "Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co.", "Holmes v. Wilson", "Hemmings v. Stoke Poges Golf Club", "Guest v. Warren", "Ashby v. White", "Ratcliffe v. Evans" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.3.10-remedies-pt2-injunctions-limitation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.3.10-remedies-pt2-injunctions-limitation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "2.2.8.1" ] } ] }, { "level": 4, "name": "HJS (non-Delhi)", "topics": [ { "key": "2.4.0.1", "level": 4, "title": "Advanced Digest", "blurb": "Remoteness of Damage · Consent and Volenti Non Fit Injuria · Damages: The Typology", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "remoteness of damage", "directness test", "reasonable foreseeability", "Re Polemis", "Wagon Mound", "Liesbosch", "Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather", "volenti non fit injuria", "scienti non fit injuria", "Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons", "Dann v. Hamilton", "Bowater v. Rowley Regis", "nominal damages", "aggravated damages", "exemplary damages", "Bhim Singh v. State of J&K" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.4.1.1", "level": 4, "title": "Economic Torts", "blurb": "The Competitive Boundary: Why the Economic Torts Are Residual · Malice in Law and Malice in Fact · Conspiracy: One Name, Two Torts · Simple Conspiracy and the Predominant-Purpose Test", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.1-emerging-torts", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "economic torts", "damnum sine injuria", "Gloucester Grammar School Case", "Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor", "malice in law", "malice in fact", "Bradford Corporation v. Pickles", "conspiracy", "predominant purpose test", "Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co. v. Veitch", "Quinn v. Leathem", "unlawful-means conspiracy", "Lonrho v. Fayed", "Rohtas Industries v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union", "procurement of breach of contract", "South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co.", "intimidation", "Rookes v. Barnard", "injurious falsehood", "Ratcliffe v. Evans" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.1-emerging-torts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.1-emerging-torts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1", "2.2.6.1", "2.3.3.1", "2.3.3.2", "2.3.3.3", "2.3.3.4" ] }, { "key": "2.4.2.1", "level": 4, "title": "Comparative Negligence Regimes and Product Liability", "blurb": "Contributory Negligence and Its Special Situations · The Last Opportunity Rule and Its Decline · Statutory Apportionment and the Indian Position", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.2-statutory-torts", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "contributory negligence", "Butterfield v. Forrester", "last opportunity rule", "Davies v. Mann", "British Columbia Electric Railway v. Loach", "Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945", "Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976", "Vidya Devi v. M.P. SRTC", "Yachuk v. Oliver Blais", "doctrine of identification", "The Bernina", "composite negligence", "joint and several liability", "Karnataka SRTC v. Krishnan", "Amthiben v. ONGC", "Donoghue v. Stevenson", "neighbour principle", "Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.2-statutory-torts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.2-statutory-torts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.1.1", "2.2.6.1", "2.3.3.1", "2.3.3.2", "2.3.3.3", "2.3.3.4" ] }, { "key": "2.4.3.1", "level": 4, "title": "Negligence Reconsidered", "blurb": "Two Theories, One Word · The Duty of Care: An Expanding Principle · The Standard of Care and Its Sliding Scale · Medical Negligence: The Civil-Criminal Divide", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.3-negligence-reconsidered", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "subjective and objective theories of negligence", "duty of care", "neighbour principle", "Donoghue v. Stevenson", "reasonable foreseeability", "proximity", "Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben", "standard of care", "Glasgow Corporation v. Muir", "Bolam test", "Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha", "Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab", "res ipsa loquitur", "Municipal Corporation Delhi v. Subhagwanti", "nervous shock", "Alcock control mechanisms" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.3-negligence-reconsidered-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.3-negligence-reconsidered-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.2.1", "2.2.2.1", "2.3.1.1", "2.3.6.1" ] }, { "key": "2.4.4.1", "level": 4, "title": "Nuisance and Trespass", "blurb": "One Distinction That Organises Both · Nuisance: The Elastic Standard of \"Unreasonable\" · Public Nuisance and the Special-Damage Rule · Trespass to the Person: Directness and Intention", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.4-nuisance-and-trespass", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "private nuisance", "unreasonable interference", "Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad", "reasonable user", "Shelfer v. City of London", "Adams v. Ursell", "Noble v. Harrison", "trespass actionable per se", "trespass to land", "battery", "assault", "false imprisonment", "Murray v. Ministry of Defence", "Letang v. Cooper", "the trespass-negligence boundary" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.4-nuisance-and-trespass-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.4-nuisance-and-trespass-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1", "2.2.4.1", "2.2.5.1", "2.3.7.1", "2.3.8.1", "2.3.8.2" ] }, { "key": "2.4.5.1", "level": 4, "title": "Vicarious and State Liability", "blurb": "The Problem of Making a Blameless Person Pay · Why the Tests Keep Drifting · State Liability: Article 300 and the Sovereign Line · The Erosion of Immunity · The Unfinished Reform", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.5-vicarious-and-state-liability", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "vicarious liability", "respondeat superior", "qui facit per alium facit per se", "control test", "servant and independent contractor", "course of employment", "Limpus v. London General Omnibus", "State liability", "Article 300", "sovereign and non-sovereign functions", "P&O Steam Navigation", "Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.", "State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati", "N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.", "Common Cause v. Union of India" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.5-vicarious-and-state-liability-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.5-vicarious-and-state-liability-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1", "2.2.3.1", "2.2.7.1", "2.3.2.1", "2.3.2.2", "2.3.4.1", "2.3.9.1" ] }, { "key": "2.4.6.1", "level": 4, "title": "General Defences", "blurb": "Most of These Are Not Defences at All · Volenti: Where the Line Actually Falls · The Two Great Limits: Negligence and Rescue", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.4.6-general-defences", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "volenti non fit injuria", "scienti non fit injuria", "free consent", "Bowater v. Rowley Regis", "Smith v. Charles Baker", "rescue cases", "Haynes v. Harwood", "Dann v. Hamilton", "inevitable accident", "Stanley v. Powell", "act of God", "Nichols v. Marsland", "Ramalinga Nadar v. Narayana Reddiar", "private defence", "necessity", "statutory authority", "Vaughan v. Taff Vale" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.4.6-general-defences-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.4.6-general-defences-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.2.8.1", "2.3.5.1" ] } ] }, { "level": 5, "name": "Delhi Judiciary", "topics": [ { "key": "2.5.0.1", "level": 5, "title": "Mastery Digest", "blurb": "Death and the Fatal Accidents Act · Concurrent Liability in Contract and Tort · The Kinds of Damages", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.5.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Fatal Accidents Act 1855", "dependants' claim", "Fateh Singh v. State of U.P.", "Challa Ramakrishna Reddy", "concurrent liability", "contemptuous damages", "nominal damages", "exemplary damages", "Bhim Singh v. State of J&K", "Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India", "John v. MGN", "Rookes v. Barnard" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.5.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.5.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "2.5.1.1", "level": 5, "title": "Theoretical Foundations of Tort Law", "blurb": "What Is a Tort? The Search for a Definition · Law of Tort or Law of Torts? · The Indian Resolution: An Ever-Expanding Horizon · The Functions of Tort Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.5.1-theoretical-foundations", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Winfield theory", "Salmond pigeon-hole theory", "law of tort or law of torts", "ubi jus ibi remedium", "injuria sine damno", "damnum sine injuria", "Jayalakshmi Salt Works v. State of Gujarat", "Ashby v. White", "Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben", "functions of tort law", "restitutio in integrum", "exemplary damages", "nominal damages", "absolute liability", "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "deep pocket principle" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.5.1-theoretical-foundations-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.5.1-theoretical-foundations-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.3.4.1" ] }, { "key": "2.5.2.1", "level": 5, "title": "Tort Law Reform in India", "blurb": "The Codification Debate: Why Tort Stays Uncodified · The Colonial Inheritance: Article 300 and Sovereign Immunity · The Reform That Failed: The 1956 Report and the 1967 Bill", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.5.2-tort-reform", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "codification of tort law", "Article 300", "sovereign immunity", "P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State", "Crown Proceedings Act 1947", "Law Commission First Report", "Government (Liability in Tort) Bill 1967", "State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati", "Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P.", "N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.", "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "absolute liability", "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India", "Public Liability Insurance Act 1991", "deep pocket principle" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.5.2-tort-reform-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.5.2-tort-reform-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.3.5.1" ] }, { "key": "2.5.3.1", "level": 5, "title": "Strict and Absolute Liability", "blurb": "Why Fault Was Displaced at All · How Strict Liability Lost Its Sting · Absolute Liability: The Indian Break · The Deep-Pocket Measure of Damages · The Unresolved Frontier", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.5.3-strict-and-absolute-liability", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "strict liability", "rule in Rylands v. Fletcher", "non-natural use", "escape", "Read v. Lyons", "exceptions to Rylands", "act of a stranger", "absolute liability", "M.C. Mehta v. Union of India", "Oleum gas leak", "non-delegable duty", "enterprise liability", "deep pocket theory", "exemplary damages", "Bhopal Gas Leak case", "Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action", "polluter pays", "Public Liability Insurance Act 1991" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.5.3-strict-and-absolute-liability-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.5.3-strict-and-absolute-liability-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.4.1", "2.2.3.1", "2.2.7.1", "2.3.2.1", "2.3.2.2", "2.3.4.1", "2.3.9.1", "2.4.5.1" ] }, { "key": "2.5.4.1", "level": 5, "title": "Defamation and Free Speech", "blurb": "Reputation Against Free Speech · Libel and Slander: Where India Departs · The Anatomy of the Wrong · The Speech-Protecting Defences · The Free-Speech Frontier", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.5.4-defamation-and-free-speech", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "defamation", "reputation as property", "libel and slander", "actionable per se", "innuendo", "Cassidy v. Daily Mirror", "publication", "justification", "truth as a defence", "fair comment", "absolute privilege", "qualified privilege", "Horrocks v. Lowe", "duty to the public", "malice", "Article 19(2) reasonable restriction" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.5.4-defamation-and-free-speech-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.5.4-defamation-and-free-speech-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "2.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "2.5.5.1", "level": 5, "title": "Remoteness, Causation and Damages", "blurb": "The Limitless Chain and the Proximate Cause · Causation and the Unbroken Chain · Directness versus Foreseeability: The Great Contest · General and Special Damages", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "2.5.5-remoteness-causation-and-damages", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "remoteness of damage", "proximate cause", "causa causans", "causa sine qua non", "Scott v. Shepherd", "novus actus interveniens", "test of directness", "Re Polemis", "Liesbosch Dredger v. Edison", "test of foreseeability", "Wagon Mound", "general damages", "special damages", "Ashby v. White", "Ratcliffe v. Evans", "restitutio in integrum", "multiplier theory" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "tort-2.5.5-remoteness-causation-and-damages-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "tort-2.5.5-remoteness-causation-and-damages-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] } ] } ] }, { "key": "bnss", "name": "BNSS", "levels": [ { "level": 1, "name": "LLB Entrance", "topics": [ { "key": "5.1.0.1", "level": 1, "title": "Foundational Digest", "blurb": "The Transition and New Vocabulary · Criminal Court Hierarchy and Sentencing Powers · Key BNSS Innovations · Prosecutors and Procedural Rights · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.1.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "BNSS 2023", "Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita", "cognizable offence", "non-cognizable offence", "bailable offence", "non-bailable offence", "summons case", "warrant case", "Section 2 BNSS", "Section 6 BNSS", "classes of criminal courts", "sentencing powers of courts", "zero FIR", "electronic FIR", "community service", "Directorate of Prosecution", "trial in absentia" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.1.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.1.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.1.1.1", "level": 1, "title": "Courts, FIR and Arrest", "blurb": "Classes of Criminal Courts and Subordination · Sentencing Powers of Courts · Public Prosecutors and the Directorate · Basic Procedure: FIR and Arrest Overview · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.1.1-criminal-court-hierarchy-and-basic-procedure-pt1-criminal-court-hierarchy-and-basic-procedure", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "classes of criminal courts", "Section 6 BNSS", "Court of Session", "Judicial Magistrate of the first class", "Chief Judicial Magistrate", "Executive Magistrate", "subordination of criminal courts", "sentencing powers of courts", "Section 23 BNSS", "community service", "Public Prosecutor", "Directorate of Prosecution", "Section 20 BNSS", "first information report", "arrest" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.1.1-criminal-court-hierarchy-and-basic-procedure-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.1.1-criminal-court-hierarchy-and-basic-procedure-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.1.2.1", "level": 1, "title": "Bail Basics", "blurb": "The Foundation: Bail, Bonds, and Offence Categories · Bail as of Right: Bailable Offences · Discretionary Bail: Non-Bailable Offences · Anticipatory Bail: Pre-Arrest Protection", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.1.2-bail-basics-pt1-bail-basics", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "bail", "bail bond", "bond", "Section 2(1)(c) BNSS", "bailable offence", "non-bailable offence", "bail as of right", "Section 478 BNSS", "discretionary bail", "Section 480 BNSS", "anticipatory bail", "Section 482 BNSS", "indigent person", "Moti Ram v. State of M.P.", "Sunil Fulchand v. Union of India", "Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor", "Gurucharan Singh v. State", "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.1.2-bail-basics-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.1.2-bail-basics-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 2, "name": "LLB Semester", "topics": [ { "key": "5.2.0.1", "level": 2, "title": "Doctrinal Digest", "blurb": "Structural Overhaul and Digital Integration · Strict Statutory Timelines for Trials · Investigative Shifts and Custodial Rules · Foundational Case Law and Undertrial Rights", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "BNSS 2023", "Section 530 BNSS", "trial in electronic mode", "statutory trial timelines", "zero FIR", "electronic FIR", "preliminary inquiry", "Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.", "staggered police custody", "Section 187 BNSS", "undertrial prisoner release", "Section 479 BNSS", "community service" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.1.1", "level": 2, "title": "Constitution of Criminal Courts", "blurb": "The New Uniform Hierarchy of Criminal Courts · Sentencing Competence and Community Service · The Mathematics of Default Imprisonment · Multiple Convictions and Consecutive Sentencing", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.1-constitution-of-criminal-courts-and-powers-pt1-constitution-of-criminal-courts-and-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "constitution of criminal courts", "Section 6 BNSS", "Court of Session", "Assistant Sessions Judge", "Chief Judicial Magistrate", "subordination of criminal courts", "Section 13 BNSS", "sentencing powers of courts", "Section 23 BNSS", "community service", "default imprisonment", "consecutive sentences", "Public Prosecutor", "Directorate of Prosecution", "Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal", "Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.1-constitution-of-criminal-courts-and-powers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.1-constitution-of-criminal-courts-and-powers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "5.2.2.1", "level": 2, "title": "Arrest Without Warrant", "blurb": "The Conceptual Divide: Arrest vs. Custody · Arrest by Police Without Warrant · Procedural Duties and Arrestee Rights · Mode of Arrest, Female Protections, and Handcuffs", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.2-arrest-pt1-arrest-without-warrant-and-police-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "arrest", "custody", "arrest without warrant", "Section 35 BNSS", "Section 35(7) BNSS", "notice of appearance", "mode of arrest", "handcuffs", "arrest of a woman", "arrest by a private person", "Section 43(3) BNSS", "D.K. Basu guidelines", "State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar", "Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar", "Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.", "D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.2-arrest-without-warrant-and-police-powers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.2-arrest-without-warrant-and-police-powers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.2.2", "level": 2, "title": "Rights of the Arrested", "blurb": "Search, Seizure, and the Duty of Care · Medical Examination and Identification · The 24-Hour Rule and Apprehension Reports · Deep Remand Jurisprudence (Section 187)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.2-arrest-pt2-rights-of-arrested-person-and-remand", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "rights of an arrested person", "search of arrested person", "Section 49 BNSS", "Section 51 BNSS", "medical examination of the accused", "Section 53 BNSS", "identification of the accused", "twenty-four hour rule", "Section 58 BNSS", "remand", "Section 187 BNSS", "police custody", "judicial custody", "Section 60 BNSS", "escape from custody", "illegal arrest", "Kamalabai Jethamal v. State of Maharashtra", "Ritesh v. State of U.P.", "Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India", "Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.2-rights-of-arrested-person-and-remand-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.2-rights-of-arrested-person-and-remand-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.3.1", "level": 2, "title": "Summons and Warrants", "blurb": "The Summons: Form and Service (Sections 63-71) · Warrant of Arrest: Form, Bail, and Execution (Sections 72-79) · Executing a Warrant Outside the Jurisdiction (Sections 80-83)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.3-processes-to-compel-appearance-and-search-pt1-compelling-appearance-summons-and-warrants", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "summons", "Section 63 BNSS", "service of summons", "warrant of arrest", "Section 72 BNSS", "bailable warrant", "Section 73 BNSS", "execution of warrant outside jurisdiction", "Section 78 BNSS", "Section 79 BNSS", "proclamation for an absconding person", "Section 84 BNSS", "proclaimed offender", "attachment of property of an absconder", "Section 85 BNSS", "Section 90 BNSS", "warrant in lieu of summons" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.3-compelling-appearance-summons-and-warrants-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.3-compelling-appearance-summons-and-warrants-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.3.2", "level": 2, "title": "Production and Search Warrants", "blurb": "Summons to Produce and Digital Evidence (Sections 94-95) · Search Warrants: When They May Issue (Sections 96-101) · Conducting the Search (Sections 102-104, 108)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.3-processes-to-compel-appearance-and-search-pt2-compelling-production-and-search-warrants", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "summons to produce a document", "Section 94 BNSS", "electronic communication device", "search warrant", "Section 96 BNSS", "general search warrant", "search procedure", "Section 103 BNSS", "search witnesses", "videography of search and seizure", "Section 105 BNSS", "seizure of property", "proceeds of crime", "State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi", "Nitya Dharmanand v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy", "State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy", "Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.3-compelling-production-and-search-warrants-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.3-compelling-production-and-search-warrants-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.4.1", "level": 2, "title": "FIR and Investigation Powers", "blurb": "The FIR and the Zero FIR (Section 173) · The Preliminary Inquiry Gate (Section 173(3)) · Non-Cognizable and Mixed Cases (Section 174)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.4-fir-investigation-and-police-powers-pt1-fir-and-police-investigation-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "first information report", "Section 173 BNSS", "zero FIR", "electronic FIR", "preliminary inquiry", "Section 173(3) BNSS", "non-cognizable case", "Section 174 BNSS", "power of police to investigate", "Section 175 BNSS", "investigation", "mandatory forensic investigation", "Section 176(3) BNSS", "Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.", "Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P." ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.4-fir-and-police-investigation-powers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.4-fir-and-police-investigation-powers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.4.2", "level": 2, "title": "Statements, Inquest and Chargesheet", "blurb": "Police Examination of Witnesses (Sections 180-182) · The Magistrate and Confessions (Section 183) · The Police Case Diary (Section 192) · Inquests into Unnatural Deaths (Section 194)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.4-fir-investigation-and-police-powers-pt2-evidentiary-statements-inquest-and-chargesheet", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "examination of witnesses by police", "Section 180 BNSS", "Section 181 BNSS", "statement to the police", "Section 179 BNSS", "confession before a Magistrate", "Section 183 BNSS", "case diary", "Section 192 BNSS", "inquest", "Section 194 BNSS", "unnatural death", "final report", "chargesheet", "Section 193 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.4-evidentiary-statements-inquest-and-chargesheet-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.4-evidentiary-statements-inquest-and-chargesheet-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.5.1", "level": 2, "title": "Jurisdiction and Cognizance", "blurb": "Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts · Meaning and Modes of Taking Cognizance · Bars and Sanctions on Taking Cognizance · Limitation Period for Taking Cognizance · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.5-cognizance-complaint-and-initiation-of-proceedings-pt1-jurisdiction-and-conditions-for-cognizance", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "territorial jurisdiction", "ordinary place of inquiry and trial", "Section 197 BNSS", "Section 199 BNSS", "Section 201 BNSS", "cognizance of an offence", "Section 210 BNSS", "sanction for prosecution", "bar on taking cognizance", "limitation for taking cognizance", "Section 514 BNSS", "Section 218 BNSS", "S.K. Sinha v. Videocon International Ltd.", "Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar", "Sarah Mathew v. District Collector" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.5-jurisdiction-and-conditions-for-cognizance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.5-jurisdiction-and-conditions-for-cognizance-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.5.2", "level": 2, "title": "Complaints to Magistrates", "blurb": "Examination of the Complainant and the New Accused Protection · Postponement of Process and the Out-of-Jurisdiction Accused · Dismissal, the Second Complaint, and Issue of Process", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.5-cognizance-complaint-and-initiation-of-proceedings-pt2-complaints-to-magistrates-and-initiation", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "complaint", "examination of the complainant", "Section 223 BNSS", "postponement of issue of process", "Section 225 BNSS", "dismissal of complaint", "Section 226 BNSS", "second complaint", "issue of process", "Section 227 BNSS", "summons case", "petty offence", "Section 229 BNSS", "supply of documents", "committal", "Manhari Bhai v. Shailesh Bhai", "Abhijit Pawar v. Hemlata Madhukar Nimbalkar", "D. Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.5-complaints-to-magistrates-and-initiation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 29 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.5-complaints-to-magistrates-and-initiation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.6.1", "level": 2, "title": "Bail as of Right", "blurb": "Bail as of Right in Bailable Offences · The Undertrial Detention Cap · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.6-bail-pt1-bailable-and-undertrial-release", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "bail as of right", "bailable offence", "Section 478 BNSS", "indigent person", "undertrial detention cap", "Section 479 BNSS", "first-time offender", "personal bond", "one-third detention rule", "one-half detention rule", "multiple cases bar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.6-bailable-and-non-bailable-bail-discretion-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.6-bailable-and-non-bailable-bail-discretion-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "5.2.6.2", "level": 2, "title": "Discretionary Bail", "blurb": "Discretionary Bail in Non-Bailable Offences · Conditions, Reasons and Trial Timelines · Bail Bond for the Appellate Stage · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.6-bail-pt2-non-bailable-discretion-and-conditions", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "discretionary bail", "non-bailable offence", "Section 480 BNSS", "bail to a woman or sick person", "conditions of bail", "reasons for granting bail", "sixty-day trial delay rule", "Section 480(6) BNSS", "bail bond at the appellate stage", "Section 481 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.6-discretionary-bail-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.6-discretionary-bail-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 18 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "5.2.6.3", "level": 2, "title": "Anticipatory Bail and Bonds", "blurb": "Anticipatory Bail · Special Powers of the High Court and Court of Session · Cancellation of Bail · Bonds, Sureties and Forfeiture · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.6-bail-pt3-anticipatory-superior-powers-and-bonds", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "anticipatory bail", "Section 482 BNSS", "special powers of the High Court and Court of Session", "Section 483 BNSS", "cancellation of bail", "bond", "surety", "forfeiture of bond", "Section 491 BNSS", "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab", "State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi", "Raghubir v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.6-anticipatory-bail-undertrial-limits-and-cancellation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 24 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.6-anticipatory-bail-undertrial-limits-and-cancellation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 27 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "5.2.7.1", "level": 2, "title": "Framing the Charge", "blurb": "The Contents of a Charge · Particulars, and the Manner of the Offence · The Effect of Errors in a Charge · Altering the Charge, and Recalling Witnesses · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.7-charges-pt1-contents-particulars-and-alteration", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "charge", "contents of a charge", "Section 234 BNSS", "particulars of a charge", "Section 235 BNSS", "manner of committing the offence", "Section 236 BNSS", "Section 237 BNSS", "effect of errors in a charge", "Section 238 BNSS", "failure of justice", "alteration of charge", "Section 239 BNSS", "recall of witnesses", "Section 240 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.7-charges-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.7-charges-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.7.2", "level": 2, "title": "Joinder of Charges and Persons", "blurb": "The General Rule: One Offence, One Charge · The Three Routes to Joining Charges · Convicting Beyond the Charge: Included Offences · Joint Trial of Persons", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.7-charges-pt2-joinder-of-charges-and-persons", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "separate charge for every distinct offence", "Section 241 BNSS", "joinder of charges", "offences of the same kind", "Section 242 BNSS", "same transaction", "Section 243 BNSS", "charge in the alternative", "Section 244 BNSS", "conviction for a minor offence", "Section 245 BNSS", "joint trial of persons", "Section 246 BNSS", "withdrawal of remaining charges", "Section 247 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.7-charges-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.7-charges-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.8.1", "level": 2, "title": "Sessions and Warrant Trials", "blurb": "Trial Before a Court of Session: Opening and Discharge · Framing, Transfer, and the Flow of the Sessions Trial · Warrant Trial Track A: Cases on a Police Report", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.8-trial-procedure-pt1-sessions-and-warrant-trial-procedure", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "trial before a Court of Session", "Section 250 BNSS", "discharge", "Section 251 BNSS", "framing of charge", "prima facie case", "warrant case", "trial on a police report", "Section 262 BNSS", "trial on a complaint", "Section 263 BNSS", "acquittal", "compensation to the accused", "Section 269 BNSS", "Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal", "Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya", "Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.8-sessions-and-warrant-trial-procedure-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.8-sessions-and-warrant-trial-procedure-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "5.2.8.2", "level": 2, "title": "Summons and Summary Trials", "blurb": "Summons Trials: Stripping the Formalities · Ending and Converting a Summons Trial · Summary Trials: Maximum Expedition · The Recording of Evidence in Trials · Summons vs Summary", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.8-trial-procedure-pt2-summons-summary-trials-and-trial-evidence", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "summons trial", "Section 274 BNSS", "substance of accusation", "plea of guilty", "absence of complainant", "Section 279 BNSS", "withdrawal of complaint", "conversion of a summons trial", "Section 282 BNSS", "summary trial", "Section 283 BNSS", "recording of evidence", "Section 316 BNSS", "twenty thousand rupees threshold" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.8-summons-summary-trials-and-trial-evidence-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.8-summons-summary-trials-and-trial-evidence-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "5.2.9.1", "level": 2, "title": "Judgment and Compensation", "blurb": "Pronouncement and Uploading of Judgments · Contents and Language of the Judgment · Restorative Justice: Compensation to Victims · Victim Treatment and Witness Protection", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.9-judgment-sentencing-and-death-confirmation-pt1-judgment-requirements-and-compensation", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "judgment", "pronouncement of judgment", "Section 392 BNSS", "contents of a judgment", "language of the judgment", "compensation to victims", "Section 395 BNSS", "victim compensation scheme", "Section 396 BNSS", "treatment of victims", "witness protection scheme", "probation of good conduct", "confirmation of death sentence", "Section 409 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.9-judgment-requirements-and-compensation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.9-judgment-requirements-and-compensation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.9.2", "level": 2, "title": "Execution and Remission", "blurb": "Execution and Postponement of Death Sentences (Sections 453-456 BNSS) · Pre-Trial Detention Set-Off (Section 468 BNSS) · The New Mercy Petition Code (Section 472 BNSS)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.9-judgment-sentencing-and-death-confirmation-pt2-sentence-execution-remission-and-commutation", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "execution of a death sentence", "Section 453 BNSS", "postponement of a death sentence", "Section 456 BNSS", "set-off of pre-trial detention", "Section 468 BNSS", "mercy petition", "Section 472 BNSS", "suspension of sentence", "remission of sentence", "Section 473 BNSS", "commutation of sentence", "Section 474 BNSS", "levy of fine", "default imprisonment" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.9-sentence-execution-remission-and-commutation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.9-sentence-execution-remission-and-commutation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.10.1", "level": 2, "title": "Appeals and Death Confirmation", "blurb": "The Nature of Appeal and Victim Rights · Appeals from Conviction and Petty Cases · Appeals against Acquittal and Inadequate Sentences · Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.10-appeals-reference-revision-and-inherent-powers-pt1-appeals-and-death-sentence-confirmation", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "appeal", "no appeal as of right", "Section 413 BNSS", "victim's right of appeal", "appeal from conviction", "appellate forum ladder", "Section 415 BNSS", "petty case appeal bar", "Section 417 BNSS", "appeal against acquittal", "Section 419 BNSS", "appeal against inadequacy of sentence", "powers of the appellate court", "Section 427 BNSS", "suspension of sentence pending appeal", "Section 430 BNSS", "abatement of appeals", "confirmation of death sentence", "Section 416 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.10-appeals-and-death-sentence-confirmation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.10-appeals-and-death-sentence-confirmation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.10.2", "level": 2, "title": "Reference, Revision and Inherent Powers", "blurb": "Reference to the High Court (Section 436 BNSS) · Revisional Jurisdiction and Its Strict Limits (Sections 438 and 442 BNSS) · The Interlocutory Order Bar and Intermediate Orders", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.10-appeals-reference-revision-and-inherent-powers-pt2-reference-revision-and-inherent-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "reference to the High Court", "Section 436 BNSS", "revision", "revisional jurisdiction", "Section 438 BNSS", "Section 442 BNSS", "interlocutory order bar", "intermediate order", "no conversion of acquittal into conviction in revision", "transfer of criminal cases", "Section 446 BNSS", "Section 447 BNSS", "inherent powers of the High Court", "Section 528 BNSS", "Bhajan Lal categories", "Amar Nath v. State of Haryana", "Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra", "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.10-reference-revision-and-inherent-powers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.10-reference-revision-and-inherent-powers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.11.1", "level": 2, "title": "Maintenance of Dependants", "blurb": "Nature and Object of Maintenance Proceedings · Essentials for Granting Maintenance (Section 144 BNSS) · Who Can Claim Maintenance?", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.11-maintenance-and-preventive-provisions-pt1-maintenance-of-wives-children-and-parents", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "maintenance", "Section 144 BNSS", "neglect or refusal to maintain", "sufficient means", "unable to maintain herself", "wife", "live-in relationship", "maintenance of children", "maintenance of parents", "disentitlement of the wife", "adultery", "Muslim divorced wife", "interim maintenance", "Section 145 BNSS", "ex parte maintenance order", "enforcement of a maintenance order", "Section 147 BNSS", "Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav", "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal", "Vijay Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai", "Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum", "Danial Latifi v. Union of India" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.11-maintenance-of-wives-children-and-parents-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.11-maintenance-of-wives-children-and-parents-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.11.2", "level": 2, "title": "Security for Keeping Peace", "blurb": "Two Routes to a Peace Bond · Securities for Good Behaviour (Sections 127-129) · The Show-Cause Order and the Inquiry (Sections 130-137)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.11-maintenance-and-preventive-provisions-pt2-security-for-peace-public-order-and-preventive-police", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "security for keeping the peace on conviction", "Section 125 BNSS", "security for keeping the peace in other cases", "Section 126 BNSS", "security for good behaviour", "Section 127 BNSS", "Section 128 BNSS", "habitual offender", "Section 129 BNSS", "show-cause order", "Section 130 BNSS", "inquiry as to truth of information", "Section 135 BNSS", "six-month inquiry limit", "imprisonment in default of security", "Section 141 BNSS", "release on giving security", "Section 142 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.11-security-for-peace-public-order-and-preventive-police-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.11-security-for-peace-public-order-and-preventive-police-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.2.11.3", "level": 2, "title": "Public Order and Nuisance", "blurb": "Dispersal of Unlawful Assemblies (Sections 148-151) · Public Nuisances: The Conditional Order (Sections 152-162) · Urgent Orders and Disputes over Property (Sections 163-167)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.2.11-maintenance-and-preventive-provisions-pt3-public-order-and-preventive-police", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "unlawful assembly", "dispersal by civil force", "Section 148 BNSS", "protection for acts of dispersal", "Section 151 BNSS", "public nuisance", "conditional order for removal of nuisance", "Section 152 BNSS", "emergency prohibitory order", "Section 163 BNSS", "dispute concerning land or water", "Section 164 BNSS", "actual possession", "attachment of the subject of dispute", "preventive action of the police", "Section 170 BNSS", "Section 172 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.11-public-order-and-preventive-police-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.2.11-public-order-and-preventive-police-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 3, "name": "APO / Lower Judiciary + LLM", "topics": [ { "key": "5.3.0.1", "level": 3, "title": "Practitioner's Digest", "blurb": "The Shift to Victim-Centric Procedure · Technology Integration and Modern Trials · Boundary Lines: Arrest, Remand, and Bail Jurisprudence", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "victim-centric procedure", "victim compensation scheme", "Section 396 BNSS", "trial in electronic mode", "Section 530 BNSS", "electronic signature", "arrest", "remand", "bail jurisprudence", "trial in absentia", "inherent powers of the High Court", "Section 528 BNSS", "Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)", "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.3.1.1", "level": 3, "title": "Arrest Safeguards", "blurb": "The Conceptual Threshold: Arrest vs. Custody · Police Power to Arrest Without Warrant · Procedure of Arrest and D.K. Basu Guidelines · Mechanics of Arrest and Use of Handcuffs", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.1-arrest-remand-and-rights-of-accused-pt1-arrest-safeguards-and-dk-basu-guidelines", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "arrest", "custody", "arrest without warrant", "Section 35 BNSS", "prior permission of a Deputy Superintendent", "handcuffs", "Section 43 BNSS", "grounds of arrest and right to bail", "Section 47 BNSS", "obligation to inform a relative or friend", "Section 48 BNSS", "protection of members of the Armed Forces", "Section 42 BNSS", "arrest strictly according to the Sanhita", "Section 62 BNSS", "notice of appearance", "D.K. Basu guidelines", "handcuffs", "arrest by a private person", "constitutional rights of an arrested person", "illegal arrest", "State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar", "Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.", "Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar", "D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.1-arrest-safeguards-and-dk-basu-guidelines-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.1-arrest-safeguards-and-dk-basu-guidelines-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.2.1", "5.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.1.2", "level": 3, "title": "Remand Jurisprudence", "blurb": "What the Police May Do to the Person They Have Arrested · Medical Examination, Identification and the Duty of Care · The Twenty-Four Hour Rule, and Rights That Attach Before It Expires", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.1-arrest-remand-and-rights-of-accused-pt2-remand-jurisprudence-under-section-187", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "remand", "Section 187 BNSS", "twenty-four hour rule", "police custody", "judicial custody", "staggered police custody", "judicial scrutiny of remand", "default bail", "indefeasible right to default bail", "sixty-day and ninety-day limits", "Saptawana v. State of Assam", "Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar", "CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni", "Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.1-remand-jurisprudence-under-section-187-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.1-remand-jurisprudence-under-section-187-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.2.1", "5.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.2.1", "level": 3, "title": "FIR Registration and Zero FIR", "blurb": "The First Information Report and Zero FIR · The E-FIR Revolution · Mandatory Registration vs. Statutory Preliminary Inquiry · Safeguards for Vulnerable Victims", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.2-fir-investigation-and-chargesheet-pt1-fir-registration-zero-fir-and-preliminary-inquiry", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "first information report", "Section 173 BNSS", "zero FIR", "electronic FIR", "mandatory registration of FIR", "preliminary inquiry", "Section 173(3) BNSS", "Lalita Kumari categories", "safeguards for vulnerable victims", "remedy for refusal to register an FIR", "Section 173(4) BNSS", "Patai alias Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P.", "Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P." ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.2-fir-registration-zero-fir-and-preliminary-inquiry-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.2-fir-registration-zero-fir-and-preliminary-inquiry-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.4.1", "5.2.4.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.2.2", "level": 3, "title": "Investigation Timelines and Chargesheet", "blurb": "Police Investigation Powers and Magisterial Oversight · The Crime Scene and Mandatory Forensics · Inquests into Unnatural Deaths · Examination of Witnesses and the Evidentiary Bar", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.2-fir-investigation-and-chargesheet-pt2-police-investigation-timelines-and-chargesheet", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "power of police to investigate", "magisterial oversight of investigation", "mandatory forensic investigation", "Section 176(3) BNSS", "examination of witnesses", "Section 179 BNSS", "Section 180 BNSS", "confession before a Magistrate", "Section 183 BNSS", "final report", "chargesheet", "Section 193 BNSS", "further investigation", "Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.", "Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani", "State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh", "Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.2-police-investigation-timelines-and-chargesheet-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.2-police-investigation-timelines-and-chargesheet-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.4.1", "5.2.4.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.3.1", "level": 3, "title": "Bail Discretion and Guidelines", "blurb": "The Absolute Right: Bailable Offences and Indigency · The Undertrial Detention Cap · Magistrate Discretion in Non-Bailable Offences · Mandatory Conditions and Proportionality", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.3-bail-depth-pt1-bail-provisions-discretion-and-landmark-guidelines", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "bail as of right", "Section 478 BNSS", "indigent person", "undertrial detention cap", "Section 479 BNSS", "multiple cases bar", "discretionary bail", "Section 480 BNSS", "conditions of bail", "proportionality of bail conditions", "cancellation of bail", "bond", "surety", "forfeiture of bond", "Moti Ram v. State of M.P.", "Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor", "Gurucharan Singh v. State", "State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.3-bail-provisions-discretion-and-landmark-guidelines-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.3-bail-provisions-discretion-and-landmark-guidelines-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.2.1", "5.2.6.1", "5.2.6.2", "5.2.6.3" ] }, { "key": "5.3.3.2", "level": 3, "title": "Anticipatory Bail and Undertrial Release", "blurb": "Anticipatory Bail: Nature and Scope (Section 482 BNSS) · The Sibbia Mandate · Statutory Exclusions and BNSS Modifications", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.3-bail-depth-pt2-anticipatory-bail-depth-and-undertrial-release", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "anticipatory bail", "Section 482 BNSS", "Sibbia principles", "conditions on anticipatory bail", "statutory exclusion from anticipatory bail", "Section 482(4) BNSS", "undertrial prisoner release", "Section 479 BNSS", "first-time offender", "one-third detention rule", "multiple cases bar", "Union of India v. Padam Narain Agarwal", "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.3-anticipatory-bail-depth-and-undertrial-release-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.3-anticipatory-bail-depth-and-undertrial-release-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.2.1", "5.2.6.1", "5.2.6.2", "5.2.6.3" ] }, { "key": "5.3.4.1", "level": 3, "title": "Charge Drafting and Joinder", "blurb": "Object and Contents of a Valid Charge · The Effect of Errors and Omissions · Power to Alter or Add Charges · Joinder of Charges: The Rule of Separation and Exceptions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.4-charges-depth-pt1-charges-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "charge", "object of a charge", "contents of a charge", "particulars of a charge", "Section 235 BNSS", "effect of errors in a charge", "failure of justice", "alteration of charge", "joinder of charges", "same transaction", "Section 243 BNSS", "joint trial of persons", "Section 246 BNSS", "withdrawal of remaining charges", "Section 247 BNSS", "misjoinder of charges", "Bhrichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar", "Willie Slaney v. State of M.P.", "Jaswinder Saini v. State" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.4-charges-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.4-charges-depth-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.7.1", "5.2.7.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.5.1", "level": 3, "title": "Discharge and Charge Framing", "blurb": "Opening the Case and the Role of the Public Prosecutor · The Right to Discharge and Prima Facie Scrutiny · Framing of Charge and Audio-Video Integration", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.5-sessions-and-warrant-trial-pt1-sessions-trial-discharge-and-framing-charges", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "trial before a Court of Session", "Section 250 BNSS", "opening the case for the prosecution", "discharge", "prima facie case", "framing of charge", "plea of guilty", "prosecution evidence", "audio-video recording of evidence", "acquittal under Section 254 BNSS", "defence evidence", "sentencing hearing", "Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal", "Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar", "Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.5-sessions-trial-discharge-and-framing-charges-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.5-sessions-trial-discharge-and-framing-charges-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.8.1", "5.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.5.2", "level": 3, "title": "Warrant Trial Before Magistrates", "blurb": "The Dual Tracks of Warrant Trials · Curtailing Delay: The Power to Close Evidence · The Accused's Voice: Section 351 Examination · Expanding the Net: Summoning Additional Persons", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.5-sessions-and-warrant-trial-pt2-warrant-trial-magistrate-examination-and-evidence", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "warrant case", "trial on a police report", "trial on a complaint", "sixty-day clock", "Section 262 BNSS", "Section 263 BNSS", "power to close evidence", "examination of the accused", "Section 351 BNSS", "summoning additional accused", "Section 358 BNSS", "trial in absentia", "proclaimed offender", "Section 356 BNSS", "Samsul Haque v. State of Assam", "Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.5-warrant-trial-magistrate-examination-and-evidence-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.5-warrant-trial-magistrate-examination-and-evidence-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.8.1", "5.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.6.1", "level": 3, "title": "Summons and Summary Trial Procedure", "blurb": "The Summons Trial: Notice Over Formality · Pleas of Guilt in Absence · Taking Evidence and Reaching a Verdict · The Absent Complainant and the 30-Day Grace Period", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.6-summary-summons-trial-and-plea-bargaining-pt1-summary-and-summons-trials", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "summons case", "warrant case", "Section 2(1)(x) BNSS", "summons trial", "Section 274 BNSS", "plea of guilty in absence", "Section 276 BNSS", "absence of complainant", "thirty-day grace period", "stopping proceedings", "conversion of a summons trial", "summary trial", "Section 283 BNSS", "twenty thousand rupees threshold", "three-month imprisonment ceiling" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.6-summary-summons-trial-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.6-summary-summons-trial-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.8.1", "5.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.6.2", "level": 3, "title": "Plea Bargaining", "blurb": "Applicability and Statutory Exclusions · The Application and In-Camera Scrutiny · Mutually Satisfactory Disposition (MSD) · Sentencing Mechanics and Final Disposal", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.6-summary-summons-trial-and-plea-bargaining-pt2-plea-bargaining-procedure-and-scope", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "plea bargaining", "Section 289 BNSS", "statutory exclusions from plea bargaining", "thirty-day filing timeline", "in-camera examination", "voluntariness", "mutually satisfactory disposition", "Section 291 BNSS", "sentencing fractions", "Section 293 BNSS", "set-off of pre-trial detention", "finality of judgment", "Section 295 BNSS", "non-applicability to a child" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.6-plea-bargaining-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.6-plea-bargaining-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.8.1", "5.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.7.1", "level": 3, "title": "Maintenance Essentials", "blurb": "The Nature and Object of Maintenance · The Three Pillars of Statutory Liability · Defining the \"Wife\" and Live-in Relationships · The Supremacy of Secular Law over Personal Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.7-maintenance-depth-pt1-maintenance-under-section-144-essentials", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "maintenance", "Section 144 BNSS", "the three provisos to Section 144(1)", "maintenance of a married female child", "interim maintenance", "sixty-day timeline", "Explanation defining \"wife\"", "neglect or refusal to maintain", "sufficient means", "unable to maintain herself", "wife", "live-in relationship", "legitimate and illegitimate child", "maintenance of parents", "secular law over personal law", "disentitlement of the wife", "adultery", "living separately by mutual consent", "Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamala Devi", "Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav", "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal", "Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.7-maintenance-under-section-144-essentials-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.7-maintenance-under-section-144-essentials-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.11.1", "5.2.11.2", "5.2.11.3" ] }, { "key": "5.3.7.2", "level": 3, "title": "Maintenance Quantum and Enforcement", "blurb": "The Quantum of Maintenance · The New Jurisdictional Vistas · Enforcement and the Trap of Limitation · Alteration and Cancellation of Maintenance", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.7-maintenance-depth-pt2-maintenance-quantum-and-muslim-women-exception", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "quantum of maintenance", "interim maintenance", "date from which maintenance is payable", "Section 144(2) BNSS", "warrant to levy maintenance arrears", "Section 144(3) BNSS", "ex parte maintenance order", "proviso to Section 145(2) BNSS", "alteration of allowance", "Section 146(1) BNSS", "civil court decision", "Section 146(2) BNSS", "anti-double-recovery rule", "Section 146(4) BNSS", "free copy and enforcement anywhere", "Section 147 BNSS", "jurisdiction in maintenance proceedings", "enforcement of a maintenance order", "limitation for recovery of maintenance", "alteration of maintenance", "cancellation of a maintenance order", "Section 146 BNSS", "Muslim divorced wife", "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986", "Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain", "Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum", "Danial Latifi v. Union of India" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.7-maintenance-quantum-and-muslim-women-exception-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.7-maintenance-quantum-and-muslim-women-exception-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.11.1", "5.2.11.2", "5.2.11.3" ] }, { "key": "5.3.8.1", "level": 3, "title": "Appeals, Reference and Revision", "blurb": "The Nature of Appeals and the Victim's Right · Statutory Bars on Appeals · State Appeals Against Acquittal and Inadequacy · Appellate Powers and Suspension of Sentence", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.8-appeals-revision-and-inherent-powers-pt1-appeals-reference-and-revision-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "appeal", "no appeal as of right", "Section 413 BNSS", "victim's right of appeal", "statutory bars on appeal", "petty case appeal bar", "appeal against acquittal", "appeal against inadequacy of sentence", "powers of the appellate court", "suspension of sentence pending appeal", "reference to the High Court", "Section 436 BNSS", "revision", "Section 438 BNSS", "interlocutory order bar", "intermediate order", "Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.8-appeals-reference-and-revision-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.8-appeals-reference-and-revision-depth-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.1.1", "5.2.4.1", "5.2.4.2", "5.2.10.1", "5.2.10.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.8.2", "level": 3, "title": "Transfer and Inherent Powers", "blurb": "Transfer of Cases by the Supreme Court and High Court · Intra-Division Transfers and Withdrawal of Cases · The Inherent Powers of the High Court", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.8-appeals-revision-and-inherent-powers-pt2-case-transfer-and-inherent-powers-of-high-court", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "transfer of criminal cases", "Section 446 BNSS", "Section 447 BNSS", "withdrawal of cases", "inherent powers of the High Court", "Section 528 BNSS", "quashing of proceedings", "Bhajan Lal categories", "compromise and quashing", "superintendence", "Section 529 BNSS", "trial in electronic mode", "Section 530 BNSS", "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal", "Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra", "Gian Singh v. State of Punjab" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.8-case-transfer-and-inherent-powers-of-high-court-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.8-case-transfer-and-inherent-powers-of-high-court-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.1.1", "5.2.4.1", "5.2.4.2", "5.2.10.1", "5.2.10.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.9.1", "level": 3, "title": "Preventive Security Proceedings", "blurb": "Security on Conviction: A Peace Bond Tied to the Sentence (Section 125 BNSS) · The Executive Magistrate's Preventive Jurisdiction (Sections 126-129 BNSS)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.9-preventive-security-and-transfer-pt1-preventive-security-and-transfer", "format": "study", "read_time": 34, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "security for keeping the peace on conviction", "Section 125 BNSS", "Executive Magistrate's preventive jurisdiction", "Section 126 BNSS", "security for good behaviour", "Section 127 BNSS", "press shield", "Section 128 BNSS", "habitual offender", "Section 129 BNSS", "show-cause order", "Section 130 BNSS", "summons or warrant in security proceedings", "Section 132 BNSS", "immediate arrest proviso", "dispensing with personal attendance", "Section 134 BNSS", "inquiry as to truth of information", "Section 135 BNSS", "interim bond", "six-month inquiry limit", "discharge of person informed against", "Section 137 BNSS", "commencement of period of security", "Section 138 BNSS", "contents of bond", "Section 139 BNSS", "power to reject sureties", "Section 140 BNSS", "imprisonment in default of security", "Section 141 BNSS", "simple and rigorous default imprisonment", "release on giving security", "Section 142 BNSS", "security for unexpired period", "Section 143 BNSS", "appeal against security order", "Section 414 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.9-preventive-security-and-transfer-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.9-preventive-security-and-transfer-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.11.1", "5.2.11.2", "5.2.11.3" ] }, { "key": "5.3.9.2", "level": 3, "title": "Public Order and Police Powers", "blurb": "Dispersal of Unlawful Assemblies (Sections 148-151 BNSS) · Abatement of Public Nuisances (Sections 152 and 162 BNSS)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.9-preventive-security-and-transfer-pt2-public-order-nuisance-and-police", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "unlawful assembly", "dispersal by civil force", "Section 148 BNSS", "use of armed forces to disperse", "Section 150 BNSS", "public nuisance", "conditional order for removal of nuisance", "Section 152 BNSS", "emergency prohibitory order", "Section 163 BNSS", "dispute concerning land or water", "Section 164 BNSS", "actual possession", "attachment of the subject of dispute", "Section 165 BNSS", "preventive action of the police", "Section 170 BNSS", "Section 172 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.9-preventive-security-and-transfer-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.9-preventive-security-and-transfer-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.11.1", "5.2.11.2", "5.2.11.3" ] }, { "key": "5.3.10.1", "level": 3, "title": "Investigation Changes Under BNSS", "blurb": "Zero FIR and the Electronic FIR (Section 173 BNSS) · The Statutory Preliminary Inquiry (Section 173(3) BNSS) · Forensics and the Videographed Search (Sections 176(3), 105, 185 BNSS)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.10-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc-pt1-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "zero FIR", "electronic FIR", "Section 173 BNSS", "preliminary inquiry", "Section 173(3) BNSS", "mandatory forensic investigation", "Section 176(3) BNSS", "videography of search and seizure", "Section 105 BNSS", "Section 185 BNSS", "staggered police custody", "Section 187 BNSS", "victim rights", "Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.", "CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.10-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.10-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.3.10.2", "level": 3, "title": "Trial Changes Under BNSS", "blurb": "Statutory Trial and Judgment Timelines (Sections 250-263, 330 BNSS) · Trial in Absentia of a Proclaimed Offender (Section 356 BNSS)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.10-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc-pt2-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "statutory trial timelines", "judgment within thirty days", "Section 258 BNSS", "admission and denial of documents", "Section 330 BNSS", "trial in absentia", "proclaimed offender", "Section 356 BNSS", "trial in electronic mode", "Section 530 BNSS", "examination of the accused electronically", "Section 316 BNSS", "undertrial prisoner release", "Section 479 BNSS", "mandatory summary trial", "Section 283 BNSS", "wider joint trials", "Section 246 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.10-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.10-bnss-key-changes-from-crpc-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.3.11.1", "level": 3, "title": "Criminal Courts and Sentencing Powers", "blurb": "The Four Classes, and the Class That Disappeared · Establishing the Courts and Staffing Them · Local Jurisdiction and the Lines of Subordination · The Executive Magistracy", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.11-criminal-courts-and-sentencing-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "classes of criminal courts", "Section 6 BNSS", "sessions division", "Court of Session", "Judicial Magistrate of the first class", "Judicial Magistrate of the second class", "Special Judicial Magistrate", "Executive Magistrate", "District Magistrate", "local jurisdiction", "subordination of magistrates", "Section 21 BNSS", "Section 22 BNSS", "Section 23 BNSS", "community service", "sentence of imprisonment in default of fine", "Section 24 BNSS", "consecutive sentences", "concurrent sentences", "Section 25 BNSS", "mode of conferring powers", "withdrawal of powers", "successor-in-office", "Public Prosecutor", "Assistant Public Prosecutor", "Directorate of Prosecution", "Section 20 BNSS", "Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.11-criminal-courts-and-sentencing-powers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.11-criminal-courts-and-sentencing-powers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.1.1", "5.2.1.1", "5.2.4.1", "5.2.4.2", "5.2.9.1", "5.2.9.2", "5.2.10.1", "5.2.10.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.12.1", "level": 3, "title": "Summons, Warrants and Proclamation", "blurb": "The Four Ways to Secure Attendance · The Form of a Summons, and the Electronic Turn · How a Summons Is Served · Service on Entities, Government Servants and Persons Elsewhere", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt1-summons-warrants-proclamation", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "summons", "form of summons", "electronic summons", "Section 63 BNSS", "service of summons", "substituted service", "Section 67 BNSS", "service on corporate bodies and firms", "Section 65 BNSS", "service on Government servant", "service of summons on witness", "Section 71 BNSS", "warrant of arrest", "Section 72 BNSS", "bailable warrant", "power to direct security", "Section 73 BNSS", "warrant to whom directed", "execution outside jurisdiction", "Section 80 BNSS", "proclamation", "Section 84 BNSS", "proclaimed offender", "attachment of property of absconder", "Section 85 BNSS", "contracting State", "Section 86 BNSS", "claims and objections to attachment", "bond for appearance", "Section 91 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt1-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.3.1", "5.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.12.2", "level": 3, "title": "Production and Search-Warrants", "blurb": "The Architecture of Chapter VII · Summons to Produce a Document or Thing · Articles in the Custody of the Postal Authority · When a Search-Warrant May Be Issued", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt2-production-and-search-warrants", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "summons to produce", "Section 94 BNSS", "digital evidence", "communication device", "postal authority", "Section 95 BNSS", "search-warrant", "Section 96 BNSS", "general search", "objectionable article", "Section 97 BNSS", "declaration of forfeiture", "Section 98 BNSS", "Special Bench of three Judges", "Section 99 BNSS", "wrongful confinement", "Section 100 BNSS", "restoration of abducted females", "Section 101 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.3.1", "5.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.12.3", "level": 3, "title": "Search Procedure, Seizure and Attachment", "blurb": "How a Search Is Actually Conducted · The Camera on the Search · The Police Officer's Own Search, Without a Warrant · Seizure of Property by the Police", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt3-search-procedure-seizure-and-attachment", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "general provisions relating to searches", "search witnesses", "Section 103 BNSS", "search of a woman", "audio-video recording of search", "Section 105 BNSS", "search by police officer", "Section 185 BNSS", "case-diary grounds", "cross-station search", "Section 186 BNSS", "seizure of property", "Section 106 BNSS", "proceeds of crime", "attachment", "Section 107 BNSS", "impounding", "Section 109 BNSS", "reciprocal arrangements", "Section 110 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.12-compelling-appearance-pt3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.3.1", "5.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.13.1", "level": 3, "title": "Place of Trial and Territorial Jurisdiction", "blurb": "Two Jurisdictions, and Which One This Chapter Governs · The General Rule · When the Place Cannot Be Pinned Down · Act, Consequence, and Related Acts · The Named Offences", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.13-cognizance-pt1-place-of-trial-and-jurisdiction", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "territorial jurisdiction", "subject-matter jurisdiction", "ordinary place of inquiry and trial", "Section 197 BNSS", "continuing offence", "Section 198 BNSS", "act and consequence", "Section 199 BNSS", "place of trial in case of certain offences", "Section 201 BNSS", "cheating by electronic communication", "Section 202 BNSS", "offence committed on journey or voyage", "Section 203 BNSS", "offences triable together", "Section 204 BNSS", "sessions division", "Section 205 BNSS", "offence beyond local jurisdiction", "Section 207 BNSS", "offence committed outside India", "Section 208 BNSS", "previous sanction of the Central Government", "proceedings in wrong place", "Section 508 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt1-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.5.1", "5.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.13.2", "level": 3, "title": "Cognizance, Sanctions and Limitation", "blurb": "What Cognizance Is · The Three Modes, and Who May Use Them · Transfer, and Making a Case Over · Cognizance by a Court of Session · The Complaint Bars: Public Servants and Court Records", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.13-cognizance-pt2-cognizance-sanctions-and-limitation", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "taking cognizance", "Section 210 BNSS", "complaint under a special law", "police report in electronic mode", "transfer on application of accused", "Section 211 BNSS", "making over of cases", "Section 212 BNSS", "cognizance by Court of Session", "Section 213 BNSS", "complaint of a public servant", "Section 215 BNSS", "in custodia legis", "sanction for offences against the State", "Section 217 BNSS", "sanction for public servants", "Section 218 BNSS", "deemed sanction", "one hundred and twenty days", "offences against marriage", "Section 219 BNSS", "marital relationship complaint", "Section 221 BNSS", "defamation of public functionaries", "Section 222 BNSS", "bar of limitation", "Section 514 BNSS", "relevant date for limitation", "extension of limitation", "Section 519 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.5.1", "5.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.13.3", "level": 3, "title": "Complaints to Magistrates", "blurb": "Where This Chapter Sits · The Hearing the Accused Has Gained · The Wrong Magistrate · Postponing Process: Inquiry and Investigation · Dismissal, and What Follows It · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.13-cognizance-pt3-complaints-to-magistrates", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "examination of complainant", "Section 223 BNSS", "opportunity of being heard before cognizance", "complaint against a public servant", "report from the superior officer", "Magistrate not competent", "Section 224 BNSS", "postponement of issue of process", "Section 225 BNSS", "inquiry by the Magistrate", "direction for investigation", "accused residing beyond jurisdiction", "dismissal of complaint", "Section 226 BNSS", "sufficient ground for proceeding", "second complaint", "amendment of complaint" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.5.1", "5.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.13.4", "level": 3, "title": "Commencement of Proceedings", "blurb": "Issue of Process · Recalling Process: A Line That Was Reversed · Personal Attendance, and When It May Be Dispensed With · Petty Offences, and a Ceiling That Has Risen Fivefold", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.13-cognizance-pt4-commencement-of-proceedings", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "issue of process", "Section 227 BNSS", "electronic summons and warrants", "list of prosecution witnesses", "dispensing with personal attendance", "Section 228 BNSS", "special summons in petty offences", "Section 229 BNSS", "petty offence", "supply of the police report", "Section 230 BNSS", "fourteen-day supply limit", "supply in electronic form", "documents in Sessions-triable complaint cases", "Section 231 BNSS", "commitment to the Court of Session", "Section 232 BNSS", "ninety-day committal limit", "complaint case and police investigation", "Section 233 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt4-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.13-cognizance-pt4-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.5.1", "5.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.14.1", "level": 3, "title": "Judgment, Compensation and Death Confirmation", "blurb": "Pronouncing the Judgment · What a Judgment Must Contain · Compensation, Victims and Witnesses · Probation, Finality and Copies · Confirmation of a Death Sentence · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.14-judgment-and-sentence-pt1-judgment-and-compensation", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "pronouncement of judgment", "Section 392 BNSS", "forty-five day limit", "upload on the portal", "audio-video pronouncement", "language and contents of judgment", "Section 393 BNSS", "special reasons for a death sentence", "order to pay compensation", "Section 395 BNSS", "victim compensation scheme", "Section 396 BNSS", "treatment of victims", "Section 397 BNSS", "witness protection scheme", "Section 398 BNSS", "compensation for groundless arrest", "Section 399 BNSS", "probation of good conduct", "Section 401 BNSS", "court not to alter judgment", "Section 403 BNSS", "copy of judgment", "Section 404 BNSS", "confirmation of a death sentence", "Section 407 BNSS", "two Judges", "Section 410 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.14-judgment-and-sentence-pt1-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.14-judgment-and-sentence-pt1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.9.1", "5.2.9.2" ] }, { "key": "5.3.14.2", "level": 3, "title": "Execution, Remission and Commutation", "blurb": "Executing a Death Sentence · Imprisonment, Fine and Set-Off · Mercy Petitions: A Timetable Where There Was None · Suspension and Remission · Commutation, and a Ladder That Was Rebuilt", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.3.14-judgment-and-sentence-pt2-execution-and-remission", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "execution of a death sentence", "Section 454 BNSS", "postponement pending appeal to the Supreme Court", "Section 455 BNSS", "commutation on pregnancy", "Section 456 BNSS", "warrant for execution of imprisonment", "Section 458 BNSS", "warrant for levy of fine", "Section 461 BNSS", "suspension of execution", "Section 464 BNSS", "sentence on an escaped convict", "Section 466 BNSS", "set-off of detention undergone", "Section 468 BNSS", "mercy petition", "Section 472 BNSS", "thirty days", "sixty days", "power to suspend or remit", "Section 473 BNSS", "power to commute", "Section 474 BNSS", "fourteen-year restriction", "Section 475 BNSS", "appropriate Government", "concurrence of the Central Government", "Section 477 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.14-judgment-and-sentence-pt2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.3.14-judgment-and-sentence-pt2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.9.1", "5.2.9.2" ] } ] }, { "level": 4, "name": "HJS (non-Delhi)", "topics": [ { "key": "5.4.0.1", "level": 4, "title": "Advanced Digest", "blurb": "Constitutional Scrutiny and the Article 21 Interface · The Constitution Written into the Sanhita · The Bail-and-Liberty Framework · The Bounds of Inherent Powers (Section 528)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.4.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Article 21 and criminal procedure", "right to a speedy trial", "constitutional safeguards codified in the BNSS", "bail and personal liberty", "anticipatory bail", "inherent powers of the High Court", "Section 528 BNSS", "Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)", "A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.4.1.1", "level": 4, "title": "Bail Jurisprudence", "blurb": "The Jurisprudential Balance: Liberty against Safety · The Core Doctrine: Release as the Norm, Jail as the Exception · Two Things Called Bail", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.4.1-bail-jurisprudence-pt1-bail-jurisprudence", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "bail jurisprudence", "bail is the rule and jail the exception", "constructive custody", "default bail", "indefeasible right to default bail", "Section 187(3) BNSS", "staggered police custody", "Section 187(2) BNSS", "conditions of bail", "cancellation of bail", "Gurucharan Singh factors", "Moti Ram v. State of M.P.", "Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor", "Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra", "State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi", "Raghubir v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.1-bail-jurisprudence-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.1-bail-jurisprudence-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.2.1", "5.2.6.1", "5.2.6.2", "5.2.6.3", "5.3.3.1", "5.3.3.2" ] }, { "key": "5.4.2.1", "level": 4, "title": "Fair Trial Rights", "blurb": "The Constitutional Anchor: Article 21 and the Right to a Fair Trial · The Voice of the Accused: Section 351 Examination · Plea Bargaining: Scope and the Excluded Offences", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.4.2-fair-trial-and-rights-of-accused-pt1-fair-trial-and-rights-of-accused", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "right to a fair trial", "Article 21", "right to a speedy trial", "examination of the accused", "Section 351 BNSS", "plea bargaining", "excluded offences in plea bargaining", "mutually satisfactory disposition", "sentencing leniency", "finality of a plea bargain", "trial in absentia", "proclaimed offender", "Section 356 BNSS", "Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar", "Samsul Haque v. State of Assam" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.2-fair-trial-and-rights-of-accused-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.2-fair-trial-and-rights-of-accused-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.2.8.1", "5.2.8.2", "5.3.1.1", "5.3.1.2", "5.3.5.1", "5.3.5.2", "5.3.6.1", "5.3.6.2" ] }, { "key": "5.4.3.1", "level": 4, "title": "BNSS and CrPC Compared", "blurb": "The Question the Repeal Actually Poses · What Happens When a Judicial Gloss Becomes a Section · Clocks Without Consequences · The Case for Saying Little Changed · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.4.3-bnss-vs-crpc-comprehensive-pt1-bnss-vs-crpc-comprehensive", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "BNSS and CrPC compared", "zero FIR", "electronic FIR", "Section 173(1) BNSS", "staggered police custody", "Section 187 BNSS", "trial in electronic mode", "Section 530 BNSS", "videography of search and seizure", "statutory trial timelines", "victim rights", "withdrawal from prosecution", "Section 360 BNSS", "trial in absentia", "repeal and savings", "Section 531 BNSS", "Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.", "CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni", "D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.3-bnss-vs-crpc-comprehensive-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.4.3-bnss-vs-crpc-comprehensive-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "5.3.10.1", "5.3.10.2" ] } ] }, { "level": 5, "name": "Delhi Judiciary", "topics": [ { "key": "5.5.0.1", "level": 5, "title": "Mastery Digest", "blurb": "The Great Transition and the Savings Clause · The Shift Towards Victim Empowerment · Digital Integration and Evidentiary Accountability · Modernising Remand and Restorative Sentencing", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.5.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "repeal and savings", "Section 531 BNSS", "pending proceedings under the CrPC", "victim empowerment", "victim compensation scheme", "trial in electronic mode", "Section 530 BNSS", "videography and evidentiary accountability", "staggered police custody", "community service", "restorative sentencing", "Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar", "Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.5.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.5.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "5.5.1.1", "level": 5, "title": "Criminal Justice Reforms", "blurb": "The Malimath Committee and Plea Bargaining · Restorative Justice: Community Service · Institutional Independence: The Directorate of Prosecution", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.5.1-criminal-justice-reforms-pt1-criminal-justice-reforms", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Malimath Committee", "plea bargaining", "community service", "Section 23 BNSS", "restorative justice", "Directorate of Prosecution", "prosecutorial independence", "victim and witness protection", "witness protection scheme", "trial in absentia", "Law Commission reports on criminal procedure", "State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh", "Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P." ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.5.1-criminal-justice-reforms-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.5.1-criminal-justice-reforms-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.1.1", "5.2.1.1", "5.3.11.1" ] }, { "key": "5.5.2.1", "level": 5, "title": "Comparative Criminal Procedure", "blurb": "The Adversarial Baseline and Inquisitorial Checks · The Ascendancy of Victim Rights · Plea Bargaining: The Indian Model Against the Global Backdrop · Then and Now", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "5.5.2-comparative-criminal-procedure-pt1-comparative-criminal-procedure", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "adversarial system", "inquisitorial system", "inquisitorial features in the BNSS", "rights of victims during trial", "victim participation", "plea bargaining", "comparative plea bargaining models", "restorative justice" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "bnss-5.5.2-comparative-criminal-procedure-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "bnss-5.5.2-comparative-criminal-procedure-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "5.1.1.1", "5.2.1.1", "5.2.8.1", "5.2.8.2", "5.3.11.1" ] } ] } ] }, { "key": "hindu", "name": "Hindu Law", "levels": [ { "level": 1, "name": "LLB Entrance", "topics": [ { "key": "13.1.0.1", "level": 1, "title": "Foundational Digest", "blurb": "Who is a Hindu, and the Sources and Schools · Marriage and Divorce · Succession and the Joint Family · Adoption, Maintenance, and Guardianship", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.1.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 10, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "who is a Hindu", "sources of Hindu law", "Mitakshara school", "Dayabhaga school", "void marriage", "voidable marriage", "joint Hindu family", "coparcenary", "the 2005 amendment", "adoption", "maintenance", "natural guardian" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.1.1.1", "level": 1, "title": "Sources and Schools", "blurb": "The Ancient Sources · The Modern Sources · The Two Schools: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.1.1-sources-and-schools", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Shruti", "Smriti", "Nibandhas", "custom", "valid custom", "Golak Chand v. Praveen Kumari", "Gurunath v. Kamlabai", "legislation", "precedent", "equity justice and good conscience", "Mitakshara school", "Dayabhaga school" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.1-sources-and-schools-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.1-sources-and-schools-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.1.2.1", "level": 1, "title": "Marriage and Divorce Basics", "blurb": "The Nature of a Hindu Marriage · The Five Conditions for a Valid Marriage (Section 5) · Divorce at a Glance (Sections 13 and 13B)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.1.2-marriage-and-divorce-basics", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Hindu marriage as sacrament and contract", "Section 5 HMA", "sapinda relationship", "prohibited degrees", "monogamy", "child marriage", "Section 13 HMA", "fault grounds of divorce", "desertion", "Section 13B HMA", "divorce by mutual consent" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.2-marriage-and-divorce-basics-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.2-marriage-and-divorce-basics-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.1.3.1", "level": 1, "title": "Adoption, Maintenance, Guardianship", "blurb": "Adoption (HAMA) · Maintenance (HAMA) · Guardianship of Children (HMGA)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.1.3-adoption-maintenance-guardianship-basics", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "adoption", "Section 6 HAMA", "Section 12 HAMA", "effects of adoption", "maintenance of a wife", "separate residence", "natural guardian", "Section 6 HMGA", "Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India", "Section 13 HMGA", "welfare of the minor" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.3-adoption-maintenance-guardianship-basics-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.3-adoption-maintenance-guardianship-basics-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.1.4.1", "level": 1, "title": "Succession and Joint Family", "blurb": "The Joint Hindu Family and the Coparcenary · Succession When a Hindu Male Dies Without a Will · The 2005 Amendment: Daughters Become Coparceners", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.1.4-succession-and-joint-family-basics", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "joint Hindu family", "coparcenary", "coparcener", "Section 8 HSA", "Class I heirs", "Class II heirs", "Section 6 HSA", "the 2005 amendment", "daughter as coparcener", "survivorship" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.4-succession-and-joint-family-basics-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.1.4-succession-and-joint-family-basics-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 2, "name": "LLB Semester", "topics": [ { "key": "13.2.0.1", "level": 2, "title": "Doctrinal Digest", "blurb": "Who Is a Hindu · Registration of Marriages (Section 8) · Section 16: Legitimacy of a Child of a Void or Annulled Marriage · Presumption of Marriage and Live-in Relationships", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "who is a Hindu", "Section 2 HMA", "registration of marriage", "Section 8 HMA", "Seema v. Ashwani Kumar", "Section 16 HMA", "legitimacy", "Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun", "presumption of marriage", "live-in relationship", "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.1.1", "level": 2, "title": "Ancient and Modern Sources", "blurb": "The Ancient Sources · Custom as a Source · The Two Schools and the Five Sub-Schools · Hindu Law Travels With the Person, Not the Place", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.1-sources-schools-codification-pt1-sources-and-schools", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Shruti", "Smriti", "Nibandhas", "custom", "tests of a valid custom", "Golak Chand v. Praveen Kumari", "Prandhamayya v. Navrathna", "Hira v. Radha", "Saraswati Ammal v. Jagadammbal", "Mitakshara school", "Dayabhaga school", "Mithila sub-school", "migration and school" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.1-sources-schools-codification-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.1-sources-schools-codification-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.1.2", "level": 2, "title": "The Codification Scheme", "blurb": "To Whom the Codified Law Applies · The Four Codifying Acts of 1955-56 · The Overriding Effect: A Clean Break · The Customs the Acts Kept Alive", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.1-sources-schools-codification-pt2-codification-scheme", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2 HMA", "application of the codified law", "Section 4 HMA", "overriding effect", "the four codifying Acts", "Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen", "customary divorce", "Section 29(2) HMA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.1-sources-schools-codification-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.1-sources-schools-codification-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.2.1", "level": 2, "title": "Conditions of a Valid Marriage", "blurb": "Sacrament or Contract: The Nature of a Hindu Marriage · The Five Conditions (Section 5) · The Unequal Effect of a Breach · Ceremonies and Solemnization (Section 7 and Section 8)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.2-marriage-conditions-ceremonies", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Hindu marriage as sacrament and contract", "Section 5 HMA", "sapinda relationship", "prohibited degrees", "Section 7 HMA", "saptapadi", "Section 8 HMA", "Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra", "bigamy", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "monogamy" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.2-marriage-conditions-ceremonies-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.2-marriage-conditions-ceremonies-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.3.1", "level": 2, "title": "Void, Voidable and Legitimacy", "blurb": "Void Marriages (Section 11) · Voidable Marriages (Section 12) · Void Versus Voidable · The Legitimacy of the Children (Section 16)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.3-void-voidable-legitimacy", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 11 HMA", "void marriage", "Section 12 HMA", "voidable marriage", "impotence", "Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari", "fraud", "Asha Qureshi v. Afaq Qureshi", "Section 16 HMA", "legitimacy", "Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.3-void-voidable-legitimacy-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.3-void-voidable-legitimacy-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.4.1", "level": 2, "title": "Restitution and Judicial Separation", "blurb": "Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Section 9) · Judicial Separation (Section 10)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.4-restitution-judicial-separation", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 9 HMA", "restitution of conjugal rights", "reasonable excuse", "T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah", "Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha", "Swaraj Garg v. K.M. Garg", "matrimonial home", "Section 10 HMA", "judicial separation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.4-restitution-judicial-separation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.4-restitution-judicial-separation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.5.1", "level": 2, "title": "Adultery and Cruelty", "blurb": "Adultery [Section 13(1)(i)] · Cruelty [Section 13(1)(ia)]: The Concept · Cruelty: What Counts and What Does Not · Cruelty: The Leading Authorities", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.5-divorce-grounds-pt1-adultery-and-cruelty", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13(1)(i) HMA", "adultery", "White v. White", "Section 13(1)(ia) HMA", "cruelty", "Dastane v. Dastane", "mental cruelty", "V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat", "Vijaykumar Bhate v. Neela Bhate", "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh", "Bhagwat v. Bhagwat", "Section 23 HMA", "condonation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.5-divorce-grounds-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.5-divorce-grounds-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.5.2", "level": 2, "title": "Desertion and Remaining Grounds", "blurb": "Desertion [Section 13(1)(ib)] · The Status Grounds [Section 13(1)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii)] · Alternate Relief and the Breakdown Grounds [Sections 13A and 13(1A)]", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.5-divorce-grounds-pt2-desertion-and-remaining-grounds", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13(1)(ib) HMA", "desertion", "animus deserendi", "Bipin Chandra v. Prabhavati", "constructive desertion", "conversion", "unsoundness of mind", "venereal disease", "renunciation of the world", "presumption of death", "Section 13A HMA", "Section 13(1A) HMA", "irretrievable breakdown", "Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.5-divorce-grounds-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.5-divorce-grounds-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.6.1", "level": 2, "title": "Wife's Grounds and Mutual Consent", "blurb": "The Wife's Special Grounds (Section 13(2)) · Divorce by Mutual Consent (Section 13B) · The Bars to Relief (Section 23)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.6-divorce-wife-grounds-mutual-consent", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13(2) HMA", "the wife's special grounds", "option of puberty", "Section 13B HMA", "divorce by mutual consent", "cooling-off period", "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur", "Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash", "withdrawal of consent", "Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain", "Section 23 HMA", "bars to relief" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.6-divorce-wife-grounds-mutual-consent-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.6-divorce-wife-grounds-mutual-consent-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.7.1", "level": 2, "title": "Capacity to Adopt", "blurb": "The Requisites, and Who May Take a Child in Adoption (Sections 6 to 8) · Who May Give a Child in Adoption (Section 9) · Who May Be Adopted (Section 10)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.7-adoption-pt1-capacity-and-who-may-be-adopted", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 6 HAMA", "requisites of a valid adoption", "Section 7 HAMA", "Section 8 HAMA", "capacity to adopt", "spousal consent", "Brajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh", "deserted wife", "Section 9 HAMA", "capacity to give in adoption", "Section 10 HAMA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.7-adoption-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.7-adoption-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.7.2", "level": 2, "title": "Effects of Adoption", "blurb": "Further Conditions for a Valid Adoption (Section 11) · The Effects of Adoption (Section 12) · Once Made, an Adoption Stands (Sections 15 to 17)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.7-adoption-pt2-conditions-and-effects", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 11 HAMA", "giving and taking", "dattahomam", "Section 12 HAMA", "effects of adoption", "the provisos to Section 12", "relation back", "Namdev Vyankat Ghadge v. Chandrakant Ganpat Ghadge", "Section 15 HAMA", "irrevocability of adoption" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.7-adoption-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.7-adoption-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.8.1", "level": 2, "title": "The Wife's Maintenance", "blurb": "The Wife's Right to Maintenance (Section 18(1)) · When the Wife May Live Apart and Still Be Maintained (Section 18(2)) · When the Wife Loses the Right (Section 18(3))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.8-maintenance-pt1-wife", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 18(1) HAMA", "maintenance of a wife", "Section 18(2) HAMA", "separate residence", "Section 18(3) HAMA", "unchastity", "conversion", "Section 23(2) HAMA", "fixing the amount of maintenance" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.8-maintenance-hama-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.8-maintenance-hama-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.8.2", "level": 2, "title": "Children, Parents and Dependants", "blurb": "The Widowed Daughter-in-law (Section 19) · Children and Aged Parents (Section 20) · Who Are \"Dependants\" (Section 21) · The Heirs' Duty to Maintain Dependants (Sections 22 and 23(3))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.8-maintenance-pt2-children-parents-dependants", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 19 HAMA", "widowed daughter-in-law", "Section 20 HAMA", "maintenance of children and aged parents", "Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma", "Section 21 HAMA", "dependants", "Section 22 HAMA", "the heirs' duty to maintain" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.8-maintenance-hama-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.8-maintenance-hama-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.9.1", "level": 2, "title": "Natural Guardians", "blurb": "Who Is a Minor and Who Is a Guardian (Section 4) · The Natural Guardians of a Hindu Minor (Section 6) · The Powers of the Natural Guardian (Section 8)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.9-guardianship-pt1-natural-guardians-and-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 4 HMGA", "minor", "guardian", "Section 6 HMGA", "natural guardian", "Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India", "ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi)", "unwed mother", "Section 8 HMGA", "previous permission of the court", "Manik Chand v. Ram Chand", "voidable alienation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.9-guardianship-hmga-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.9-guardianship-hmga-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.9.2", "level": 2, "title": "Testamentary and De Facto Guardians", "blurb": "The Testamentary Guardian (Section 9) · The De Facto Guardian (Section 11) · No Guardian for the Undivided Joint-Family Interest (Section 12)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.9-guardianship-pt2-testamentary-defacto-and-welfare", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 9 HMGA", "testamentary guardian", "Section 11 HMGA", "de facto guardian", "Madhegowda v. Ankegowda", "Section 12 HMGA", "undivided interest", "Section 13 HMGA", "welfare of the minor", "Mausmi Moitra Ganguli v. Jayanti Ganguli" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.9-guardianship-hmga-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.9-guardianship-hmga-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.10.1", "level": 2, "title": "Joint Family and Coparcenary", "blurb": "The Joint Hindu Family · The Mitakshara Coparcenary · Joint Family and Coparcenary Compared", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.10-joint-family-and-coparcenary-pt1-concept-and-formation", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "joint Hindu family", "presumption of jointness", "Rukhmabai v. Lakshminarayan", "coparcenary", "coparcener", "State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram", "fluctuating interest", "survivorship" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.10-joint-family-and-coparcenary-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 18 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.10-joint-family-and-coparcenary-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.10.2", "level": 2, "title": "Coparcenary and Separate Property", "blurb": "Two Kinds of Heritage · How Property Becomes Coparcenary Property · Separate Property and the Gains of Learning", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.10-joint-family-and-coparcenary-pt2-coparcenary-and-separate-property", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "unobstructed heritage", "obstructed heritage", "apratibandha daya", "sapratibandha daya", "ancestral property", "Md. Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai", "blending", "Mallesappa v. Mallappa", "separate property", "gains of learning", "CWT v. Chander Sen" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.10-joint-family-and-coparcenary-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.10-joint-family-and-coparcenary-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.11.1", "level": 2, "title": "The Karta", "blurb": "Who Is the Karta · The Unique Position of the Karta · The Karta's Powers", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.11-karta-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Karta", "junior coparcener as Karta", "M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh", "female Karta", "Mrs. Sujata Sharma v. Shri Manu Gupta", "the Karta's powers", "liability to account" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.11-karta-powers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.11-karta-powers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.12.1", "level": 2, "title": "Alienation of Family Property", "blurb": "Why Alienation Is Restricted · The Three Grounds in Detail · The Buyer's Duty to Enquire · An Unauthorised Alienation · Gift of Joint Family Property", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.12-alienation-of-jhf-property", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "alienation of joint family property", "legal necessity", "benefit of the estate", "indispensable duties", "Balmukund v. Kamlawati", "Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Mst. Babooee", "bona fide enquiry", "voidable alienation", "Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash", "gift of joint family property" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.12-alienation-of-jhf-property-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.12-alienation-of-jhf-property-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.13.1", "level": 2, "title": "Who May Demand Partition", "blurb": "The Two Meanings of Partition · Who May Demand a Partition · The Difference Between Demanding and Sharing", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.13-partition-and-reunion-pt1-meaning-and-who-may-demand", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "partition", "severance of status", "division by metes and bounds", "right to demand partition", "minor's partition suit", "Pedasubhayya v. Akkamma", "the female sharers" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.13-partition-and-reunion-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.13-partition-and-reunion-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.13.2", "level": 2, "title": "Modes of Partition and Reunion", "blurb": "The Modes of Partition · The Intention Must Be Communicated · Reunion", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.13-partition-and-reunion-pt2-modes-and-reunion", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "modes of partition", "communication of intention", "Raghvamma v. Chenchamma", "relation back", "reunion" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.13-partition-and-reunion-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.13-partition-and-reunion-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.2.14.1", "level": 2, "title": "The Succession Hierarchy", "blurb": "The Order of Succession (Section 8) · Class I and Class II Heirs · How the Classes Exclude One Another (Section 9)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.14-succession-male-intestate-pt1-the-hierarchy", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 8 HSA", "order of succession", "Class I heirs", "Class II heirs", "agnate", "cognate", "Section 9 HSA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.14-succession-male-intestate-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 21 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.14-succession-male-intestate-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.14.2", "level": 2, "title": "Distribution Among Heirs", "blurb": "Distribution Among Class I Heirs (Section 10) · Working the Shares: An Example · Distribution Among Class II Heirs (Section 11)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.14-succession-male-intestate-pt2-distribution", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 10 HSA", "distribution among Class I heirs", "per stirpes", "multiple widows", "Section 11 HSA", "distribution among Class II heirs" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.14-succession-male-intestate-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.14-succession-male-intestate-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.15.1", "level": 2, "title": "The Woman's Absolute Estate", "blurb": "From Limited Estate to Full Ownership (Section 14(1)) · The Narrow Exception (Section 14(2)) · Drawing the Line", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.15-succession-female-property-pt1-section-14-absolute-ownership", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 14(1) HSA", "the woman's limited estate", "absolute ownership", "reversioners", "Section 14(2) HSA", "restricted estate", "V. Tulasamma v. V. Shesha Reddy", "pre-existing right", "Daya Singh v. Dhan Kaur", "Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai", "Gumpha v. Jaibai" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.15-succession-female-property-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.15-succession-female-property-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.15.2", "level": 2, "title": "Female Intestate Succession", "blurb": "The General Order of Succession (Section 15(1)) · The Source Rule for an Issueless Woman (Section 15(2)) · When Each Rule Applies, and the Manner of Distribution", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.15-succession-female-property-pt2-female-succession", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 15(1) HSA", "succession to a female Hindu", "Section 15(2) HSA", "the source rule", "Section 16 HSA", "Om Prakash v. Radhacharan", "Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.15-succession-female-property-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.15-succession-female-property-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "13.2.16.1", "level": 2, "title": "Devolution After 2005", "blurb": "The Daughter as a Coparcener (Section 6(1)) · The End of Survivorship (Section 6(3)) · How a Coparcener's Interest Now Devolves", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.2.16-coparcenary-devolution-2005", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 6(1) HSA", "daughter as coparcener", "the 2005 amendment", "Section 6(3) HSA", "abolition of survivorship", "notional partition", "Gurupad v. Hirabai" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.16-coparcenary-devolution-2005-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.2.16-coparcenary-devolution-2005-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 3, "name": "APO / Lower Judiciary + LLM", "topics": [ { "key": "13.3.0.1", "level": 3, "title": "Practitioner's Digest", "blurb": "The Great Reforms and the Abolition of Fictions · The Recurring Conflicts · Overflow: Customary Marriages and Live-in Relationships · A Landmark-Case Map for Revision", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "the three reform years", "the 2005 amendment", "abolition of survivorship", "abolition of the pious obligation", "relation back", "Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun", "Savitaben v. State of Gujarat", "Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga", "In the Matter of Adoption of Payal", "V. Tulasamma v. V. Shesha Reddy", "customary marriage", "live-in relationship" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.3.1.1", "level": 3, "title": "The Sources of Hindu Law", "blurb": "The Nature of Hindu Law · The Ancient Sources · Custom: The Working Source · The Modern Sources", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.1-sources-schools-codification-depth-pt1-sources", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "nature of Hindu law", "Dharma", "Shruti", "Smriti", "Nibandhas", "custom", "Section 3(a) HMA", "statutory definition of custom and usage", "family custom discontinued", "essentials of a valid custom", "ACURIL", "Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga", "Golak Chand v. Praveen Kumari", "Saraswati Ammal v. Jagadammbal", "Hira v. Radha", "Prandhamayya v. Navrathna", "legislation", "precedent", "Shri Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir", "equity justice and good conscience", "Gurunath v. Kamlabai" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.1-sources-schools-codification-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.1-sources-schools-codification-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.1.1", "13.2.1.1", "13.2.1.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.1.2", "level": 3, "title": "Schools and Codification", "blurb": "How the Schools Arose · The Sub-schools of the Mitakshara · The Points of Difference Between the Schools · The Codification of 1955-56", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.1-sources-schools-codification-depth-pt2-schools-and-codification", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 2 HMA", "application of the Act", "who is a Hindu", "Scheduled Tribe exception", "convert and re-convert", "Mitakshara school", "Dayabhaga school", "Vijnaneshwara", "Jimutavahana", "sapinda", "consanguinity", "spiritual efficacy", "Benares sub-school", "Mithila sub-school", "Dravida sub-school", "Bombay sub-school", "Vyavahara Mayukha", "migration and school", "the four codifying Acts", "Section 4 HMA", "overriding effect", "CWT v. Chander Sen" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.1-sources-schools-codification-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.1-sources-schools-codification-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.1.1", "13.2.1.1", "13.2.1.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.2.1", "level": 3, "title": "Conditions and Ceremonies", "blurb": "The Nature of Hindu Marriage · The Conditions of a Valid Marriage (Section 5) · The Ceremonies of Marriage (Section 7) · Bigamy and Conversion · The Effect of a Child Marriage", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.2-marriage-nullity-depth-pt1-conditions-and-ceremonies", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nature of Hindu marriage", "Section 5 HMA", "sapinda relationship", "prohibited degrees", "Section 3 HMA", "Section 7 HMA", "saptapadi", "factum valet", "Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra", "Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh", "bigamy", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "conversion", "child marriage", "P.V. Venkataramana v. State", "Section 18 HMA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.2-marriage-nullity-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.2-marriage-nullity-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.2.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.2.2", "level": 3, "title": "Void and Voidable Marriages", "blurb": "Void Marriages (Section 11) · Voidable Marriages (Section 12) · The Bars to Relief (Section 12(2)) · Void and Voidable Distinguished", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.2-marriage-nullity-depth-pt2-void-and-voidable", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 11 HMA", "void marriage", "Section 12 HMA", "voidable marriage", "impotence", "Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari", "Rita Nijhwan v. Bal Kishan Nijhwan", "mental disorder", "R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi", "fraud", "Babui Panmato Kuer v. Ram Agya Singh", "pre-marriage pregnancy", "Mahendra v. Sushila", "Section 12(2) HMA", "bars to relief", "Section 16 HMA", "legitimacy", "Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.2-marriage-nullity-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 18 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.2-marriage-nullity-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.2.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.3.1", "level": 3, "title": "Restitution of Conjugal Rights", "blurb": "The Remedy and Its Elements (Section 9) · Reasonable Excuse and the Burden of Proof · The Constitutional Saga of Section 9 · The Matrimonial Home and the Working Wife", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.3-matrimonial-remedies-depth-pt1-restitution", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 9 HMA", "restitution of conjugal rights", "withdrawal from society", "reasonable excuse", "burden of proof", "Ranjana V. Kejriwal v. Vinod Kumar Kejriwal", "Chandra v. Saroj", "Sushil Kumar Dang v. Prem Kumar Dang", "T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah", "Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh", "Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha", "matrimonial home", "Kailashwati v. Ayodhya Prakash", "Swaraj Garg v. K.M. Garg", "Section 13(1A)(ii) HMA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.3-matrimonial-remedies-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.3-matrimonial-remedies-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.3.3.2", "level": 3, "title": "Judicial Separation", "blurb": "The Remedy and Its Grounds (Section 10) · The Effects of a Decree (Section 10(2)) · Rescission and Resumption of Cohabitation · Judicial Separation Distinguished from Divorce", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.3-matrimonial-remedies-depth-pt2-judicial-separation", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 10 HMA", "judicial separation", "Section 10(2) HMA", "rescission of a decree", "resumption of cohabitation", "Section 13A HMA", "alternate relief", "Section 13(1A) HMA", "Section 23(1)(a) HMA", "taking advantage of one's own wrong", "Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar", "Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.3-matrimonial-remedies-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.3-matrimonial-remedies-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.3.4.1", "level": 3, "title": "Adultery and Mental Cruelty", "blurb": "Adultery: Meaning and the 1976 Shift · Adultery: Proof by Circumstantial Evidence · The Bars in Adultery: Accessory, Connivance, Condonation (Section 23(1)(b))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-pt1-adultery-and-cruelty", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13(1)(i) HMA", "voluntary sexual intercourse", "adultery", "circumstantial proof of adultery", "White v. White", "Section 23(1)(b) HMA", "accessory", "connivance", "condonation", "Chandra v. Avinash", "revival of a condoned wrong", "Section 13(1)(ia) HMA", "cruelty", "the 1976 shift of cruelty from judicial separation to divorce", "Dastane v. Dastane", "mental cruelty", "V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat", "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh", "Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi", "Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur", "physical cruelty" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.5.1", "13.2.5.2", "13.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.4.2", "level": 3, "title": "Desertion and Constructive Desertion", "blurb": "Desertion (Section 13(1)(ib)) · Constructive Desertion · The Leading Cases on Desertion · The Other Fault Grounds · Two Provisions That Sit Behind Every Fault Ground", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-pt2-desertion-and-other-grounds", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 13(1)(ib) HMA", "Explanation defining desertion", "wilful neglect", "Section 13(1A) HMA", "non-resumption of cohabitation", "non-restitution of conjugal rights", "Section 13A HMA", "alternate relief in divorce proceedings", "desertion", "factum of separation", "animus deserendi", "constructive desertion", "Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati", "Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena", "Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey", "conversion", "unsoundness of mind", "Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta", "venereal disease", "renunciation of the world", "presumption of death" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.5.1", "13.2.5.2", "13.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.4.3", "level": 3, "title": "The Wife's Special Grounds", "blurb": "The Wife's Additional Grounds (Section 13(2)) · Pre-Act Bigamy (Section 13(2)(i)) · Rape, Sodomy, or Bestiality (Section 13(2)(ii))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-pt3-wifes-special-grounds", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13(2) HMA", "the wife's special grounds", "pre-Act bigamy", "Section 13(2)(i) HMA", "Section 13(2)(ii) HMA", "Section 13(2)(iii) HMA", "non-resumption after a maintenance order", "option of puberty", "Section 13(2)(iv) HMA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.4-divorce-fault-grounds-depth-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.5.1", "13.2.5.2", "13.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.5.1", "level": 3, "title": "Divorce by Mutual Consent", "blurb": "The Two Conditions (Section 13B(1)) · The Two-Motion Procedure and the Cooling-Off Period (Section 13B(2)) · May the Six-Month Period Be Waived? · May Consent Be Withdrawn?", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.5-divorce-mutual-consent-breakdown-pt1-mutual-consent", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13B HMA", "divorce by mutual consent", "living separately", "the two-motion procedure", "cooling-off period", "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur", "waiver of the six-month period", "withdrawal of consent", "Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash", "Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.5-divorce-mutual-consent-breakdown-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.5-divorce-mutual-consent-breakdown-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.5.1", "13.2.5.2", "13.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.5.2", "level": 3, "title": "Breakdown and Article 142", "blurb": "The Theory of Irretrievable Breakdown · Breakdown Is Not a Statutory Ground · The Law Commission's Recommendation · Breakdown Read into Mental Cruelty", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.5-divorce-mutual-consent-breakdown-pt2-breakdown-and-article-142", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "irretrievable breakdown", "breakdown theory", "Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma", "Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey", "breakdown read into cruelty", "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh", "Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli", "Article 142", "Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain", "Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri", "Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.5-divorce-mutual-consent-breakdown-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.5-divorce-mutual-consent-breakdown-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.2.1", "13.2.5.1", "13.2.5.2", "13.2.6.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.6.1", "level": 3, "title": "Alimony and Custody", "blurb": "Maintenance Pendente Lite and Expenses (Section 24) · Permanent Alimony and the \"Any Decree\" Rule (Section 25) · The Guilty Spouse, Variation, and Rescission", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.6-alimony-maintenance-custody", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 24 HMA", "maintenance pendente lite", "Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge Dehradun", "Section 25 HMA", "permanent alimony", "Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan", "Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga", "variation and rescission", "Amar Kanta Sen v. Sovana Sen", "Section 26 HMA", "custody of children", "Mausmi Moitra Ganguli v. Jayanti Ganguli", "Section 125 CrPC" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.6-alimony-maintenance-custody-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.6-alimony-maintenance-custody-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.8.1", "13.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.7.1", "level": 3, "title": "Requisites of Adoption", "blurb": "The Four Requisites of a Valid Adoption (Section 6) · The Indispensable Act: Giving and Taking (Section 11(vi)) · Capacity to Take and Capacity to Give (Sections 7, 8 and 9)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.7-adoption-depth-pt1-requisites-and-ceremonies", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 6 HAMA", "requisites of a valid adoption", "Section 11(vi) HAMA", "giving and taking", "dattahomam", "Guradas v. Rasaranjan", "Jai Singh v. Shakuntala", "capacity to adopt", "Section 7 HAMA", "Section 8 HAMA", "Section 9 HAMA", "spousal consent", "consent of all wives", "capacity to give in adoption", "previous permission of the court", "welfare of the child", "deserted wife", "Brajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh", "Sitabai v. Ramchandra", "Section 15 HAMA", "adoption irrevocable", "Section 16 HAMA", "registered adoption deed" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.7-adoption-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 18 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.7-adoption-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.7.1", "13.2.7.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.7.2", "level": 3, "title": "Effects and Relation Back", "blurb": "The Effects of Adoption (Sections 12 and 13) · The Classical Doctrine of Relation Back · The Abolition by Proviso (c) · The Personal Relationship Still Relates Back", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.7-adoption-depth-pt2-effects-and-relation-back", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 12 HAMA", "effects of adoption", "Section 13 HAMA", "relation back", "proviso (c) to Section 12", "Namdev Vyankat Ghadge v. Chandrakant Ghadge", "Sripad Gonjam v. Datta Ram Kashi Nath", "Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti", "Dinaji v. Daddi", "adoption by a sole surviving coparcener", "Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.7-adoption-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.7-adoption-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.7.1", "13.2.7.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.8.1", "level": 3, "title": "Maintenance and the Wife's Right", "blurb": "The Meaning of \"Maintenance\" (Section 3(b)) · The Wife's Right During the Husband's Lifetime (Section 18(1)) · Living Apart and Still Claiming (Section 18(2))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.8-maintenance-hama-depth-pt1-definition-and-wife", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 3(b) HAMA", "maintenance", "Section 18(1) HAMA", "Section 18(2) HAMA", "separate residence", "desertion", "Yamunabai v. Anantrao", "Section 18(3) HAMA", "unchastity", "conversion", "Sher Singh v. Sham Kaur", "Kallu v. Kashi Bai" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.8-maintenance-hama-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.8-maintenance-hama-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.8.1", "13.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.8.2", "level": 3, "title": "Dependants and the Charge", "blurb": "The Widowed Daughter-in-law (Section 19) · Children and Aged or Infirm Parents (Section 20) · Dependants and the Heirs' Duty (Sections 21-22) · The Amount of Maintenance (Section 23)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.8-maintenance-hama-depth-pt2-dependants-amount-and-charge", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 19 HAMA", "widowed daughter-in-law", "Section 20 HAMA", "Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma", "Section 21 HAMA", "dependants", "Section 22 HAMA", "Section 23 HAMA", "Section 24 HAMA", "Section 25 HAMA", "Section 27 HAMA", "charge on the estate", "Section 28 HAMA", "transferee with notice" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.8-maintenance-hama-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.8-maintenance-hama-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.8.1", "13.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.9.1", "level": 3, "title": "Natural Guardians and Powers", "blurb": "The Statutory Vocabulary (Section 4) · The Natural Guardians (Section 6) · The Constitutional Reading of \"After Him\" (Githa Hariharan) · The Unwed Mother (ABC v. The State)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.9-guardianship-depth-pt1-natural-guardians-and-powers", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 4 HMGA", "definition of minor", "definition of guardian", "guardian of the person", "guardian of the property", "Section 10 HMGA", "incapacity of a minor to act as guardian of property", "Section 6 HMGA", "natural guardian", "after him", "Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India", "unwed mother", "ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi)", "Section 8 HMGA", "previous permission of the court", "Radheyshaym v. Kisan Bala", "voidable alienation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.9-guardianship-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.9-guardianship-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.9.1", "13.2.9.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.9.2", "level": 3, "title": "Guardianship and the Minor's Welfare", "blurb": "The Testamentary Guardian (Section 9) · The De Facto Guardian and the Void Alienation (Section 11) · No Guardian for the Undivided Joint-Family Interest (Section 12)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.9-guardianship-depth-pt2-testamentary-defacto-and-welfare", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 9 HMGA", "testamentary guardian", "Section 11 HMGA", "de facto guardian", "Madhegowda v. Ankegowda", "void alienation", "Section 12 HMGA", "undivided interest", "Section 13 HMGA", "welfare of the minor", "Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed", "Mausmi Moitra Ganguli v. Jayanti Ganguli", "Vishnu v. Jaya", "Sumedha Nagpal v. State of Delhi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.9-guardianship-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.9-guardianship-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.9.1", "13.2.9.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.10.1", "level": 3, "title": "Coparcenary and Survivorship", "blurb": "The Hindu Joint Family · The Mitakshara Coparcenary · Joint Family Compared with Coparcenary · The Incidents of Coparcenary Property · The Doctrine of Survivorship and Its Abolition", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.10-coparcenary-property-depth-pt1-joint-family-and-coparcenary", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Hindu joint family", "presumption of jointness", "Rukhmabai v. Lakshminarayan", "Bhagwani v. Mohan Singh", "Sitabai v. Ram Chandra", "Mitakshara coparcenary", "four-degree limit", "Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal", "incidents of coparcenary property", "State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram", "survivorship", "Section 6(3) HSA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.10-coparcenary-property-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.10-coparcenary-property-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.10.1", "13.2.10.2", "13.2.12.1", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2", "13.2.16.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.10.2", "level": 3, "title": "Classification of Property", "blurb": "Two Classes of Heritage · Ancestral Property: The Three-Ancestor Rule · How Separate Property Becomes Joint · Separate or Self-Acquired Property · Two Practical Rules", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.10-coparcenary-property-depth-pt2-classification-of-property", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "unobstructed heritage", "obstructed heritage", "ancestral property", "the three-ancestor rule", "Md. Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai", "accretion", "detriment", "blending", "Mallesappa v. Mallappa", "gift by a father", "Arunachalam v. Muruganatha", "separate property", "gains of learning", "CWT v. Chander Sen", "Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh", "Makhan Singh v. Kulwant Singh" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.10-coparcenary-property-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.10-coparcenary-property-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.10.1", "13.2.10.2", "13.2.12.1", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2", "13.2.16.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.11.1", "level": 3, "title": "The Karta's Office", "blurb": "Who May Be the Karta · The Karta's Position: Sui Generis · The Karta's Powers · The Karta's Duties and Liability to Account", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.11-karta-alienation-depth-pt1-the-karta", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Karta", "junior coparcener as Karta", "M/s Nopany Investments v. Santokh Singh", "CIT v. Seth Govind Ram Sugar Mills", "female Karta", "Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta", "the Karta's sui generis position", "the Karta's powers", "liability to account" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.11-karta-alienation-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.11-karta-alienation-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.11.1", "13.2.12.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.11.2", "level": 3, "title": "Legal Necessity and Alienation", "blurb": "The General Rule and the Three Grounds · Legal Necessity (Apatkale) · Benefit of the Estate (Kutumbarthe) · Indispensable Duties (Dharmarthe)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.11-karta-alienation-depth-pt2-alienation", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "alienation of joint family property", "legal necessity", "apatkale", "benefit of the estate", "kutumbarthe", "indispensable duties", "dharmarthe", "Dev Kishan v. Ram Kishan", "Balmukund v. Kamlawati", "antecedent debt", "Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee", "bona fide enquiry", "avyavaharika debt", "Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.11-karta-alienation-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.11-karta-alienation-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.11.1", "13.2.12.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.12.1", "level": 3, "title": "Partition: Meaning and Shares", "blurb": "The Two Meanings of Partition · What Property Is Divisible · Who May Demand Partition · The Shares on Partition · The Female Sharers", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.12-partition-reunion-depth-pt1-meaning-and-shares", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "partition", "severance of status", "division by metes and bounds", "Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj", "divisible property", "indivisible property", "owelty", "right to demand partition", "the rules of allotment", "per stirpes", "the female sharers", "Section 14 HSA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.12-partition-reunion-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.12-partition-reunion-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.13.1", "13.2.13.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.12.2", "level": 3, "title": "Severance and Reunion", "blurb": "The Modes of Effecting Partition · The Moment of Severance: Communication and Relation Back · A Minor's Partition Suit · Reopening a Completed Partition · The Doctrine of Reunion", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.12-partition-reunion-depth-pt2-modes-severance-and-reunion", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "modes of partition", "communication of intention", "Raghvamma v. Chenchamma", "relation back", "Puttorangamma v. Ranganna", "minor's partition suit", "Kakumanu Pedasubhayya v. Kakumanu Akkamma", "reopening a partition", "after-born son", "reunion", "Balabux v. Rukhmabai", "Section 6(5) HSA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.12-partition-reunion-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.12-partition-reunion-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.13.1", "13.2.13.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.13.1", "level": 3, "title": "Pious Obligation", "blurb": "The Doctrine of Pious Obligation · The Exception: Avyavaharika (Immoral) Debt · Antecedent Debt and the Father's Special Power · Liability Before and After Partition", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.13-pious-obligation-antecedent-debt", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "pious obligation", "avyavaharika debt", "antecedent debt", "Raja Brij Narayan Rai v. Mangla Prasad Rai", "Sidesh v. Badeshwar", "Jayanti Lal v. Srikant", "the father's special power", "liability before and after partition", "Section 6(4) HSA", "abolition of the pious obligation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.13-pious-obligation-antecedent-debt-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.13-pious-obligation-antecedent-debt-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.3.14.1", "level": 3, "title": "The Section 8 Scheme", "blurb": "The General Scheme of Section 8 · Class I Heirs and the Rules of Distribution (Sections 9-10) · Class II Heirs and Their Distribution (Section 11)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.14-succession-male-computation-depth-pt1-the-scheme", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 8 HSA", "Class I heirs", "Class II heirs", "Section 9 HSA", "Section 10 HSA", "Section 11 HSA", "agnate", "cognate", "Section 12 HSA", "Section 19 HSA", "disqualifications", "Section 25 HSA", "Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal", "Section 27 HSA", "Section 28 HSA", "escheat", "Section 29 HSA", "Section 30 HSA", "CWT v. Chander Sen" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.14-succession-male-computation-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.14-succession-male-computation-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1", "13.2.14.1", "13.2.14.2", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.14.2", "level": 3, "title": "Notional Partition", "blurb": "The Daughter as Coparcener (Section 6(1)) · The Abolition of Survivorship (Section 6(3)) · The Notional Partition: The Worked Method", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.14-succession-male-computation-depth-pt2-notional-partition", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 6(1) HSA", "daughter as coparcener", "Section 6(3) HSA", "abolition of survivorship", "notional partition", "Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai", "State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao", "Section 6(5) HSA", "oral partition" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.14-succession-male-computation-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.14-succession-male-computation-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1", "13.2.14.1", "13.2.14.2", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2" ] }, { "key": "13.3.15.1", "level": 3, "title": "Section 14 and Absolute Ownership", "blurb": "The Old Law: Stridhan and the Woman's Limited Estate · Section 14(1): The Abolition of the Limited Estate · Section 14(2): The Restricted-Estate Exception", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.15-succession-female-devolution-depth-pt1-section-14", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "stridhan", "the woman's limited estate", "Daya Singh v. Dhan Kaur", "Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai", "Gumpha v. Jaibai", "Section 30 HSA", "testamentary succession", "will as a new grant", "reconveyance", "Section 14(1) HSA", "absolute ownership", "possessed", "Mangla Singh v. Rattno", "Section 14(2) HSA", "restricted estate", "pre-existing right", "V. Tulasamma v. V. Shesha Reddy", "Sharad Subramanyan v. Soumi Mazumdar", "Santosh v. Saraswathibai", "reversioners" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.15-succession-female-devolution-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.15-succession-female-devolution-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1", "13.2.14.1", "13.2.14.2", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2", "13.2.16.1" ] }, { "key": "13.3.15.2", "level": 3, "title": "Sections 15 and 16", "blurb": "The General Order of Succession (Section 15(1)) · The Source-Based Exceptions (Section 15(2)) · The Order and Distribution (Section 16) · The Harshness of the Source Rule", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.3.15-succession-female-devolution-depth-pt2-sections-15-16", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 15(1) HSA", "succession to a female Hindu", "Section 15(2) HSA", "the source rule", "Section 16 HSA", "Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh", "Radhika v. Anguram", "Om Prakash v. Radhacharan" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.15-succession-female-devolution-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.3.15-succession-female-devolution-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1", "13.2.14.1", "13.2.14.2", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2", "13.2.16.1" ] } ] }, { "level": 4, "name": "HJS (non-Delhi)", "topics": [ { "key": "13.4.0.1", "level": 4, "title": "Advanced Digest", "blurb": "The Reform Trajectory (1955-2019) · The Three Evolution Themes · The Gender-Equality Arc · The Gap Between Reality and Reform", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "the reform trajectory", "the milestones of reform", "the 2005 amendment", "the gender-equality arc", "the daughter's coparcenary", "irretrievable breakdown", "gender-just maintenance", "the gap between reality and reform" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.4.0.2", "level": 4, "title": "Foundations and Conflicts", "blurb": "Who Is a Hindu, and Where the Acts Reach · Custom, and the Marriages and Divorces the Statute Saves · Live-in Relationships and Palimony · The Four Foundational Distinctions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.0-misc-notes-pt2-foundational-digest", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "who is a Hindu", "Chandrasekhara v. Kulandaivelu", "reach of the codified Acts", "Scheduled Tribes", "the ACURIL test", "customary divorce", "Section 29(2) HMA", "Shakuntalabai v. Kulkarni", "Anand Karaj", "live-in relationship", "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal", "Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan", "the unmarried wife split", "In re Adoption of Payal", "Savitaben v. State of Gujarat", "Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga", "V. Tulasamma v. V. Shesha Reddy" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.0-misc-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 23 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.0-misc-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 24 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.4.1.1", "level": 4, "title": "Irretrievable Breakdown", "blurb": "The Three Theories of Divorce · The Breakdown Theory and Its Rationale · The Paradox: Breakdown Is Not a Statutory Ground · The Judicial Workaround: Breakdown as Cruelty", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.1-irretrievable-breakdown", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "the three theories of divorce", "fault theory", "consent theory", "breakdown theory", "irretrievable breakdown", "Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma", "Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey", "breakdown as cruelty", "Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli", "Article 142", "Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain", "Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri", "Section 13B HMA", "Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.1-irretrievable-breakdown-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.1-irretrievable-breakdown-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.3.5.1", "13.3.5.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.2.1", "level": 4, "title": "Evolution of Maintenance", "blurb": "The Evolution of the Maintenance Obligation · The Gender-Just Reading: Who May Claim · The Protective Extension: Maintenance for a Void-Marriage Spouse · Equal Parental Liability", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.2-maintenance-evolution", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "the evolution of the maintenance obligation", "gender-neutral remedies", "Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan", "maintenance for a void-marriage spouse", "Savitaben v. State of Gujarat", "Ramesh Chandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga", "equal parental liability", "Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma", "relationship in the nature of marriage", "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.2-maintenance-evolution-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.2-maintenance-evolution-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.8.1", "13.2.8.2", "13.3.6.1", "13.3.8.1", "13.3.8.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.3.1", "level": 4, "title": "The Daughter's Coparcenary", "blurb": "The Pre-2005 Position and the Discrimination It Bred · The Daughter as Coparcener by Birth (Section 6(1)-(2)) · The End of Survivorship and of the Pious Obligation (Section 6(3)-(4))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.3-daughter-coparcenary-amendment", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "the pre-2005 position", "Section 6(1) HSA", "daughter as coparcener", "Sujata Sharma v. Manu Gupta", "Section 6(3) HSA", "abolition of survivorship", "Section 6(4) HSA", "abolition of the pious obligation", "Section 6(5) HSA", "oral partition", "pending partition suits", "Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi", "Surendra Nath Sharma v. Rajendra Kumar" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.3-daughter-coparcenary-amendment-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.3-daughter-coparcenary-amendment-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.10.1", "13.2.10.2", "13.2.16.1", "13.3.10.1", "13.3.10.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.4.1", "level": 4, "title": "Nullity and Legitimacy", "blurb": "The Institution the Provisions Presuppose · The Puzzle of Consent · Nullity as a Question of Status · Fraud Borrowed from the Law of Contract", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.4-nullity-and-legitimacy", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "marriage as sacrament and as contract", "the puzzle of consent", "nullity as a question of status", "the Law Commission 59th Report on matrimonial jurisdiction", "fraud borrowed from Section 17 of the Contract Act", "Babui Panmato Kuer v. Ram Agya Singh", "Anath Nath De v. Lajjabati Devi", "the 1976 amendment to Section 12(1)(a)", "the chastity line and the qualifications line", "Manusmriti IX.73 and pregnancy per alium", "Section 16 legitimacy", "Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.4-nullity-and-legitimacy-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.4-nullity-and-legitimacy-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.3.1", "13.3.2.1", "13.3.2.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.5.1", "level": 4, "title": "Cruelty and Desertion", "blurb": "A Definition Offered and Declined · The Apprehension Element: An English Import With a Datable Death · From the Principle of Protection to the Principle of Breakdown", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.5-cruelty-and-desertion", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "why cruelty was left undefined", "the Law Commission's rejected limiting formula", "the apprehension element and its English ancestry", "Russell v. Russell", "the principle of protection against the principle of breakdown", "intention eliminated from cruelty", "Samar Ghosh", "Naveen Kohli", "Suman Kapur", "desertion as factum and animus", "desertion as an inchoate wrong", "Bipinchandra v. Prabhavati", "Pratt v. Pratt", "Savitri Pandey", "Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar", "the joint family inside desertion" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.5-cruelty-and-desertion-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.5-cruelty-and-desertion-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.4.6.1", "level": 4, "title": "Adoption in Dispute", "blurb": "The Institution the Act Kept After Discarding Its Reason · A Status Created Without a Court, and Litigated Without Witnesses · Why Consent Is a Fact and Not a Judgment", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.6-adoption-in-dispute", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "adoption as a religious institution and the secular statute built on it", "Amarendra Man Singh", "V.T.S. Chandrasekhara Mudaliar", "Hem Singh v. Harnam Singh", "Kishori Lal v. Chaltibai", "the private character of adoption", "why validity is litigated decades later", "proof of adoption and the burden", "Section 16 presumption and what it does not presume", "Brajendra Singh v. State of M.P.", "consent as a datable event", "the missing husband and Section 108 of the Evidence Act", "relation back and its classical limits", "Jivaji Annaji", "Bhubaneswari Debi", "Krishnamurthy v. Dhruvraj", "Sawan Ram v. Kalawati", "Section 11(i) and (ii) against the welfare theory", "Sandhya v. Union of India", "Payal Sharinee", "Kumar Sursen v. State of Bihar", "the Juvenile Justice Act as a rival adoption regime" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.6-adoption-in-dispute-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.6-adoption-in-dispute-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.7.1", "13.2.7.2", "13.3.7.1", "13.3.7.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.7.1", "level": 4, "title": "Guardianship and Welfare", "blurb": "A Right Owned, or an Office Held · Two Statutes Over One Child · Reading Down Instead of Striking Down · The Power the Act Removed Without Saying What Follows", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.7-guardianship-and-welfare", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "guardianship as a right against guardianship as an office", "Section 13(2) and a statute that cancels its own entitlements", "the State as parens patriae", "Rosy Jacob and children who are not chattels", "the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act read with the Guardians and Wards Act", "Section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act displaced", "guardianship distinguished from custody", "Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed", "the reading-down technique in Githa Hariharan and what it costs", "Jijabai v. Pathan Khan", "Narayan v. Sapurna", "Hanuman Prasad Pandey and the de facto guardian", "Section 11 and the void or voidable question", "the limitation consequence", "Section 12 and the karta", "guardians by affinity", "Chinna v. Vinayagathammal", "welfare as a standard rather than a rule", "the under-five proviso", "Sumedha Nagpal", "Vishnu v. Jaya", "Gayatri Bajaj", "the husband as guardian of a minor wife" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.7-guardianship-and-welfare-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.7-guardianship-and-welfare-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.3.1", "13.2.9.1", "13.2.9.2", "13.3.9.1", "13.3.9.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.8.1", "level": 4, "title": "Karta and Alienation", "blurb": "An Office Nobody Confers and Nobody Audits · Why the Right to Challenge Excludes the Right to Obstruct · The Burden on the Stranger, and Why It Had to Be Relaxed", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.8-karta-and-alienation", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-06", "gloss": [ "the karta as an office nobody confers and nobody audits", "partition as the substitute for accountability", "the karta not a trustee agent or partner", "accounts only on partition or on charges of misappropriation", "the Bengal divergence on accounts", "Sarda Prasad v. Umeswar Prasad", "the right to challenge distinguished from the right to obstruct", "Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash", "waste and ouster as the exception", "the burden of proof on the alienee and why it lies there", "Hunooman Persaud and the enquiry standard", "Gauri Shankar v. Jiwan Singh", "The Benaras Bank v. Hari Narain", "necessity as need and not luxury", "Maruthappan and the State's duty to prosecute", "Dev Kishan and a purpose the general law forbids", "benefit of estate as defensive and prudent transaction", "the regional divergence on how much of an unauthorised alienation falls", "Balgobind Das v. Narain Lal", "Permanayakam v. Sivaraman and partial necessity", "the gift to a daughter", "Gauramma v. Mallappa", "Jinnappa Mahadevappa", "R. Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder", "the moral obligation after the 2005 amendment", "a gift void inter vivos and a will valid under Section 30" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.8-karta-and-alienation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.8-karta-and-alienation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.11.1", "13.2.12.1", "13.3.11.1", "13.3.11.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.9.1", "level": 4, "title": "Partition and Reunion", "blurb": "A Power to End an Institution, Held by One Person · Severance Without Volition · The Two Dates, and What Accrues Between Them · The One Accounting a Joint Family Ever Does", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.9-partition-and-reunion", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-06", "gloss": [ "partition as the ending of a status rather than a division of property", "why the same word means different acts in Mitakshara and Dayabhaga", "Kewal Narain and severance from the institution of the suit", "the demand as a personal right that may be transmitted but not delegated", "the father's patria potestas and its limits", "severance without volition on conversion or marriage under the Special Marriage Act", "Mitter Sen Singh and religion as the determinant of family law", "the minor's conditional severance in Pedasubhayya", "the two dates in Raghvamma and the vested rights preserved between them", "Puttorangamma and the withdrawn notice", "the contradiction on whether notice to the karta suffices", "Lakshmi Perumallu", "Papayya", "the deductions that precede division", "Abhay Chandra and the equality rule", "Bhagwant Sulakhe and the date of valuation", "owelty and M.L. Subbaraya Setty", "Section 6(5) and the registered-partition definition", "Vineeta Sharma on oral partition and its proof", "Kollomal and the presumption against partial partition", "Meva Devi", "reunion as an act requiring unanimity", "Balabux v. Rukhmabai", "Venkanna" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.9-partition-and-reunion-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.9-partition-and-reunion-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.13.1", "13.2.13.2", "13.3.12.1", "13.3.12.2" ] }, { "key": "13.4.10.1", "level": 4, "title": "Male Succession", "blurb": "A Statute Laid Over an Architecture It Never Removed · Did Section 8 Abolish Unobstructed Heritage? · How Far a Fiction Is Allowed to Travel", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.4.10-male-succession", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-06", "gloss": [ "obstructed and unobstructed heritage as a relationship rather than a quality of property", "apratibandha and sapratibandha daya", "Md. Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahai and the male line", "Venkayamma as a wrongly decided case", "Maktul v. Manbhari", "Dipo v. Wassan Singh and the character that varies with the claimant", "the revival of coparcenary character on the birth of a son", "whether Section 8 abolished unobstructed heritage", "CWT v. Chander Sen", "D.S. Lakshmaiah and the burden of proving joint family property", "K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer and the nucleus", "Arunachalam v. Muruganatha and the donor's intention", "blending", "the narrow and wider approaches to notional partition", "Rangubai v. Laxman", "Sushilabai v. Narayanrao", "Gurupad v. Hirabai and a fiction that must not boggle the imagination", "State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao confining it", "Anar Devi", "Karuppa and the frozen share", "disqualification moving from condition to conduct", "the 1928 Act", "Section 27's fiction", "Section 26 and the convert's children" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.10-male-succession-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.4.10-male-succession-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.1.4.1", "13.2.14.1", "13.2.14.2", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2", "13.3.14.1", "13.3.14.2", "13.3.15.1", "13.3.15.2" ] } ] }, { "level": 5, "name": "Delhi Judiciary", "topics": [ { "key": "13.5.0.1", "level": 5, "title": "Mastery Digest", "blurb": "The Architecture · The Matrimonial Law in One View · The Property Law in One View · Adoption, Guardianship and the Child · The Overflow · The Techniques That Decide These Cases", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.5.0-misc-notes-mastery-digest", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "the architecture of four Acts over an uncodified residue", "who is a Hindu and where the Acts reach", "the matrimonial law held in one view", "void and voidable and the legitimacy compromise", "the fault grounds and the two routes by which breakdown entered", "maintenance across three statutes", "adoption as a status made without a court", "guardianship as an office rather than an entitlement", "the property law in one view", "karta and alienation and partition and succession", "women's property and the source principle", "overflow the subtopic pages do not own", "matrilineal systems and Section 17", "the uniform civil code gap", "the Special Marriage Act interface", "registration of marriages", "the recurring techniques of decision", "purposive construction against the golden rule", "reading down", "a rule discarded when its reason has ceased", "deeming fictions and their limits", "the freeze devices", "where the burdens sit" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.5.1.1", "level": 5, "title": "Conjugal Rights on Trial", "blurb": "A Decree the Court Cannot Execute · What the Two High Courts Were Actually Disagreeing About · The Bull in the China Shop · What the Settling Judgment Actually Settled", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.5.1-conjugal-rights-on-trial", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "restitution as specific performance of a status", "the decree no court can execute", "attachment of property under Order 21 Rule 32 as the only sanction", "the one-year clock in Section 13(1A)(ii)", "T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah and review by consequence", "Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh and review by legal content", "the bull in the china shop and the private-sphere thesis", "what Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha actually decided", "the three reasons that answer degree and not principle", "consent decrees and collusion under Section 23(1)(c)", "Section 23(1)(a) as the bar that decides every case", "Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar", "Geeta Laxmi v. Serveshwara", "T. Srinivas v. T. Varalakshmi", "Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda", "O.P. Mehra v. Saroj", "breakdown entering a fault statute through the calibration of a bar", "Swaraj Garg v. K.M. Garg and Article 14 against an uncodified custom", "Kailashwati v. Ayodhya Prakash", "the balanced impasse as an unnamed breakdown finding" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.1-conjugal-rights-on-trial-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.1-conjugal-rights-on-trial-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "13.5.2.1", "level": 5, "title": "Women's Property and Section 14", "blurb": "Two Theories in One Act · Disability Imposed by Law, Limitation Imposed by a Grantor · Where Section 14 Meets Section 30 · The Eclipse", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.5.2-womens-property-and-section-14", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "two theories of a woman's property inside one Act", "the limited estate abolished as an incident of ownership and re-enacted as a rule of succession", "the fresh stock of descent", "source of property still material for devolution", "disability imposed by law against limitation imposed by a grantor", "V. Tulasamma v. V. Shesha Reddy and the pre-existing right test", "Section 14(2) demoted to a proviso", "Gumpha v. Jaibai and the collision with Section 30", "T. Shesharathamma and the opposite result on a pre-1956 will", "Beni Bai and Hanumayamma on a testator acknowledging a duty to maintain", "Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai and the doctrine of eclipse", "reconveyance and the divergence between the Andhra and Orissa view and the Madras and Bombay view", "spes successionis of the reversioner", "mortgage against sale and the accident of form", "Om Prakash v. Radhacharan and the golden rule", "the contradiction with the purposive method in Gurupad", "Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh", "the drafting defect in heirs of the father", "property inherited from the mother going to the father's heirs", "the 174th Report's three options", "the will as the Act's answer to its own asymmetry" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.2-womens-property-and-section-14-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.2-womens-property-and-section-14-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.12.1", "13.2.15.1", "13.2.15.2", "13.3.10.1", "13.3.10.2" ] }, { "key": "13.5.3.1", "level": 5, "title": "Coparcenary After 2005", "blurb": "Two Ways to Make a Coparcenary Equal · What the Institution Has Left, and Why It Was Kept · The Interest That Leaves the Family · The Price of the Birthright", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.5.3-coparcenary-after-2005", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "two ways of making a coparcenary equal", "the Kerala model abolishing the right by birth", "the Andhra model admitting the daughter", "the Maharashtra cut-off by date of marriage", "why Parliament declined abolition", "the birthright as a claim no will can defeat", "Section 30 and testamentary disinheritance", "what survives of the institution after survivorship and the pious obligation", "the asymmetry between his interest in Section 6(3) and the incidents of coparcenary ownership in Section 6(2)", "a daughter's interest devolving under Section 15(1) and not 15(2)", "property leaving the coparcenary through a female coparcener", "the pious obligation as the price of the birthright", "solely on the ground of the pious obligation", "the proviso preserving pre-2005 creditors and alienations", "the Explanation confining son grandson and great-grandson to those born before commencement", "liability turning on a date of birth", "the daughter as karta and the office attaching to a place in the family", "female coparceners above female dependants" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.3-coparcenary-after-2005-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.3-coparcenary-after-2005-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.10.1", "13.2.10.2", "13.2.16.1", "13.3.10.1", "13.3.10.2", "13.4.3.1" ] }, { "key": "13.5.4.1", "level": 5, "title": "Custom, Text and Codification", "blurb": "A Legal System Without a Sovereign · The Commentary That Beat the Text · Custom Above the Text, and What \"Above\" Means · Which Law Governs, and Who Decides · The System's Own Override", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "13.5.4-custom-text-and-codification", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "a legal system without a sovereign", "dharma not emanating from a sovereign", "the king as enforcer and not law-giver", "why the sources of Hindu law are sources of knowledge rather than institutions", "commentaries as evidence of custom and not enactments", "the commentary prevailing over the text where a school has received it", "factum valet and the two schools' different reception of it", "Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga and custom outweighing the written text", "custom void against a statute but not against a Smriti", "custom as a question of fact", "no presumption that anyone is governed by custom", "custom not extendable by analogy", "Mahant Bhagwan v. Girija Nandan and judicial notice as the promotion route", "reason as a veto and not a foundation", "personal law and not lex loci", "the migration presumption", "which school governs as a question of fact", "equity justice and good conscience as a source with a classical pedigree", "Brihaspati on yukti", "Yajnavalkya on conflicting Smritis", "Gurunath v. Kamlabai and the limits of the equity jurisdiction", "partial codification and what the Acts chose not to reach" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.4-custom-text-and-codification-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "hindu-law-13.5.4-custom-text-and-codification-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "13.2.1.1", "13.2.1.2", "13.3.1.1", "13.3.1.2" ] } ] } ] }, { "key": "muslim", "name": "Muslim Law", "levels": [ { "level": 1, "name": "LLB Entrance", "topics": [ { "key": "14.1.0.1", "level": 1, "title": "Foundational Digest", "blurb": "The Sources and Sects of Muslim Law · Marriage (Nikah) and Dower (Mahr) · Divorce (Talaq) and Maintenance · Inheritance, Gifts, and Waqf · The Right of Pre-emption (Haq-Shufa)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.1.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "pre-emption", "haq shufa", "talab-i-mowasibat", "talab-i-ishhad", "talab-i-tamlik", "shafi-i-sharik", "nikah", "dower", "talaq", "hiba", "waqf", "wasiyat", "Sibt Muhammad v. Muhammad", "Maina Bibi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.1.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.1.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.1.1.1", "level": 1, "title": "Sources and Schools", "blurb": "The Four Primary Sources of Muslim Law · Secondary Sources of Islamic Jurisprudence · The Sectarian Divide: Sunni and Shia · Key Distinctions in Marriage (Nikah)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.1.1-sources-and-schools-pt1-sources-and-schools", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Quran", "Sunnah", "Hadith", "Ijma", "Qiyas", "Istihsan", "Istidlal", "Hanafi school", "Maliki school", "Shafei school", "Hanbali school", "Ithna Asharia school", "Ismailia school", "Abdul Hussein v. Sona Dero" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.1.1-sources-and-schools-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.1.1-sources-and-schools-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 28 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.1.2.1", "level": 1, "title": "Marriage, Divorce and Succession", "blurb": "The Nature and Essentials of Nikah (Marriage) · The Concept and Classes of Dower (Mahr) · Navigating Divorce (Talaq, Khula, and Mubara'at) · Judicial Dissolution of Marriage", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.1.2-marriage-divorce-succession-basics-pt1-marriage-divorce-succession-basics", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nikah", "dower", "prompt dower", "deferred dower", "talaq", "khula", "mubara'at", "triple talaq", "Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939", "Section 125 CrPC", "wasiyat", "one-third rule", "dower and stridhan" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.1.2-marriage-divorce-succession-basics-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.1.2-marriage-divorce-succession-basics-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 2, "name": "LLB Semester", "topics": [ { "key": "14.2.0.1", "level": 2, "title": "Doctrinal Digest", "blurb": "Sources, Sects, and Who is a Muslim · Marriage, Dower, and the Right of Retention · Divorce and Maintenance · Property: Gifts, Wills, Inheritance, and Waqf", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "shariat and fiqh", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "right of retention", "Maina Bibi", "A. Yousuf v. Sowramma", "pre-emption", "haq shufa", "talab-i-mowasibat", "talab-i-ishhad", "talab-i-tamlik", "Bhau Ram v. Baji Nath", "Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India", "adoption in Muslim law", "Section 2 DMMA" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.1.1", "level": 2, "title": "Schools and the Shariat Act", "blurb": "The Historical Evolution of Muslim Law · The Sectarian Divide: Sunni and Shia · The Major Sunni Schools · The Major Shia Sub-Schools", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.1-sources-schools-shariat-act-pt1-sources-schools-shariat-act", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Shariat Act 1937", "Section 2 Shariat Act", "Section 3 Shariat Act", "Hanafi school", "Maliki school", "Shafei school", "Hanbali school", "Ithna Asharia school", "Ismailia school", "Zaydia school", "Abdul Hussein v. Sona Dero", "custom in Muslim law" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.1-sources-schools-shariat-act-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.1-sources-schools-shariat-act-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.1.1" ] }, { "key": "14.2.2.1", "level": 2, "title": "Nikah and Types of Marriage", "blurb": "The Dual Nature of Nikah · The Four Essentials of a Valid Marriage · Sunni Classification: Valid, Void, and Irregular · The Strict Shia Approach to Classification", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.2-marriage-nikah-pt1-essentials-and-types-of-marriage", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nikah", "Abdul Kadir v. Salima", "ijab and qabul", "sahih marriage", "batil marriage", "fasid marriage", "consanguinity", "affinity", "fosterage", "unlawful conjunction", "muta marriage", "witness requirement in nikah" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.2-marriage-nikah-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 22 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.2-marriage-nikah-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "14.2.2.2", "level": 2, "title": "Dower", "blurb": "The Nature and Object of Dower (Mahr) · Classification: Specified and Proper Dower · The Timeline of Payment: Prompt and Deferred Dower · The Wife's Enforcement Rights During Marriage", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.2-marriage-nikah-pt2-dower-mahr-and-rights", "format": "study", "read_time": 11, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "dower", "mahr", "specified dower", "mahr-i-musamma", "proper dower", "mahr-i-misl", "prompt dower", "muajjal", "deferred dower", "muwajjal", "right of retention", "Maina Bibi v. Chaudhri Vakil Ahmed", "Abdul Kadir v. Salima" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.2-marriage-nikah-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.2-marriage-nikah-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 28 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "14.2.3.1", "level": 2, "title": "Extra-Judicial Divorce", "blurb": "Capacity and Free Will in Pronouncing Talaq · The Approved Forms of Divorce: Talaq-ul-Sunnat · The Unapproved Form: Talaq-ul-Biddat · Constructive Divorce: Ila and Zihar", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.3-divorce-pt1-extra-judicial-divorce", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "talaq", "talaq-ul-sunnat", "talaq ahsan", "talaq hasan", "talaq-ul-biddat", "triple talaq", "ila", "zihar", "khula", "mubara'at", "talaq-e-tafweez", "lian", "talak-i-bain", "Rashid Ahmed v. Anisa Khatoon", "Shayara Bano v. Union of India", "Khurshid Bibi v. Mohd. Amin", "Hamidoolla v. Faizunnissa" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.3-divorce-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.3-divorce-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "14.2.3.2", "level": 2, "title": "Judicial Dissolution", "blurb": "The Need for Statutory Intervention · The Nine Statutory Grounds for Divorce (Section 2) · The Option of Puberty (Khyar-ul-bulugh) · Expanded Horizons of Cruelty", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.3-divorce-pt2-judicial-dissolution-dmma-1939", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939", "Section 2 DMMA", "option of puberty", "khyar-ul-bulugh", "statutory cruelty", "Section 3 DMMA", "Section 4 DMMA", "apostasy", "Section 5 DMMA", "A. Yousuf v. Sowramma", "Gulam Sakina v. Falak Sher", "Mohd. Idris v. Musammat Bibi", "Shaikh Gulam Sadik v. Fatima Bibi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.3-divorce-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.3-divorce-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "14.2.4.1", "level": 2, "title": "Triple Talaq", "blurb": "The Historical Concept of Talaq-ul-Biddat · The Judicial Push for Reconciliation · The Constitutional Invalidation of Triple Talaq · The Statutory Ban and Criminalization", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.4-triple-talaq-pt1-triple-talaq", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "triple talaq", "talaq-ul-biddat", "Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.", "Shayara Bano v. Union of India", "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019", "reconciliation before talaq", "subsistence allowance", "bail under the 2019 Act" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.4-triple-talaq-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.4-triple-talaq-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.5.1", "level": 2, "title": "Maintenance and Section 125", "blurb": "The Concept of Nafqah and the Wife's Absolute Right · Conditions for the Wife's Maintenance · The Iddat Period Limitation under Personal Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.5-maintenance-pt1-maintenance-under-personal-law-and-crpc", "format": "study", "read_time": 13, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nafqah", "maintenance of the wife", "iddat", "Section 125 CrPC", "Section 144 BNSS", "Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum", "Shah Bano", "Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim", "maintenance of children" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.5-maintenance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.5-maintenance-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.5.2", "level": 2, "title": "Maintenance after Divorce", "blurb": "The Legislative Reversal of Shah Bano and Section 3 · Shifting Liability After Iddat (Section 4) · The Opt-In Mechanism (Section 5) · Saving the Statute: Danial Latifi v. Union of India", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.5-maintenance-pt2-statutory-protection-act-1986-and-latifi", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986", "Section 3 MWPRDA", "Section 4 MWPRDA", "Section 5 MWPRDA", "fair provision", "Danial Latifi v. Union of India", "Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan", "Wakf Board liability for maintenance" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.5-maintenance-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.5-maintenance-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.6.1", "level": 2, "title": "Gifts and Waqf", "blurb": "The Essentials of Hiba (Gift) · When a Return Enters: The Two Iwaz Gifts · The Doctrine of Musha (Undivided Share) · Revocability of Gifts · Waqf: The Permanent Dedication", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.6-gifts-waqf-inheritance-pt1-hiba-gifts-and-waqfs", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "hiba", "hiba-bil-iwaz", "hiba-ba-shart-ul-iwaz", "doctrine of musha", "delivery of possession", "revocation of gifts", "waqf", "waqf-alal-aulad", "Mussalman Wakf Validating Act 1913", "mutawalli", "Hayatuddin v. Abdul Gani", "Mahomed Ahsanulla v. Amarchand Kundu" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.6-gifts-waqf-inheritance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.6-gifts-waqf-inheritance-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.6.2", "level": 2, "title": "Inheritance", "blurb": "General Principles of Succession · Classification of Heirs: Sharers (Ashab-ul-faraiz) · Classification of Heirs: Residuaries (Asabat)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.6-gifts-waqf-inheritance-pt2-principles-of-inheritance", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "succession", "spes successionis", "sharers", "ashab-ul-faraiz", "residuaries", "asabat", "distant kindred", "dhav-ul-arham", "doctrine of aul", "doctrine of radd", "double share rule", "disqualification of heirs" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.6-gifts-waqf-inheritance-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.6-gifts-waqf-inheritance-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 28 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.7.1", "level": 2, "title": "Parentage and Legitimacy", "blurb": "The Bedrock of Parentage: Maternity and Paternity · Classical Rules of Presumed Legitimacy · The Evidentiary Clash: Personal Law versus Secular Statutes", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.7-parentage-guardianship-pt1-parentage-legitimacy-and-acknowledgement", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "parentage", "legitimacy", "filius nullius", "nasab", "presumption of legitimacy", "Section 112 Evidence Act", "acknowledgement of paternity", "iqrar-e-nasab", "adoption in Muslim law", "Sibt Muhammad v. Muhammad", "Abdul Rahemankutty v. Aisha Beevi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.7-parentage-guardianship-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.7-parentage-guardianship-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.2.7.2", "level": 2, "title": "Guardianship and Custody", "blurb": "The Architecture of Guardianship · Hizanat: The Right of Physical Custody · Wilayat: Legal Guardians of Property · De Facto Guardians and the Imambandi Rule", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.2.7-parentage-guardianship-pt2-guardianship-and-custody", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "hizanat", "wilayat", "de jure guardian", "de facto guardian", "testamentary guardian", "Imambandi v. Mutsaddi", "jabr", "wilayat-e-nikah", "Guardians and Wards Act 1890", "Section 17 GWA 1890", "welfare of the minor" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.7-parentage-guardianship-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.2.7-parentage-guardianship-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 25 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 3, "name": "APO / Lower Judiciary + LLM", "topics": [ { "key": "14.3.0.1", "level": 3, "title": "Practitioner's Digest", "blurb": "Sources, Sects, and the Sub-Schools · Sunni and Shia: The Doctrinal Divide · Conversion and the Misuse of Personal Law · Marriage, Dower, and the Widow's Right of Retention", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "qiyas", "istihsan", "shariat and fiqh", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "Lily Thomas v. Union of India", "right of retention", "Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah", "pre-emption as substitution", "Bhau Ram v. Baji Nath", "Atma Prakash v. State of Haryana", "A. Yousuf v. Sowramma", "Imambandi v. Mutsaddi", "Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India", "Tahirunnissa v. Nawab Hassan" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.3.1.1", "level": 3, "title": "Marriage Impediments and Dower", "blurb": "Absolute Impediments to Marriage (Void/Batil) · Relative Impediments to Marriage (Irregular/Fasid) · Unlawful Conjunction: A Conflict, and Its Resolution", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.1-marriage-dower-divorce-depth-pt1-marriage-impediments-and-dower-enforcement", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "absolute impediments", "consanguinity", "affinity", "fosterage", "relative impediments", "unlawful conjunction", "jama bain-al-mahramain", "batil", "fasid", "perpetual and absolute prohibition", "temporary prohibition", "marriage during ihram", "Shariat Act 1937", "Section 2 Shariat Act", "suit for dower", "right of retention", "Chand Patel v. Bismillah Begum", "Aizunnissa v. Karimunissa", "Tajbi Abalal Desai v. Mowla Alikhan Desai", "Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi", "Maina Bibi v. Chaudhri Vakil Ahmed", "Abdul Kadir v. Salima", "Section 125 CrPC", "Section 144 BNSS" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.1-marriage-dower-divorce-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.1-marriage-dower-divorce-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.2.2.1", "14.2.2.2", "14.2.3.1", "14.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.1.2", "level": 3, "title": "Talaq and Judicial Divorce", "blurb": "Capacity, Form, and the Compulsion Debate · The Three Forms of Talaq · The Judicial Chaining of Unilateral Talaq · Expanding the Exit: Grounds under Section 2, DMMA 1939", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.1-marriage-dower-divorce-depth-pt2-talaq-doctrines-and-judicial-divorce-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-02", "gloss": [ "talaq ahsan", "talaq hasan", "talaq-ul-biddat", "talaq-i-bain", "talaq-i-rajai", "faskh", "reconciliation requirement", "communication of talaq", "Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.", "Masroor Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi)", "Rukia Khatun v. Abdul Laskar", "Shayara Bano v. Union of India", "Rashid Ahmed v. Anisa Khatoon", "Furzund Hossein v. Janu Bibee", "A. Yousuf v. Sowramma", "Noerbibi v. Pir Bux", "Umar Bibi v. Mohammad Din", "Itwari v. Asghari", "Gulam Sakina v. Falak Sher", "Section 2 DMMA 1939", "Section 3 DMMA 1939", "Section 4 DMMA 1939", "Section 5 DMMA 1939", "option of puberty", "apostasy", "breakdown theory" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.1-marriage-dower-divorce-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 25 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.1-marriage-dower-divorce-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.2.2.1", "14.2.2.2", "14.2.3.1", "14.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.2.1", "level": 3, "title": "Maintenance and the Constitution", "blurb": "The Collision of Secular and Personal Law · The Shah Bano Catalyst and the Legislative Backlash · The Statute of Reversal: The 1986 Act, Sections 3 to 5", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.2-maintenance-depth-pt1-maintenance-constitutional-debates-and-1986-act", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum", "Danial Latifi v. Union of India", "Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim", "Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan", "Rashida Khanum v. S.K. Salim", "Section 3 MWPRDA", "Section 4 MWPRDA", "Section 5 MWPRDA", "fair provision", "Section 127(3)(ii) CrPC", "children's maintenance under Section 125" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.2-maintenance-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.2-maintenance-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.5.1", "14.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.2.2", "level": 3, "title": "Triple Talaq Act 2019", "blurb": "The Constitutional Catalyst: Shayara Bano · What the Act Catches: Scope and Commencement · Void and Criminal: Sections 3 and 4 · The Nullity That Still Produces Rights", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.2-maintenance-depth-pt2-triple-talaq-act-2019-and-criminal-liability", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(a) MWPRMA 2019", "Section 2(b) MWPRMA 2019", "Section 8 MWPRMA 2019", "Second Ordinance 2019", "Section 531 BNSS", "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019", "talaq-e-biddat", "Shayara Bano v. Union of India", "manifest arbitrariness", "Section 3 MWPRMA 2019", "Section 4 MWPRMA 2019", "subsistence allowance", "Section 6 MWPRMA 2019", "Section 7 MWPRMA 2019", "bail under the 2019 Act" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.2-maintenance-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.2-maintenance-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.5.1", "14.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.3.1", "level": 3, "title": "Sunni and Shia Succession", "blurb": "When Inheritance Opens, and What It Opens Upon · The Vocabulary the Fractions Are Written In · The Doctrine of Exclusion · The Sunni Taxonomy: Sharers, Residuaries, Distant Kindred", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.3-succession-waqf-depth-pt1-sunni-and-shia-succession-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "heritable property", "agnate", "cognate", "uterine blood", "true grandfather", "true grandmother", "doctrine of exclusion", "primary heirs", "twelve sharers", "classes of residuaries", "distant kindred", "completion of the two-thirds", "doctrine of aul", "doctrine of radd", "per stirpes distribution", "doctrine of representation", "Shia classes of heirs", "primogeniture", "child in womb", "homicide disqualification", "Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850", "Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyum Ali", "Shehammal v. Hasan Khani Rawther", "Bafatun v. Bilaiti Khanum", "K.P. Chandra Shekhar v. Government of Mysore", "wasiyat", "one-third rule", "spes successionis" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.3-succession-waqf-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.3-succession-waqf-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.2.6.1", "14.2.6.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.3.2", "level": 3, "title": "Waqf and Board Powers", "blurb": "The Concept and Statutory Definition of Waqf · The Legal Status of the Mutawalli · Alienation Powers and Leasing Limits · Family Waqfs (Waqf-alal-aulad) and the 1913 Act", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.3-succession-waqf-depth-pt2-waqf-law-and-board-powers-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Waqf Act 1995", "Section 3(r) Waqf Act", "mutawalli", "sajjadanashin", "waqf by user", "waqf-alal-aulad", "Mussalman Wakf Validating Act 1913", "Section 32 Waqf Act", "Section 64 Waqf Act", "Section 67 Waqf Act", "Zafarbhai Guljarbhai v. Chhaganlal Aditram", "Mahomed Ahsanulla v. Amarchand Kundu" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.3-succession-waqf-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.3-succession-waqf-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.2.6.1", "14.2.6.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.4.1", "level": 3, "title": "Gifts and Paternity", "blurb": "The Requirement of Qabza and its Exceptions · The Doctrine of Musha (Undivided Property) · Gifts for a Return: Hiba-bil-iwaz and its Cousin · Revocability of Gifts", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.4-gifts-parentage-guardianship-depth-pt1-gifts-and-paternity-depth", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 9, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 116 BSA", "acknowledgement against adoption", "qabza", "constructive delivery", "exceptions to delivery of possession", "doctrine of musha", "hiba-bil-iwaz", "hiba-ba-shart-ul-iwaz", "revocation of gifts", "Fatmabibi v. Abdul Rehman", "Hayatuddin v. Abdul Gani", "Sibt Muhammad v. Muhammad", "Abdul Rahemankutty v. Aisha Beevi", "iqrar-e-nasab", "acknowledgement of paternity" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.4-gifts-parentage-guardianship-depth-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 21 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.4-gifts-parentage-guardianship-depth-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.6.1", "14.2.6.2", "14.2.7.1", "14.2.7.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.4.2", "level": 3, "title": "Custody and Welfare", "blurb": "Two Powers, Not One · Hizanat: the Mother's Right and Its Limits · The Order of Custody · The Natural Guardian and What He May Do · Selling the Minor's Property", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.4-gifts-parentage-guardianship-depth-pt2-guardianship-custody-and-welfare-paramountcy", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-02", "gloss": [ "hizanat", "wilayat-e-nafs", "wilayat-ul-mal", "wilayat-e-jabar", "guardianship in marriage", "natural guardian", "testamentary guardian", "de facto guardian", "guardian appointed by court", "female-relations custody order", "male-relations custody order", "Imambandi v. Mutsaddi", "Rofun Begum v. Iqbal Ali Khan", "Amir Ahmad v. Meer Nizam Ali", "Umrao Singh v. Dalip Singh", "Siddiqunnisa v. Nizamuddin", "Nur Kadir v. Zuleikha Bibi", "Section 7 GWA 1890", "Section 17 GWA 1890", "Section 19 GWA 1890", "welfare of the minor", "minor wife" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.4-gifts-parentage-guardianship-depth-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.4-gifts-parentage-guardianship-depth-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.6.1", "14.2.6.2", "14.2.7.1", "14.2.7.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.5.1", "level": 3, "title": "Sources and Schools of Muslim Law", "blurb": "What an Indian Court Actually Applies to a Muslim · Who Counts as a Muslim, and the Conversion Problem · Shariat and Fiqh: Two Circles, One Channel", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.5-sources-schools-and-the-shariat-act", "format": "study", "read_time": 35, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Shariat Act 1937", "Section 2 Shariat Act", "Section 3 Shariat Act", "Section 4 Shariat Act", "rule of decision", "Shariat and Fiqh", "Quran", "Sunna", "Ijma", "Qiyas", "Mujtahid", "Istihsan", "Istidlal", "Aql", "Urf", "Hanafi school", "Maliki school", "Shafei school", "Hanbali school", "Ithna Asharia school", "Ismailia school", "Zaydia school", "Motazila sect", "Mohd. Yunus v. Syed Un-Nissa", "Noorjahan v. E. Tiscenko", "Abdul Razak v. Aga Mahomed", "Skinner v. Orde", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "Lily Thomas v. Union of India", "Gobind Dayal v. Inayat Ullah", "Abdul Hussein v. Sona Dero", "Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi", "Maulavi Mohammed v. Mahboob Ali", "Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.5-sources-schools-and-the-shariat-act-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.5-sources-schools-and-the-shariat-act-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.1.1", "14.2.1.1" ] }, { "key": "14.3.6.1", "level": 3, "title": "Nikah: Nature, Essentials and Forms", "blurb": "Contract, Sacrament, or Both · Capacity: Puberty, Not Majority · Offer, Acceptance, and the One-Meeting Rule · Consent, and What Happens Without It", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.6-nikah-pt1-nature-essentials-and-forms", "format": "study", "read_time": 29, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nikah", "ijab", "qabul", "aqd", "baligh", "age of puberty", "muta marriage", "sahih", "batil", "fasid", "kitabia", "nikah-nama", "azl", "gift of the term", "Abdul Kadir v. Salima", "Anis Begum v. Mohd. Istafa", "Jiauddin Ahmed v. Anwara Begum", "Mt. Atika Begum v. Mohd. Ibrahim", "Mohd. Idris v. Musammat Bibi", "Shaikh Gulam Sadik v. Fatima Bibi", "Mt. Gulam Kubra Bibi v. Mohd. Shafi Mohd. Din", "Mobiuddin v. Khatijabibi", "Mohd. Ibrahim v. Gulshan Bi", "Roshanbai v. Suleman", "Muhammed v. Mussamat Wazir", "Shobrat Singh v. Jafri Bibi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.6-nikah-pt1-nature-essentials-and-forms-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.6-nikah-pt1-nature-essentials-and-forms-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.2.1", "14.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.6.2", "level": 3, "title": "Dower (Mahr)", "blurb": "What Dower Is, and What It Is Not · The Nature of the Claim: An Unsecured Debt · Proper Dower (Mehr-i-Misl) · Specified Dower (Mehr-i-Musamma) · Prompt and Deferred", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.6-nikah-pt2-dower-mahr-in-full", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "dower", "mahr", "mehr-i-misl", "mehr-i-musamma", "proper dower", "specified dower", "prompt dower", "muajjal", "deferred dower", "muwajjal", "mehr-i-sunnat", "dirham", "remission of dower", "actionable claim", "stridhan", "Kapur Chand v. Kadar Unnissa", "Mst. Fatima Bibi v. Lal Din", "Qasim Hussain v. Bibi Kaniz", "Nurannees Khanum v. Khaje Mohd. Sakroo", "Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi", "Abdul Kadir v. Salima" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.6-nikah-pt2-dower-mahr-in-full-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.6-nikah-pt2-dower-mahr-in-full-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.2.1", "14.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.7.1", "level": 3, "title": "Constructive and Delegated Divorce", "blurb": "Where These Modes Sit · Implied and Contingent Divorce · Talaq-i-Tafweez: The Delegated Power · Ila: The Vow of Continence · Zihar: The Injurious Comparison", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.7-divorce-beyond-talaq-pt1-constructive-and-delegated-divorce", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "talaq-i-tafweez", "delegated divorce", "ila", "zihar", "implied divorce", "contingent divorce", "express divorce", "Hamad Ali v. Imtiazan", "Md. Khan v. Shahmai", "Hamidoolla v. Faizunnissa", "Sainuddin v. Latifunneesa", "Aziz v. Mst. Naro", "Mobaruck Ali v. Ayesha" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.7-divorce-beyond-talaq-pt1-constructive-and-delegated-divorce-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.7-divorce-beyond-talaq-pt1-constructive-and-delegated-divorce-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.2.3.1", "14.2.3.2", "14.2.4.1" ] }, { "key": "14.3.7.2", "level": 3, "title": "Divorce at the Wife's Instance", "blurb": "Where the Wife's Routes Run · Lian: The False Charge of Adultery · Khula: Release by Redemption · Mubara'at and the Line Between the Two · Iddat: The Waiting Period", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.7-divorce-beyond-talaq-pt2-divorce-at-the-wifes-instance-and-iddat", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "lian", "khula", "mubara'at", "fasakh", "iddat", "consequences of divorce", "remarriage of divorced couple", "Munshi Buzlul Raheem v. Luteefutoon Nissa", "Khurshid Bibi v. Mohd. Amin", "Mohd. Abdul Zahl Ahmed v. Marina Begum", "Rashid Ahmed v. Anisa Khatoon" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.7-divorce-beyond-talaq-pt2-divorce-at-the-wifes-instance-and-iddat-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.7-divorce-beyond-talaq-pt2-divorce-at-the-wifes-instance-and-iddat-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.2.3.1", "14.2.3.2", "14.2.4.1" ] }, { "key": "14.3.8.1", "level": 3, "title": "Maintenance under Personal Law", "blurb": "Nafqah and the Rule of Means · The Wife: The One Absolute Duty · When the Wife Loses the Right · Separate Residence, and the Second Marriage · Agreements, Allowances and Arrears", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.8-maintenance-under-personal-law", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-01", "gloss": [ "nafqah", "mataa", "kharch-i-pandan", "guzara", "mewa-khori", "bakira", "thayiba", "asl and fara", "Mst. Khatijan v. Abdulla", "Begum Subanu v. A.M. Abdul Gafoor", "Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain", "Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.8-maintenance-under-personal-law-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.8-maintenance-under-personal-law-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.5.1", "14.2.5.2" ] }, { "key": "14.3.9.1", "level": 3, "title": "Wasiyat and the Bequeathable Third", "blurb": "What a Wasiyat Is, and Why It Is Confined · No Formality Whatever · The Competent Legator · The Competent Legatee · What May Be Bequeathed · The Bequeathable Third", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.9-wills-wasiyat-pt1-the-will-and-its-requisites", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-02", "gloss": [ "wasiyat", "wasiyatnama", "legator", "legatee", "bequeathable third", "bequest in futuro", "contingent bequest", "alternative bequest", "life estate", "Abdul Manan Khan v. Mirtuza Khan", "Abdul Hameed v. Mahomed Yoonus", "Advocate-General v. Jimbabai", "Husaini Begum v. Mohd. Mehdi", "Muhammad v. Aulia Bibi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.9-wills-wasiyat-pt1-the-will-and-its-requisites-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.9-wills-wasiyat-pt1-the-will-and-its-requisites-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.3.9.2", "level": 3, "title": "Consent, Abatement and Death-bed Transactions", "blurb": "The Consent That Rescues a Bequest · Abatement: How Sunni Legacies Shrink Together · Abatement: How Shia Legacies Queue · Revocation · When the Legatee Dies First", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.9-wills-wasiyat-pt2-consent-abatement-and-marz-ul-maut", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-02", "gloss": [ "rateable abatement", "chronological priority", "preferential distribution", "lapse of legacy", "marz-ul-maut", "donatio mortis causa", "Shamshad Ali Shah v. Hassan Shah", "Abdul Hafiz Beg v. Sahebbi", "Re Alma Latifi" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.9-wills-wasiyat-pt2-consent-abatement-and-marz-ul-maut-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.9-wills-wasiyat-pt2-consent-abatement-and-marz-ul-maut-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.3.10.1", "level": 3, "title": "The Right of Pre-emption", "blurb": "The Trigger, and the Parties · Who May Claim, and in What Order · The First Demand: Talab-i-Muwathibat · The Second Demand: Talab-i-Ishhad · The Third Demand, and the Suit", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.3.10-right-of-pre-emption-haq-shufa", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "haq shufa", "shafi", "shafi-i-sharik", "shafi-i-khalit", "shafi-i-jar", "talab-i-muwathibat", "talab-i-ishhad", "talab-i-tamlik", "Gobind Dayal v. Inayat Ullah", "Indira Bai v. Nand Kishore", "Mohd. Noor v. Mohd. Ibrahim", "Bhagwan Das v. Chet Ram", "Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj", "Bhau Ram v. Baji Nath", "Atma Prakash v. State of Haryana", "Krishna v. State of Haryana" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.10-right-of-pre-emption-haq-shufa-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.3.10-right-of-pre-emption-haq-shufa-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 4, "name": "HJS (non-Delhi)", "topics": [ { "key": "14.4.0.1", "level": 4, "title": "Foundational Digest", "blurb": "Foundations in One View · Schools, Sects, and the Shariat/Fiqh Divide · The Analytical Doctrines in Brief · Overflow the Foundations Carry", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.4.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 11, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "sources of Muslim law", "Shariat and Fiqh", "Sunni and Shia schools", "Motazila", "doctrine of aul", "doctrine of radd", "valid irregular and void marriage" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.4.1.1", "level": 4, "title": "Nikah and Dower Debates", "blurb": "Two Debates, One Institution · Nikah: Contract, Sacrament, or Both · Dower: Consideration or Respect · What the Nature of Dower Decides · Prompt, Deferred and the Consummation Line", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.4.1-nikah-dower-debates-pt1-nikah-dower-debates", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "nature of Muslim marriage", "Anis Begum v. Mohammad Istafa", "Abdul Kadir v. Salima", "nature of dower", "Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi", "Saburunnessa v. Sabdu Sheikh", "prompt dower", "deferred dower", "proper dower", "Kapoor Chand v. Kadar Unnissa", "right of retention", "Maina Bibi v. Chaudhri Vakil Ahmed", "remission of dower", "forfeiture of dower" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.1-nikah-dower-debates-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.1-nikah-dower-debates-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.2.1", "14.2.2.2", "14.3.1.1", "14.3.1.2", "14.3.6.1", "14.3.6.2" ] }, { "key": "14.4.2.1", "level": 4, "title": "Talaq and Judicial Control", "blurb": "The Power As Inherited · The Seed of Revision: Sowramma · Shamim Ara: The Pronouncement Disciplined · Masroor Ahmed: Communication and the Single Revocable Talaq", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.4.2-talaq-judicial-control-pt1-talaq-judicial-control", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Shamim Ara v. State of U.P.", "Masroor Ahmed v. State", "Rashid Ahmed v. Anisa Khatoon", "A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma", "communication of talaq", "reasonable cause for talaq", "Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939", "Section 2(ii) DMMA", "option of puberty", "Ghulam Sakina v. Falak Sher", "apostasy and marriage", "Section 4 DMMA", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "Lily Thomas v. Union of India", "Itwari v. Asghari" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.2-talaq-judicial-control-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.2-talaq-judicial-control-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.4.1", "14.3.7.1", "14.3.7.2" ] }, { "key": "14.4.3.1", "level": 4, "title": "The Maintenance Arc", "blurb": "The Personal-Law Baseline · Act One: The Secular Statute Takes Over · Act Two: The 1986 Act As Drafted · Act Three: Danial Latifi and the Rescue Reading · The Children: A Separate Track", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.4.3-maintenance-arc-pt1-maintenance-arc", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "maintenance of Muslim wife", "Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain", "Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum", "Section 127(3)(ii) CrPC", "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986", "Danial Latifi v. Union of India", "reasonable and fair provision", "Section 4 of the 1986 Act", "Wakf Board liability", "Section 5 option", "Iqbal Bano v. State of U.P.", "Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan", "Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim", "Begum Subanu v. Abdul Gafoor" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.3-maintenance-arc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.3-maintenance-arc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.5.1", "14.2.5.2", "14.3.2.1", "14.3.2.2", "14.3.8.1" ] }, { "key": "14.4.4.1", "level": 4, "title": "Right of Pre-emption", "blurb": "A Right Against Ownership Itself · The Three Classes, in Order of Merit · The Three Talabs: Formality as Substance · The Nature Debate: Repurchase, Substitution, Personal Right", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.4.4-right-of-pre-emption-pt1-right-of-pre-emption", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "pre-emption", "haq-shufa", "Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah", "shafi-i-sharik", "shafi-i-khalit", "shafi-i-jar", "talab-i-mowasibat", "talab-i-ishhad", "talab-i-tamlik", "Indira Bai v. Nand Kishore", "Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj", "Sheikh Kudratulla v. Mohini Mohan Saha", "Bhau Ram v. Baji Nath", "Atma Prakash v. State of Haryana", "Krishna v. State of Haryana", "Bhagwan Das v. Chet Ram" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.4-right-of-pre-emption-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.4-right-of-pre-emption-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.3.10.1" ] }, { "key": "14.4.5.1", "level": 4, "title": "Paternity and Guardianship", "blurb": "The Architecture of Filiation · Two Presumption Regimes and a Divided Judiciary · Acknowledgement: The Doctrine of Uncertainty · Guardianship: Ranks and Powers", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.4.5-paternity-and-guardianship-pt1-paternity-and-guardianship", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "presumption of legitimacy", "Section 112 Evidence Act", "Sibt Muhammad v. Muhammad", "Abdul Rahemankutty v. Aisha Beevi", "acknowledgement of paternity", "Md. Allahdad v. Md. Ismail", "Muhammad Azmat v. Lalli Begum", "adoption in Muslim law", "Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India", "de facto guardian", "Imambandi v. Mutsaddi", "Rofun Begum v. Iqbal Ali Khan", "hizanat", "Siddiqunnisa v. Nizamuddin", "Nur Kadir v. Zuleikha Bibi", "Section 19 Guardians and Wards Act" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.5-paternity-and-guardianship-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.4.5-paternity-and-guardianship-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.7.1", "14.2.7.2", "14.3.4.1", "14.3.4.2" ] } ] }, { "level": 5, "name": "Delhi Judiciary", "topics": [ { "key": "14.5.0.1", "level": 5, "title": "Mastery Digest", "blurb": "Foundations in One View · The Sunni-Shia Divide in One View · The Analytical Frontiers in Brief · Overflow the Foundations Carry", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.5.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 10, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "ila", "zihar", "sources of Muslim law", "Sunni and Shia distinctions", "valid irregular and void marriage", "doctrine of aul", "doctrine of radd" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "14.5.1.1", "level": 5, "title": "Personal Law on Trial", "blurb": "The Two Routes to Invalidity · A Criminal Statute on a Civil Nullity · The Protective Half of the Act · The Uniform Civil Code Horizon", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.5.1-personal-law-on-trial-pt1-personal-law-on-trial", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Shayara Bano v. Union of India", "manifest arbitrariness", "essential religious practice", "Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019", "Section 3 of the 2019 Act", "Section 4 of the 2019 Act", "Section 7 of the 2019 Act", "cognizable offence", "Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India", "Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India", "Article 44", "uniform civil code" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.1-personal-law-on-trial-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.1-personal-law-on-trial-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.3.8.1" ] }, { "key": "14.5.2.1", "level": 5, "title": "Succession Meets Property", "blurb": "The Expectancy Problem: S.6(a) against S.43 · Ostensible Ownership and the Benami Overlay · The Testamentary Ceiling and the Heir-Consent Divide", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.5.2-succession-meets-property-pt1-succession-meets-property", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "spes successionis", "Section 6(a) Transfer of Property Act", "Section 43 Transfer of Property Act", "Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah", "feeding the grant by estoppel", "Section 41 Transfer of Property Act", "ostensible owner", "R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan", "bequeathable one-third", "rateable abatement", "chronological priority", "Husaini Begum v. Mohd. Mehdi", "marz-ul-maut", "Nawazish Ali Khan v. Ali Raza Khan", "corpus and usufruct" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.2-succession-meets-property-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.2-succession-meets-property-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.1.2.1", "14.3.3.1", "14.3.3.2" ] }, { "key": "14.5.3.1", "level": 5, "title": "Gift and Waqf Frontiers", "blurb": "A Doctrine That Has Outlived Its Reason · Hiba-bil-Iwaz: A Gift That Is Really a Sale · Revocation: The One Gift the Law Lets You Take Back", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "14.5.3-gift-and-waqf-frontiers-pt1-gift-and-waqf-frontiers", "format": "study", "read_time": 14, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "doctrine of musha", "hiba-bil-iwaz", "hiba-ba-shartul-iwaz", "revocation of gift", "waqf-alal-aulad", "Abul Fata Mahomed v. Russomoy Dhur Chowdhry", "Mahomed Ahsanulla v. Amarchand Kundu", "Mussalman Wakf Validating Act 1913", "Waqf Act 1995", "mutawalli", "powers of the Waqf Board", "Section 32 Waqf Act 1995", "alienation of waqf property" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.3-gift-and-waqf-frontiers-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "muslim-law-14.5.3-gift-and-waqf-frontiers-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "14.2.6.1", "14.2.6.2", "14.3.3.1", "14.3.3.2" ] } ] } ] }, { "key": "contract", "name": "Indian Contract Act", "levels": [ { "level": 1, "name": "LLB Entrance", "topics": [ { "key": "1.1.0.1", "level": 1, "title": "Foundational Digest", "blurb": "The Preamble, and What the Act Leaves Out · Section 1: Title, Extent and the Saving Clause · Where the Act Came From, and How It Is Built · Codified Indian Law and English Common Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 12, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Preamble to the Indian Contract Act", "Section 1", "saving clause", "usage or custom of trade", "territorial extent", "Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019", "structure of the Indian Contract Act", "Sale of Goods Act 1930", "Indian Partnership Act 1932", "Specific Relief Act 1963", "codified law and English common law" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.1.1.1", "level": 1, "title": "Definitions and Essentials", "blurb": "From Agreement to Contract - Section 2(h) · The Essentials of a Valid Contract - Section 10 · Intention to Create Legal Relations", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.1-what-is-a-contract-pt1-definitions-and-essentials", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(h)", "Section 2(e)", "Section 2(a)", "Section 2(b)", "Section 10", "Balfour v. Balfour", "McGregor v. McGregor", "Banwari Lal v. Sukhdarshan Dayal", "Jones v. Padavatton", "Simpkins v. Pays", "Section 2(g)", "Section 2(i)", "Section 2(j)", "Void Agreement vs Void Contract", "intention to create legal relations" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.1-what-is-a-contract-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 22 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.1-what-is-a-contract-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.1.2.1", "level": 1, "title": "Offer and Acceptance", "blurb": "What a Proposal Is: Section 2(a) · Offer or Invitation to Treat · General Offers, and the Need to Know · What Makes an Acceptance Good", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.2-offer-and-acceptance", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "proposal", "offer", "Section 2(a)", "express and implied offers", "Section 9", "invitation to treat", "Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots", "Harvey v. Facey", "general offer", "Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.", "knowledge of the offer", "Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt", "acceptance", "Section 2(b)", "mirror image rule", "counter-offer", "Section 7", "cross offers", "silence as acceptance", "Felthouse v. Bindley", "prescribed mode of acceptance", "communication", "Section 3", "Section 4", "postal rule", "revocation", "Section 5", "Section 6", "Bhagwandas Kedia v. Girdharilal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.2-offer-and-acceptance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 28 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.2-offer-and-acceptance-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 30 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.1.3.1", "level": 1, "title": "Consideration and Capacity", "blurb": "What Consideration Is: Section 2(d) · Consideration Must Be Real, Not Adequate · Promises Enforceable Without Consideration: Section 25 · Privity of Contract: Who May Sue", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.3-consideration-and-capacity", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "consideration", "Section 2(d)", "Durga Prasad v. Baldeo", "privity of consideration", "Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu", "past consideration", "adequacy of consideration", "Section 25", "natural love and affection", "time-barred debt", "existing duty", "Stilk v. Myrick", "privity of contract", "Tweddle v. Atkinson", "capacity to contract", "Section 11", "minor's agreement", "Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose", "estoppel", "ratification", "beneficial contracts", "necessaries", "Section 68", "sound mind", "Section 12", "Inder Singh v. Parmeshwardhari Singh" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.3-consideration-and-capacity-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.3-consideration-and-capacity-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.1.4.1", "level": 1, "title": "Free Consent", "blurb": "Consent, and Free Consent · Coercion: Section 15 · Undue Influence: Section 16 · Fraud: Section 17 · Misrepresentation: Section 18 · Mistake: Sections 20, 21 and 22", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.4-free-consent", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "consent", "free consent", "Section 13", "Section 14", "coercion", "Section 15", "Chikam Amiraju v. Chikam Seshamma", "undue influence", "Section 16", "Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande", "fraud", "Section 17", "Derry v. Peek", "misrepresentation", "Section 18", "Section 19", "Section 19A", "voidable contract", "mistake", "Section 20", "Raffles v. Wichelhaus", "Section 21", "Section 22", "bilateral mistake", "unilateral mistake" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.4-free-consent-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.4-free-consent-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.1.5.1", "level": 1, "title": "Discharge and Breach", "blurb": "The Five Ways a Contract Ends · Discharge by Performance: Sections 37 and 38 · Discharge by Breach, and Breach Before the Due Date · Discharge by Impossibility: Section 56", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.5-discharge-and-breach", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "discharge of contract", "discharge by operation of law", "merger", "Section 37", "tender of performance", "Section 38", "breach of contract", "anticipatory breach", "Section 39", "Hochster v. De La Tour", "frustration", "Section 56", "Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur", "novation", "Section 62", "remission", "Section 63", "Section 65", "damages", "Section 73", "Hadley v. Baxendale", "remoteness", "mitigation", "liquidated damages", "penalty", "Section 74", "specific performance", "quantum meruit" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.5-discharge-and-breach-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.5-discharge-and-breach-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.1.6.1", "level": 1, "title": "Special Contracts Overview", "blurb": "Obligations the Law Imposes: Quasi-Contracts · Indemnity: A Promise to Make Good a Loss · Guarantee: A Promise to Answer for Another's Default", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.1.6-special-contracts-overview", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "quasi contract", "Section 70", "State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons", "indemnity", "Section 124", "guarantee", "Section 126", "surety", "Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Bikram Cotton Mills", "Section 128", "bailment", "Section 148", "bailee", "pledge", "Section 172", "pawnor", "pawnee", "Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali", "agency", "Section 182", "agent", "principal" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.1.6-special-contracts-overview-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.1.6-special-contracts-overview-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 2, "name": "LLB Semester", "topics": [ { "key": "1.2.0.1", "level": 2, "title": "Doctrinal Digest", "blurb": "The Scheme of the Act and What the Preamble Concedes · Section 1: Extent, Commencement and the Saving Clause · Section 2: The Chain of Formation", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.0-misc-notes", "format": "study", "read_time": 29, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 1", "Section 2", "Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Lalbhai Trikumal Mills Ltd.", "Section 10", "Balfour v. Balfour", "McGregor v. McGregor", "Section 11", "Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose", "Section 23", "intention to create legal relations", "consideration", "minor's agreement", "void agreement", "voidable contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.1.1", "level": 2, "title": "Proposal and Acceptance", "blurb": "What Makes a Proposal: S.2(a) · Intention, Form and Certainty · Communication and Knowledge · General Offers and Cross-Offers · Proposal or Invitation to Treat", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-pt1-proposal-and-acceptance", "format": "study", "read_time": 34, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-07-28", "gloss": [ "Section 2(a)", "Upton Rural District Council v. Powell", "Section 29", "Section 8", "Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.", "Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd.", "McPherson v. Appana", "Section 2(b)", "Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co.", "Felthouse v. Bindley", "Powell v. Lee", "Section 7", "Hyde v. Wrench", "Union of India v. Maddala Thattiah", "Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of M.P.", "Section 9", "proposal", "invitation to treat", "revocation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.1.2", "level": 2, "title": "Communication and Revocation", "blurb": "What Counts as Communication: S.3 · When Communication is Complete: S.4 · The Postal Rule · Instantaneous Communication · Electronic Records · Revoking a Proposal: S.5", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-pt2-communication-and-revocation", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 3", "Section 4", "Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt", "Adams v. Lindsell", "Household Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant", "Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal and Co.", "Section 5", "Byrne v. Van Tienhoven and Co.", "Dickinson v. Dodds", "Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sambrui", "Section 6", "Alfred Schonlank v. M. Chetti", "proposal", "postal rule", "revocation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.1.3", "level": 2, "title": "Standard Form Contracts", "blurb": "Why the Standard Form Exists · Special Terms Bind Only If Notice Was Given · The Notice Must Come While the Contract Is Being Made · The Term Itself Must Be Reasonable", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-pt3-standard-form-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "standard form contract", "contract of adhesion", "exemption clause", "reasonable notice", "contemporaneous notice", "fundamental breach", "contra proferentem", "Henderson v. Stevenson", "Special Secretary Government of Rajasthan v. V.V. Seshaiyar", "Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd.", "Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly", "M. Siddalingappa v. T. Nataraj", "Davies v. Collins", "White v. John Warwick and Co.", "Lee and Sons v. Railway Executive", "Indian Airlines v. Madhuri Chowdhury", "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.1.4", "level": 2, "title": "Government Contracts", "blurb": "The Capacity: Article 298 · The Form: The Three Requirements of Article 299(1) · How the Authority to Execute Is Conferred · The Effect of Non-Compliance", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-pt4-government-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 15, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "government contract", "Article 298", "Article 299(1)", "State of W.B. v. B.K. Mondal", "Mulam Chand v. State of M.P.", "State of Bihar v. Karan Chand Thaper", "State of U.P. v. Murari Lal", "State of Orissa v. Durga Enterprises", "Laliteshwar Prasad v. Baleshwar Prasad", "Section 70", "estoppel against the Constitution", "ratification" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-part4-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.1-proposal-acceptance-revocation-part4-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.2.1", "level": 2, "title": "Consideration and Privity", "blurb": "What Consideration Is: The Price of a Promise · Decoding Section 2(d) · The First Ingredient: At the Desire of the Promisor", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.2-consideration-pt1-definition-and-privity", "format": "study", "read_time": 31, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(d)", "Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1881) Allahabad High Court", "Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu (1882) Madras High Court", "Samuel v. Ananthanatha (1883) Madras High Court", "Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) Court of Queen's Bench", "Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge and Co. (1915) House of Lords", "Jamna Das v. Pandit Ram Autar Pande (1911) Privy Council", "M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore (1970) Supreme Court of India", "Aries Advertising Bureau v. C.T. Devaraj (1995) Supreme Court of India", "Beswick v. Beswick (1966-68) English Court of Appeal and House of Lords", "Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Hussaini Begum (1910) Privy Council", "Rana Uma Nath Bakhsh Singh v. Jang Bahadur (1938) Privy Council", "N. Devaraje Urs v. M. Ramakrishniah (1951) Mysore High Court", "consideration", "privity of contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.2-consideration-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.2-consideration-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.2.2", "level": 2, "title": "Consideration Exceptions and Estoppel", "blurb": "The General Rule and the Gift Exclusion · S.25(1): Natural Love and Affection · S.25(2): Past Voluntary Service · S.25(3): Time-Barred Debt · Reality and Adequacy of Consideration", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.2-consideration-pt2-exceptions-and-estoppel", "format": "study", "read_time": 31, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 25", "Bhiwa v. Shivaram (1899) Bombay High Court", "Rajlucky Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee (1900) Calcutta High Court", "Suraj Narain v. Suraj Ahir (1928) Allahabad High Court", "Karam Chand v. Basant Kaur (1911) Punjab", "Pestanji M. Modo v. Bai Meharbai (1928) Bombay High Court", "Thomas v. Thomas (1842) Queen's Bench", "Devji Shivji v. Karsandas Ramji (1954) Patna High Court", "Collins v. Godefroy (1831)", "Stilk v. Myrick (1809)", "Gopal Co. Ltd. v. Hazarilal Co. (1963) Madhya Pradesh High Court", "Kedarnath v. Gorie Mahomed (1886) Calcutta High Court", "Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali (1914) Allahabad High Court", "Doraswami Iyer v. Arunachala Ayyar (1936) Madras High Court", "Section 185", "consideration", "promissory estoppel", "estoppel" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.2-consideration-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.2-consideration-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.3.1", "level": 2, "title": "Minor's Agreement", "blurb": "Section 11: Who Is Competent to Contract · A Minor's Agreement Is a Nullity from Birth · No Estoppel Against a Minor · No Liability in Tort That Is Really the Contract in Disguise", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.3-capacity-to-contract-pt1-minors-agreement-and-estoppel", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 11", "Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) Privy Council", "Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer (1928) Allahabad High Court (Full Bench)", "A.T. Raghava Chariar v. Srinivasa (1916) Madras High Court (Full Bench)", "Subramanyam v. Subba Rao (1948) Privy Council", "Raj Rani v. Prem Adib (1949) Bombay High Court", "capacity to contract", "minor's agreement", "estoppel", "ratification" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.3-capacity-to-contract-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.3-capacity-to-contract-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.3.2", "level": 2, "title": "Restitution and Mental Capacity", "blurb": "The Doctrine of Restitution Against a Minor · Section 68: Reimbursement for Necessaries Supplied · Section 12: Soundness of Mind and Lucid Intervals · Other Persons Disqualified by Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.3-capacity-to-contract-pt2-restitution-necessaries-and-mind", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Leslie (R) Ltd v. Sheill (1914) English Court of Appeal", "Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh (1928) Lahore High Court (Full Bench)", "Section 68", "Nash v. Inman (1908) English Court of Appeal", "Section 12", "Inder Singh v. Parmeshwardhari Singh (1957) Patna High Court", "capacity to contract", "restitution", "necessaries" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.3-capacity-to-contract-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.3-capacity-to-contract-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.1.3.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.4.1", "level": 2, "title": "Coercion and Duress", "blurb": "Consent (S.13) and Free Consent (S.14) · Section 15: Coercion Defined · What Counts as Coercion · What Does NOT Count as Coercion · Coercion and English Duress Compared", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.4-coercion-and-undue-influence-pt1-coercion-and-duress", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 15", "Chikam Amiraju v. Chikam Seshamma (1917) Madras High Court", "Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti (1889) Madras High Court", "Muthia v. Karuppan (1927) Madras High Court", "Askari Mirza v. Bibi Jai Kishori (1912)", "free consent", "coercion", "duress", "undue influence" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.4-coercion-and-undue-influence-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.4-coercion-and-undue-influence-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.4.2", "level": 2, "title": "Undue Influence", "blurb": "Section 16: Undue Influence Defined · The Positions of Dominance: Section 16(2) · The Presumption and the Burden of Proof: Section 16(3) · Unconscionable Bargains", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.4-coercion-and-undue-influence-pt2-undue-influence-and-equity", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 16", "Mannu Singh v. Umadat Pande (1890) Allahabad High Court", "Williams v. Bayley (1866) House of Lords", "Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad (1924) Privy Council", "Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib (1967) Supreme Court", "Lakshmi Amma v. Talengal Narayana Bhatta (1970) Supreme Court", "Lloyds Bank v. Bundy (1975) English Court of Appeal", "Kharbuja Kuer v. Jang Bahadur (1963) Supreme Court", "Section 19A", "Ranee Annapurni v. Swaminatha (1910) Madras High Court", "coercion", "duress", "undue influence", "rescission" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.4-coercion-and-undue-influence-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 18 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.4-coercion-and-undue-influence-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.5.1", "level": 2, "title": "Fraud and Misrepresentation", "blurb": "Section 17: Fraud · The Deception Must Actually Work · Silence: Caveat Emptor and Its Limits · Section 18: Misrepresentation · Fraud versus Misrepresentation", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.5-fraud-misrepresentation-mistake-pt1-fraud-and-misrepresentation", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 17", "Derry v. Peek (1889) House of Lords", "Horsfall v. Thomas (1862)", "With v. O'Flanagan (1936) English Court of Appeal", "Section 18", "Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (1976) Supreme Court", "Long v. Lloyd (1958) English Court of Appeal", "fraud", "misrepresentation", "caveat emptor", "mistake" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.5-fraud-misrepresentation-mistake-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.5-fraud-misrepresentation-mistake-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 18 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.5.2", "level": 2, "title": "Mistake of Fact and Law", "blurb": "How Mistake Operates · Bilateral Mistake of Fact: Section 20 · Mistake of Law: Section 21 · Unilateral Mistake: Section 22 and Its Two Exceptions · Exception One: Mistake as to Identity", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.5-fraud-misrepresentation-mistake-pt2-mistake-of-fact-and-law", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 20", "Couturier v. Hastie (1856)", "Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864)", "Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh (1998) Supreme Court", "Section 21", "Section 22", "Cundy v. Lindsay (1878) House of Lords", "Phillips v. Brooks Ltd. (1919)", "Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh (1990) Supreme Court", "Ningawwa v. Byrappa (1968) Supreme Court", "fraud", "misrepresentation", "mistake", "non est factum", "unilateral mistake", "mistake of law" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.5-fraud-misrepresentation-mistake-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.5-fraud-misrepresentation-mistake-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.6.1", "level": 2, "title": "Unlawful Object and Consideration", "blurb": "The Section 23 Gateway: Object and Consideration · The Five Unlawful Heads · The Unruly Horse: Opposed to Public Policy · Section 24: When Part of an Agreement Is Unlawful", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.6-legality-of-object-pt1-unlawful-objects-and-severability", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 23", "Banarsi Dass v. Shakuntala", "Ram Sewak v. Ram Charan", "Manni Ram v. Purshottam Lal", "Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi Mandar", "Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya", "D. Nagaratnamba v. Kunuku Ramayya", "Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath", "Narasimha Raju v. Gurumurthy Raju", "Sandhya Chatterjee v. Salil Chandra Chatterjee", "Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee", "Hermann v. Charlesworth", "Section 24", "consideration", "unlawful object", "public policy", "severability" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.6-legality-of-object-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.6-legality-of-object-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.6.2", "level": 2, "title": "Restraints and Wagers", "blurb": "Restraint of Marriage (Section 26) · Restraint of Trade (Section 27) · Restraint of Legal Proceedings (Section 28) · Wagering Agreements (Section 30) · ⚖ JUDGE'S CHAIR", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.6-legality-of-object-pt2-marriage-trade-and-legal-restraints", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 26", "Rao Rani v. Gulab Rani", "Section 27", "Madhub Chander v. Raj Coomar", "Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co.", "Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.", "Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co.", "Section 28", "Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.", "Section 30", "Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.", "Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya", "restraint of trade", "restraint of marriage", "restraint of legal proceedings" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.6-legality-of-object-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.6-legality-of-object-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.7.1", "level": 2, "title": "Contingent Contracts", "blurb": "What Makes a Contract \"Contingent\": Section 31 · Events Happening and Not Happening: Sections 32 and 33 · How a Living Person Will Act: Section 34 · Time-Bound Contingencies: Section 35", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.7-contingent-and-quasi-contracts-pt1-contingent-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 31", "Bashir Ahmad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh", "Section 32", "Section 33", "Section 34", "Section 35", "Section 36", "contingent contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.7-contingent-and-quasi-contracts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.7-contingent-and-quasi-contracts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.6.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.7.2", "level": 2, "title": "Quasi-Contracts", "blurb": "The Foundation: Unjust Enrichment · Necessaries for One Incapable of Contracting: Section 68 · Payment by an Interested Person: Section 69 · Benefit of a Non-Gratuitous Act: Section 70", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.7-contingent-and-quasi-contracts-pt2-quasi-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Moses v. Macferlan", "Fibrosa Spolka v. Fairbairn Lawson", "Mahabir Kishore v. State of M.P.", "Section 68", "Nash v. Inman", "Section 69", "Section 70", "State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons", "Section 71", "Section 72", "Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal Saraf", "Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India", "necessaries", "coercion", "mistake", "finder of goods" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.7-contingent-and-quasi-contracts-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.7-contingent-and-quasi-contracts-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.6.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.8.1", "level": 2, "title": "Performance Essentials and Parties", "blurb": "The Duty to Perform: Section 37 · Tender: Attempted Performance (Section 38) · Refusal to Perform, and Anticipatory Breach: Section 39 · Who Must Perform: Sections 40 and 41", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.8-performance-of-contracts-pt1-performance-essentials-and-parties", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 37", "Section 38", "Startup v. MacDonald (English)", "Section 39", "Hochster v. De La Tour (English)", "Avery v. Bowden (English)", "Muralidhar Chatterjee v. International Film Co.", "Section 40", "Section 41", "Section 43", "Section 44", "Section 45", "tender", "anticipatory breach" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.8-performance-of-contracts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.8-performance-of-contracts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.6.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.8.2", "level": 2, "title": "Time, Place and Reciprocal Promises", "blurb": "Time and Place of Performance: Sections 46 to 50 · Reciprocal Promises: Sections 51 to 54 · When Time Is \"Of the Essence\": Section 55 · Appropriation of Payments: Sections 59 to 61", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.8-performance-of-contracts-pt2-time-place-and-reciprocal-promises", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 46", "Section 49", "Section 50", "Section 51", "Section 52", "Section 53", "Section 54", "Nathulal v. Phoolchand", "Section 55", "Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra", "Section 59", "Section 60", "Section 61", "Devaynes v. Noble (Clayton's Case) (English)", "Section 62", "Section 63", "Section 64", "Section 65", "Section 67" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.8-performance-of-contracts-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.8-performance-of-contracts-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.6.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.9.1", "level": 2, "title": "Modes of Discharge and Frustration", "blurb": "How a Contract Is Discharged · Section 56: The Statutory Rule · The Theories, and the Indian Position · The Grounds of Frustration · Where Frustration Does NOT Apply", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.9-discharge-and-breach-pt1-modes-of-discharge", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 56", "Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.", "Taylor v. Caldwell (English)", "Krell v. Henry (English)", "Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami Nadar", "Alopi Parshad and Sons v. Union of India", "Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh", "Section 65", "restitution", "discharge", "frustration", "force majeure" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.9-discharge-and-breach-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.9-discharge-and-breach-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.5.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.9.2", "level": 2, "title": "Breach and Remedies", "blurb": "Breach and the Remedies · Remoteness of Damage: Section 73 · The Market-Rate Rule · The Measure of Damages · The Duty to Mitigate · Liquidated Damages and Penalty: Section 74", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.9-discharge-and-breach-pt2-breach-and-remedies", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 73", "Hadley v. Baxendale (English)", "Section 74", "Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das", "Maula Bux v. Union of India", "ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.", "Section 75", "discharge", "damages", "remoteness of damage", "liquidated damages", "penalty", "rescission" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.9-discharge-and-breach-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.9-discharge-and-breach-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.5.1" ] }, { "key": "1.2.10.1", "level": 2, "title": "Indemnity and Formation of Guarantee", "blurb": "Contract of Indemnity: Definition and Scope (Section 124) · Rights of the Indemnity-Holder, and When Liability Begins (Section 125)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.10-indemnity-and-guarantee-pt1-indemnity-and-formation", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 124", "Birkmyr v. Darnell (English)", "Section 125", "Gajanan Moreshwar Parelkar v. Moreshwar Madan Mantri", "Section 126", "Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Bikram Cotton Mills", "Section 127", "Section 128", "Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad", "Section 129", "Section 130", "Section 131", "consideration", "indemnity", "guarantee", "continuing guarantee", "surety" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.10-indemnity-and-guarantee-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.10-indemnity-and-guarantee-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.10.2", "level": 2, "title": "Discharge of Surety and Rights", "blurb": "Bringing a Running Guarantee to an End (Sections 130 and 131) · Discharge by the Creditor's Dealings with the Debtor (Sections 133 to 135)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.10-indemnity-and-guarantee-pt2-discharge-and-rights", "format": "study", "read_time": 32, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 130", "Section 131", "Section 133", "Section 134", "Section 135", "Section 139", "Section 140", "Section 145", "Section 141", "Amrit Lal Goverdhan Lalan v. State Bank of Travancore", "Section 146", "Section 147", "discharge", "indemnity", "guarantee", "surety", "contribution" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.10-indemnity-and-guarantee-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.10-indemnity-and-guarantee-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 17 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.11.1", "level": 2, "title": "Bailment: Formation and Duties", "blurb": "What Makes a Bailment (Sections 148 and 149) · The Bailor's Side of the Bargain (Sections 150, 158, 159 and 164) · The Standard of Care, and Its Limits (Sections 151 and 152)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.11-bailment-and-pledge-pt1-formation-and-duties", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 148", "Kaliaperumal Pillai v. Visalakshmi Achi", "Section 150", "Section 151", "Section 152", "Section 153", "Section 154", "Section 160", "Section 161", "bailment", "pledge" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.11-bailment-and-pledge-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.11-bailment-and-pledge-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.11.2", "level": 2, "title": "Pledge and Enforcement", "blurb": "Lien: The Right to Hold On (Sections 170 and 171) · Pledge: The Bailment That Can Be Realised (Section 172) · What the Pawnee May Hold, and What He May Recover (Sections 173 to 175)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.11-bailment-and-pledge-pt2-pledge-and-enforcement", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 170", "Section 171", "Section 172", "Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Union of India", "Section 173", "Section 174", "Section 175", "Section 177", "Section 176", "Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali", "bailment", "lien", "pledge" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.11-bailment-and-pledge-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.11-bailment-and-pledge-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.12.1", "level": 2, "title": "Agency: Formation and Authority", "blurb": "Who Is an Agent (Section 182) · Who May Be Principal, Who May Be Agent (Sections 183 and 184) · Agency Needs No Consideration (Section 185)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.12-agency-pt1-formation-and-authority", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 182", "Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal v. Government of Hyderabad", "Section 183", "Section 184", "Section 185", "Section 186", "Section 187", "Section 188", "Section 189", "Section 237", "Harshad J. Shah v. LIC of India", "consideration", "estoppel", "agency", "apparent authority" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.12-agency-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.12-agency-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.12.2", "level": 2, "title": "Delegation and Ratification", "blurb": "The No-Delegation Rule (Section 190) · The Sub-Agent (Sections 191 to 193) · The Substituted Agent (Sections 194 and 195)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.12-agency-pt2-delegation-and-ratification", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 190", "Section 191", "Section 192", "Section 193", "Section 194", "Sub-agent against substituted agent", "Section 195", "De Bussche v. Alt", "Section 196", "Section 197", "Keighley Maxsted and Co. v. Durant", "Kelner v. Baxter", "Sections 198 to 200", "agency", "sub-agent", "substituted agent", "ratification" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.12-agency-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.12-agency-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.2.12.3", "level": 2, "title": "Rights, Duties and Termination", "blurb": "The Agent's Duties (Sections 211 to 216 and 218) · The Agent's Rights and the Principal's Duties (Sections 217 to 225) · Agent, Principal and Third Parties (Sections 230 to 233)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.2.12-agency-pt3-rights-duties-and-termination", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 211", "Section 216", "Section 230", "Section 238", "Lloyd v. Grace Smith and Co.", "Section 201", "Section 202", "fraud", "agency" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.2.12-agency-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.2.12-agency-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 3, "name": "APO / Lower Judiciary + LLM", "topics": [ { "key": "1.3.0.1", "level": 3, "title": "Practitioner's Digest", "blurb": "Formation: The Conditions of a Contract (Section 10) · Offer and Acceptance · Consideration (Section 2(d)) · Capacity (Section 11) · Free Consent (Sections 14 to 22)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.0-misc-notes-comprehensive-digest", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 10", "offer and acceptance", "consideration", "free consent", "discharge", "frustration" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.3.1.1", "level": 3, "title": "Proposal and Invitation to Treat", "blurb": "The Proposal, and Why It Is Read Objectively (Section 2(a)) · Where the Line Falls: Proposal, Statement of Intention, and Certainty (Sections 9 and 29)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt1-offer-and-invitation-to-treat", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(a)", "Upton-on-Severn RDC v. Powell", "Section 29", "Section 9", "Harvey v. Facey", "Grainger and Son v. Gough", "Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemists Ltd.", "Harris v. Nickerson LR 8 QB 286)", "proposal", "invitation to treat", "consideration" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.2", "level": 3, "title": "General and Counter Offers", "blurb": "Specific and General Offers: How the Older Orthodoxy Collapsed · Carlill: The Landmark Taken Contention by Contention · Two Classes of General Offer, and Who Takes the Money", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt2-general-specific-cross-and-counter-offers", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 8", "Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.", "Harbhajan Lal v. Harcharan Lal", "Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt", "Tinn v. Hoffman and Co.", "Hyde v. Wrench", "Hazi Mohd. Haji Jiva v. E. Spinner", "U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd.", "proposal", "general offer", "consideration" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.3", "level": 3, "title": "Acceptance and the Mirror Rule", "blurb": "Acceptance as the Exercise of a Power · Signified, Not Merely Intended · The Mirror Rule: Total, Unqualified, Unequivocal · Prescribed Manner: The Indian Mechanism (Section 7(2))", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt3-acceptance-and-mirror-rule", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(b)", "Powell v. Lee", "Felthouse v. Bindley", "Section 7", "Union of India v. S. Narain Singh", "Union of India v. Maddala Thattiah", "Bengal Coal Co. v. Homee Wadia and Co.", "Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of M.P.", "Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v. Union of India", "mirror rule", "consideration" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.4", "level": 3, "title": "Communication and the Postal Rule", "blurb": "What Counts as Communication, and When a Proposal Bites · The Postal Rule, and What \"Put in a Course of Transmission\" Demands · Where the Contract Is Made: The Jurisdiction Question", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt4-communication-and-postal-vs-instantaneous", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 3", "Section 4", "Household Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant", "J.K. Enterprises v. State of M.P.", "Progressive Constructions Ltd. v. Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd.", "Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East Corpn.", "Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal and Co.", "Section 5", "Section 6", "proposal", "postal rule", "revocation", "consideration" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part4-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part4-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.5", "level": 3, "title": "Consideration and Promissory Estoppel", "blurb": "Consideration as the Law's Test of a Bargain · The Nexus: Was the Act Done at the Promisor's Desire? · The Temporal Dimension, and the Fault Line Between S.2(d) and S.25(2)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt5-consideration-and-promissory-estoppel", "format": "study", "read_time": 36, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 2(d)", "Durga Prasad v. Baldeo", "Doraswami Iyer v. Arunachala Ayyar", "White v. Bluett", "De La Bere v. Pearson", "Gopal Co. Ltd. v. Hazarilal Co.", "Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mohd.", "Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali", "Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu", "consideration", "privity of consideration", "promissory estoppel", "estoppel" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part5-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part5-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.6", "level": 3, "title": "Privity and Section 25 Exceptions", "blurb": "Two Doctrines That Sound Alike and Are Not · The Rule, Its English Roots, and the Criticism It Has Attracted · Is the Indian Act Really Silent? · The Exceptions, Unpacked", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt6-privity-of-contract-and-s25-exceptions", "format": "study", "read_time": 32, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Beswick v. Beswick", "Krishna Lal Sadhu v. Pramila Bala Dassi", "M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore", "Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Hussaini Begum", "Rana Uma Nath Bakhsh Singh v. Jang Bahadur", "Devaraja Urs v. Ram Krishniah", "Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.", "Section 25", "Rajlucky Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee", "Section 25 Explanation 1", "Section 25 Explanation 2", "consideration", "privity of contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part6-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part6-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.7", "level": 3, "title": "Contracts of Adhesion", "blurb": "What the Form Replaces · Consent Under Section 13 Is Not Displaced by the Form · The Three Routes to Incorporation · Timing: Notice Must Be Contemporaneous with the Contract", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt7-standard-form-adhesion-and-incorporation", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "standard form contract", "contract of adhesion", "incorporation of terms", "reasonable notice", "contemporaneous notice", "signature rule", "Henderson v. Stevenson", "Special Secretary Government of Rajasthan v. V.V. Seshaiyar", "Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd.", "Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.", "forum selection clause", "Ratan Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part7-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part7-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.8", "level": 3, "title": "Exemption Clauses", "blurb": "What an Exemption Clause Is Doing · Strict Construction and the Rule Against the Drafter · The Clause Reaches Only the Liability It Names · No Clause May Excuse a Fundamental Breach", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt8-control-of-exemption-clauses", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "exemption clause", "contra proferentem", "strict construction", "fundamental breach", "unconscionable bargain", "Lee and Sons v. Railway Executive", "White v. John Warwick and Co.", "Davies v. Collins", "Suisse Atlantique", "M. Siddalingappa v. T. Nataraj", "D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress", "Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaekwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel", "Indian Airlines v. Madhuri Chowdhury", "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part8-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part8-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.1.9", "level": 3, "title": "Government Contracts", "blurb": "Capacity, Liability and Forum · Article 299(1): The Three Requirements and Their Rationale · The Conferment of Authority · Non-Compliance: Void, and Beyond Cure", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-pt9-government-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 16, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Article 298", "Article 299(1)", "government contract", "State of W.B. v. B.K. Mondal", "Mulam Chand v. State of M.P.", "State of Bihar v. Karan Chand Thaper", "State of U.P. v. Murari Lal", "State of Orissa v. Durga Enterprises", "Laliteshwar Prasad v. Baleshwar Prasad", "Section 70", "quasi-contract", "estoppel against the Constitution", "ratification", "non-gratuitous act" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part9-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.1-offer-acceptance-consideration-part9-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.2.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.1.1", "1.2.1.2", "1.2.1.3", "1.2.1.4", "1.2.2.1", "1.2.2.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.2.1", "level": 3, "title": "Minor's Agreement", "blurb": "Section 11, and Why the Law Suspends Its Usual Assumption · Void or Voidable? The Question the Act Left Open · What Follows From \"Absolutely Void\" · No Estoppel Against a Minor", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-pt1-minors-agreement", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 11", "Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose", "Gadigeppa Bhimappa Meti v. Balangowda Bhimangowda", "Sadiq Ali Khan v. Jai Kishore", "Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer", "capacity to contract", "minor's agreement", "estoppel", "ratification" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.2.2", "level": 3, "title": "Restitution Against a Minor", "blurb": "Why Restitution Has to Sit Outside Contract · The English Limit: Restitution Stops Where Repayment Begins · The Indian Argument, 1928 to 1937", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-pt2-restitution", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Leslie (R) Ltd. v. Sheill", "Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh", "Ajudhia Prasad v. Chandan Lal", "Gokeda v. Bhimayya", "Bhim Mandal v. Mange Ram", "capacity to contract", "restitution" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.2.3", "level": 3, "title": "Beneficial Contracts", "blurb": "Incapacity to Bind, Capacity to Receive · The Catalogue of Beneficial Transactions · What Is Not Beneficial, However It Looks", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-pt3-beneficial-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "A.T. Raghava Chariar v. Srinivasa", "Subramanyam v. Subba Rao", "Roberts v. Gray", "Raj Rani v. Prem Adib", "Section 184", "Burnard v. Haggis", "Jennings v. Rundall", "capacity to contract", "agency" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.2.4", "level": 3, "title": "Sound Mind and Necessaries", "blurb": "Unsoundness of Mind: The Functional Test of Capacity (Section 12) · Fluctuating Sanity: Lucid Intervals and Temporary Unsoundness · Legal Unsoundness versus Weakness of Intellect", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-pt4-sound-mind-disqualified-persons-and-necessaries", "format": "study", "read_time": 30, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 12", "Inder Singh v. Parmeshwardhari Singh", "Chacko v. Mahadevan", "R. Lingaraj v. Parvathi", "Rajinder Kaur v. Mangal Singh", "Section 68", "Nash v. Inman", "Jamna Bai v. Vasanta Rao", "capacity to contract", "necessaries" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-part4-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.2-capacity-to-contract-part4-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.1.3.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.3.1", "level": 3, "title": "Coercion", "blurb": "Consent, and Then Free Consent: Sections 13 and 14 · The Anatomy of Section 15 · The Penal Limb: What Has Been Held to Be Forbidden · What Section 15 Does Not Reach", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.3-free-consent-pt1-coercion", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 13", "Section 14", "Section 15", "Chikam Amiraju v. Chikam Seshamma", "Ranganayakamma v. Alwar Setti", "Askari Mirza v. Bibi Jai Kishori", "Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. State of A.P.", "Muthia v. Karuppan", "Section 19", "restitution", "free consent", "coercion", "duress", "undue influence", "rescission" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part1-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part1-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "1.3.3.2", "level": 3, "title": "Undue Influence", "blurb": "Influence, and When It Becomes Undue · Who Is in a Position to Dominate: Section 16(2) · Section 16(3): A Rule of Evidence, Not a Rule of Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.3-free-consent-pt2-undue-influence", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 16(1)", "Shrimati v. Sudhakar R. Bhatkar", "Section 16(2)", "Section 16(3)", "Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad", "Kharbuja Kuer v. Jang Bahadur", "Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib", "Lakshmi Amma v. Talengal Narayana Bhatta", "Section 19A", "free consent", "undue influence" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 15 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "1.3.3.3", "level": 3, "title": "Fraud", "blurb": "The Anatomy of Section 17 · The Five Clauses at Work · The State of Mind: Derry v. Peek · The Deception Must Actually Deceive · Silence: The Rule Before the Exceptions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.3-free-consent-pt3-fraud", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 17", "Rex v. Kylsant", "Derry v. Peek", "Horsfall v. Thomas", "Kiran Bala v. B.P. Srivastava", "Section 19 Exception", "Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University", "free consent", "fraud" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "1.3.3.4", "level": 3, "title": "Misrepresentation", "blurb": "What Section 18 Requires · Clause (1): The Assertion That Outruns Its Basis · Clause (2): Breach of Duty Without Intent to Deceive · Clause (3): Causing a Mistake as to the Substance", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.3-free-consent-pt4-misrepresentation", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 18", "Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Dharamsey", "Oriental Bank Corporation v. John Fleming", "Section 19 Exception", "Kamal Kant v. Prakash Devi", "free consent", "fraud", "misrepresentation", "mistake" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part4-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part4-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "1.3.3.5", "level": 3, "title": "Mistake", "blurb": "Where Mistake Sits in the Act · Common Mistake and Mutual Mistake · Mistake as to the Subject Matter · Mistake as to the Identity of the Other Party", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.3-free-consent-pt5-mistake", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 20", "I.T.C. Ltd. v. George Joseph Fernandes", "Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh", "Cundy v. Lindsay", "Phillips v. Brooks", "Ingram v. Little", "Lewis v. Averay", "Foster v. Mackinnon", "Ningawwa v. Byrappa Hirekurabar", "Section 22", "Section 21", "free consent", "mistake", "non est factum", "common mistake", "mutual mistake", "unilateral mistake", "mistake of law" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part5-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.3-free-consent-part5-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 16 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1" ] }, { "key": "1.3.4.1", "level": 3, "title": "Unlawful Object and Consideration", "blurb": "The Architecture of Section 23 · Forbidden by Law, and the Regulatory Distinction · Defeating the Provisions of Any Law · Fraudulent Objects", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.4-legality-of-object-pt1-unlawful-object-and-consideration", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 23", "Ram Sewak v. Ram Charan", "Manni Ram v. Purshottam Lal", "Ram Sarup v. Bansi Mandar", "Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya", "Section 24", "consideration", "unlawful object" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.4-legality-of-object-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.4-legality-of-object-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.6.1", "1.2.6.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.4.2", "level": 3, "title": "Public Policy and Restraints", "blurb": "Public Policy: The Doctrine and Its Discipline · Restraint of Marriage: Section 26 · Restraint of Trade: Section 27 and Its Rationale · The Statutory Exceptions", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.4-legality-of-object-pt2-public-policy-and-restraints", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 10, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Rao Rani v. Gulab Rani", "penalty on remarriage", "Madhub Chander v. Raj Coomar", "partial restraint of trade", "Narasimha Raju v. Gurumurthy Raju", "Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly", "Section 26", "Section 27", "Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co. Ltd.", "Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.", "Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd.", "public policy", "restraint of trade", "restraint of marriage" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.4-legality-of-object-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.4-legality-of-object-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.6.1", "1.2.6.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.4.3", "level": 3, "title": "Legal Proceedings and Wagers", "blurb": "Restraint of Legal Proceedings: Section 28 · Uncertainty: Section 29 · Wagers: Section 30 and What Makes One · Speculation, and Where Business Ends and Betting Begins", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.4-legality-of-object-pt3-legal-proceedings-and-wagers", "format": "study", "read_time": 23, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 28", "Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.", "Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd.", "Section 29", "Section 30", "Babasaheb v. Rajaram", "K.R. Lakshman v. State of T.N.", "restraint of legal proceedings" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.4-legality-of-object-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.4-legality-of-object-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.6.1", "1.2.6.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.5.1", "level": 3, "title": "Frustration and Section 56", "blurb": "The Three Paragraphs of Section 56 · Why India Does Not Need the Implied Term · How Frustration Operates · The Established Grounds · Commercial Hardship Is Not Frustration", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.5-frustration-and-discharge-pt1-frustration-and-s56", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 56", "Working the Section", "Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.", "Maritime National Fish Ltd. v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd.", "V.L. Narasu v. P.S.V. Iyer", "M/s. Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. v. Union of India", "Ganga Saran v. Ram Charan Gopal", "Easun Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.", "Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh", "discharge", "frustration", "force majeure" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.5-frustration-and-discharge-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.5-frustration-and-discharge-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.5.1", "1.2.9.1", "1.2.9.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.5.2", "level": 3, "title": "Performance and Repudiation", "blurb": "Section 37 - The Duty to Perform and the Role of Representatives · Section 38 - Valid Tender of Performance · Section 39 - Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.5-frustration-and-discharge-pt2-performance-repudiation-and-other-modes", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 37", "Section 38", "Startup v. MacDonald", "Section 39", "Hochster v. De La Tour", "Avery v. Bowden", "Section 55", "Section 62", "Section 63", "Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel v. Lalbhai Trikumal Mills Ltd.", "Section 64", "tender", "restitution", "novation", "discharge", "frustration", "anticipatory breach", "rescission" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.5-frustration-and-discharge-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 20 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.5-frustration-and-discharge-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 19 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.5.1", "1.2.9.1", "1.2.9.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.6.1", "level": 3, "title": "Damages and Liquidated Sums", "blurb": "Section 73: The Dual Rules of Remoteness · Crucial Case Law on Remoteness · The Mitigation Principle · Section 74: Liquidated Damages vs. Penalty · Landmark Decisions on Section 74", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.6-remedies-and-damages-pt1-damages-and-s73-s74", "format": "study", "read_time": 24, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 73", "Hadley v. Baxendale", "Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd.", "Heron II Koufos v. C. Czarnikow Ltd.", "Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas", "Karsandas H. Thacker v. Saran Engineering Co.", "Working the Market-Rate Measure", "Section 73 Explanation", "A.K.A.S. Jamal v. Moola Dawood Sons and Co.", "Section 74", "Indian Law Standard for S.74", "Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das", "Maula Bux v. Union of India", "Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.", "Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority", "Section 75", "damages", "liquidated damages", "penalty", "rescission" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.6-remedies-and-damages-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 27 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.6-remedies-and-damages-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 29 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.3.6.2", "level": 3, "title": "Specific Performance and Injunction", "blurb": "The Remedy Set for Breach · From Discretion to Command: The 2018 Shift · The Contracts a Court Will Not Enforce in Kind · The Claimant's Own Position: Readiness, Willingness and Delay", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.6-remedies-and-damages-pt2-specific-performance-and-injunction", "format": "study", "read_time": 38, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Working the Four Bars", "S.K. Gupta v. Hyderabad Allwyn Ltd.", "Mayor of Wolverhampton v. Emmons", "Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel", "Proving Readiness and Willingness", "Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Pal Singh", "K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan", "K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.", "Working the Remedy", "Manzoor Ahmed Magray v. Ghulam Hassan Aram", "Lumley v. Wagner", "Warner Brothers Pictures Inc. v. Nelson", "Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd.", "restraint of trade", "damages", "specific performance", "injunction" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.6-remedies-and-damages-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.6-remedies-and-damages-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.3.7.1", "level": 3, "title": "Indemnity and Formation of Guarantee", "blurb": "The Loss Section 124 Covers, and the Loss It Does Not · The Indemnities the Section Never Mentions · What the Indemnity-Holder Can Actually Recover · The Moment the Indemnifier Must Act", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-pt1-indemnity-and-formation", "format": "study", "read_time": 35, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 124", "Secretary of State for India in Council v. Bank of India Ltd.", "Section 125", "Re Richardson", "Section 126", "Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Bikram Cotton Mills", "Section 127", "Section 128", "Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad", "Ram Kishan v. State of U.P.", "Section 142", "Section 143", "Section 144", "consideration", "indemnity", "guarantee", "surety" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.10.1", "1.2.10.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.7.2", "level": 3, "title": "Discharge of the Surety", "blurb": "Specific or Continuing, and Why the Answer Decides the Case · Bringing a Running Guarantee to an End by Notice · Death of the Surety · What the Surety Actually Undertook", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-pt2-operations-and-discharge", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 129", "Section 130", "Section 131", "Section 133", "Working a Variance Question", "Section 134", "Section 135", "Section 139", "discharge", "indemnity", "guarantee", "surety" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 13 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.10.1", "1.2.10.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.7.3", "level": 3, "title": "Surety's Rights and Co-Suretyship", "blurb": "What the Surety Acquires by Paying · The Creditor's Securities Are the Surety's Fund · What Counts as a \"Security\" · Two Measures of Discharge", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-pt3-remedies-and-cosuretyship", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 140", "Section 141", "State of M.P. v. Kaluram", "Section 145", "Section 146", "Section 147", "discharge", "indemnity", "guarantee", "surety", "contribution" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.7-indemnity-and-guarantee-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.10.1", "1.2.10.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.8.1", "level": 3, "title": "Bailment: Formation and Duties", "blurb": "Section 148 as a Checklist · Only Goods, and Only Movable Goods · Delivery, Possession and the Line Below Which Nothing Happens · Must There Be a Contract? The Fault Line in Indian Law", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-pt1-formation-and-duties", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-07-28", "gloss": [ "Section 148", "Section 149", "Section 71", "Ram Gulam v. Government of U.P.", "State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam", "Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore", "N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of A.P. 6 SCC 205)", "Section 150", "Section 151", "Section 152", "Section 153", "Section 154", "bailment", "pledge" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 11 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.11.1", "1.2.11.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.8.2", "level": 3, "title": "Finder of Goods and Liens", "blurb": "Mixing the Goods: Consent First, Separability Second · Who Pays for the Bailment (S.158) and What a Bad Title Costs (S.164) · Calling Back a Free Loan (S.159)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-pt2-operations-and-liens", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 155", "Section 156", "Section 157", "Section 158", "Section 164", "Section 159", "Working the S.159 formula", "Section 160", "Section 161", "Section 163", "Section 162", "Section 165", "Section 166", "Section 167", "Section 168", "Section 169", "Section 170", "Section 171", "Particular lien against general lien", "bailment", "lien", "particular lien", "general lien", "finder of goods", "pledge" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 14 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.11.1", "1.2.11.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.8.3", "level": 3, "title": "Pledge and Enforcement", "blurb": "What Makes a Pledge (S.172) · Delivering a Pledge Without Moving the Goods · What the Pawnee May Hold the Goods For (S.173 and S.174)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-pt3-pledge-and-enforcement", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-07-28", "gloss": [ "Section 172", "Pledge against ordinary bailment", "Section 173", "Section 174", "Section 175", "Section 176", "Reading the condition closely", "Section 177", "Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali", "Section 178", "Section 178A", "Section 179", "Section 180", "Section 181", "bailment", "pledge" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.8-bailment-and-pledge-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.11.1", "1.2.11.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.9.1", "level": 3, "title": "Formation and Authority of Agents", "blurb": "Section 182, Clause by Clause · Intending to Act for Another · Agent, Servant, and Independent Contractor · Who May Employ, and Who May Be, an Agent (S.183 and S.184)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.9-agency-pt1-formation-and-authority", "format": "study", "read_time": 26, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 182", "Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad", "Section 183", "Section 184", "Section 185", "Section 186", "Section 187", "Section 188", "Section 189", "consideration", "agency" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.12.1", "1.2.12.2", "1.2.12.3" ] }, { "key": "1.3.9.2", "level": 3, "title": "Delegation and Sub-Agents", "blurb": "Why an Agent May Not Delegate (S.190) · The Sub-Agent (S.191) · The Properly Appointed Sub-Agent (S.192) · The Sub-Agent Appointed Without Authority (S.193)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.9-agency-pt2-delegation-and-sub-agents", "format": "study", "read_time": 22, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 190", "Section 191", "Section 192", "Section 193", "Section 194", "Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. v. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway", "De Bussche v. Alt", "secret profit", "Section 195", "agency", "sub-agent", "substituted agent" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.12.1", "1.2.12.2", "1.2.12.3" ] }, { "key": "1.3.9.3", "level": 3, "title": "Ratification", "blurb": "The Election, and What Ratifying Does (S.196) · Ratifying Without Saying So (S.197) · The Principal Must Have Known What He Was Adopting (S.198) · All of It, or None of It (S.199)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.9-agency-pt3-ratification", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 196", "Keighley Maxsted and Co. v. Durant", "undisclosed principal cannot ratify", "Kelner v. Baxter", "pre-incorporation contract", "Section 197", "Section 198", "Section 199", "Section 200", "Section 235", "agency", "ratification" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part3-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part3-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.12.1", "1.2.12.2", "1.2.12.3" ] }, { "key": "1.3.9.4", "level": 3, "title": "Rights and Duties of Agents", "blurb": "Doing It As Told (S.211) · Skill, Diligence, and How Far the Loss Runs (S.212) · Accounts and Communication (S.213, S.214) · Loyalty: Self-Dealing and Secret Benefit (S.215, S.216)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.9-agency-pt4-rights-and-duties", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 7, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 211", "Section 212", "Section 213", "Section 214", "Section 215", "Section 216", "Section 217", "Section 218", "Section 219", "Section 220", "Section 221", "Section 222", "Section 223", "Section 224", "Section 225", "indemnity", "lien", "agency" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part4-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part4-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.12.1", "1.2.12.2", "1.2.12.3" ] }, { "key": "1.3.9.5", "level": 3, "title": "Enforcement and Termination", "blurb": "The Ways an Agency Ends (S.201) · The Agent Who Has an Interest (S.202) · Revoking, and the Point of No Return (S.203, S.204)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.9-agency-pt5-enforcement-and-termination", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-03", "gloss": [ "Section 201", "Section 202", "Section 203", "Section 204", "Section 205", "Section 206", "Section 207", "Section 208", "Section 209", "Section 210", "Section 226", "Section 227", "Section 228", "Section 229", "Section 230", "Section 233", "Section 234", "Section 231", "Section 232", "Section 235", "Section 236", "Section 237", "Section 238", "agency", "undisclosed principal", "Harshad J. Shah v. LIC of India", "apparent authority", "Said v. Butt", "identity material to the contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part5-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.9-agency-part5-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.12.1", "1.2.12.2", "1.2.12.3" ] }, { "key": "1.3.10.1", "level": 3, "title": "Contingent Contracts", "blurb": "The Three States of a Contingent Contract · Section 31 and the Word That Does All the Work · The Positive and the Negative Contingency (Sections 32 and 33)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.10-contingent-contracts-pt1-contingent-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 31", "contingent contract", "collateral event", "Bashir Ahmad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh", "Section 32", "positive contingency", "Section 33", "negative contingency", "Section 34", "future conduct of a living person", "Section 35", "time-bound contingency", "Section 36", "event impossible at the outset", "Section 56 first paragraph", "antecedent and supervening impossibility", "sleeping contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.10-contingent-contracts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.10-contingent-contracts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.6.1", "1.2.7.1", "1.2.7.2", "1.2.8.1", "1.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.11.1", "level": 3, "title": "Quasi-Contracts", "blurb": "The Theoretical Basis, and Why It Was Contested · Necessaries Supplied to a Person Incapable of Contracting (Section 68) · Payment by an Interested Person (Section 69)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.11-quasi-contracts-pt1-quasi-contracts", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "quasi-contract", "relations resembling those created by contract", "unjust enrichment", "Moses v. Macferlan", "Sinclair v. Brougham", "implied contract theory", "Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson", "Section 68", "necessaries", "Chappel v. Cooper", "Nash v. Inman", "Section 69", "payment by an interested person", "Secretary of State for India v. Fernandes", "Section 70", "non-gratuitous act", "State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons", "Section 71", "responsibility of finder of goods", "Section 72", "mistake of law and mistake of fact", "Sri Sri Shiba Prasad Singh v. Maharaja Srish Chandra Nandi", "Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiya Lal Saraf", "Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India", "Section 65" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.11-quasi-contracts-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.11-quasi-contracts-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.6.1", "1.2.7.1", "1.2.7.2", "1.2.8.1", "1.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.12.1", "level": 3, "title": "Performance and Joint Promises", "blurb": "Who Must Perform (Section 40) · Performance Accepted from a Third Person (Section 41) · Joint Liabilities and How They Devolve (Section 42)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.12-performance-and-joint-promises-pt1-performance-and-joint-promises", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 40", "personal skill", "performance by representatives", "Section 41", "performance accepted from a third person", "Section 42", "devolution of joint liabilities", "Section 43", "joint and several liability", "right of contribution", "sharing of loss on default in contribution", "Rama Shankar Singh v. Shyamlata Devi", "King v. Hoare", "successive actions against joint promisors", "Section 44", "release of one joint promisor", "Section 45", "devolution of joint rights" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.12-performance-and-joint-promises-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.12-performance-and-joint-promises-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.8.1", "1.2.8.2" ] }, { "key": "1.3.13.1", "level": 3, "title": "Reciprocal Promises and Appropriation", "blurb": "Time and Place, Where the Parties Did Not Say (Sections 46 to 49) · Performance in the Manner the Promisee Sanctions (Section 50)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.3.13-reciprocal-promises-and-appropriation-pt1-reciprocal-promises-and-appropriation", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 3, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 46", "reasonable time", "Section 47", "usual hours of business", "Section 48", "application for performance", "Section 49", "place for performance", "Section 50", "manner sanctioned by the promisee", "Section 51", "simultaneous reciprocal promises", "readiness and willingness", "Section 52", "order of performance", "Section 53", "party preventing performance", "Section 54", "default in the promise to be performed first", "Section 57", "legal and illegal reciprocal promises", "Section 58", "alternative promise one branch illegal", "Section 59", "appropriation of payments", "Section 60", "creditor's discretion", "time-barred debt", "Section 61", "Clayton's Case", "order of time" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.3.13-reciprocal-promises-and-appropriation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.3.13-reciprocal-promises-and-appropriation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 12 } ], "revise": [] } ] }, { "level": 4, "name": "HJS (non-Delhi)", "topics": [ { "key": "1.4.0.1", "level": 4, "title": "Defective Consent Digest", "blurb": "Void, Voidable and Illegal: Three Labels, Three Consequences · Coercion: Section 15 and the Width It Has Over Duress · Undue Influence: The Order of Enquiry and Who Must Prove What", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.0-misc-notes-advanced-free-consent-and-void-agreements", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "Section 15", "Chikam Amiraju v. Chikam Seshamma", "Section 16", "Raghunath Prasad v. Sarju Prasad", "Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib", "Lakshmi Amma v. Talengal Narayana Bhatta", "Section 17", "Derry v. Peek", "With v. O'Flanagan", "Section 18", "Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University", "Section 19", "Section 19A", "Section 20", "Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh", "Lewis v. Averay", "Ningawwa v. Byrappa Hirekurabar", "free consent", "coercion", "duress", "undue influence", "fraud", "misrepresentation", "mistake", "pardanashin", "non est factum", "void and voidable agreements" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.0-misc-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.0-misc-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1", "1.3.3.1", "1.3.3.2", "1.3.3.3", "1.3.3.4", "1.3.3.5" ] }, { "key": "1.4.0.2", "level": 4, "title": "Unlawful Agreements Digest", "blurb": "Section 23: The Five Gateways to Unlawfulness · Public Policy: A Doctrine Restrained and a Doctrine Expanding · The Named Restraints: Sections 26 to 28", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.0-misc-notes-advanced-pt2-unlawful-agreements", "format": "study", "read_time": 35, "version": 2, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "Section 23", "Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya", "Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly", "Narasimha Raju v. Gurumurthy Raju", "Section 27", "Madhub Chander v. Raj Coomar", "Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd.", "Section 28", "Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd.", "Section 30", "Babasaheb v. Rajaram", "Section 31", "Bashir Ahmad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh", "unlawful object", "agreements opposed to public policy", "restraint of trade", "restraint of legal proceedings", "wagering agreements", "contingent contracts", "uncertainty", "maintenance and champerty", "in pari delicto" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.0-misc-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.0-misc-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.4.1.1", "level": 4, "title": "Theory of Contract Formation", "blurb": "Why the Act Needs No Theory of Formation · What the Law Actually Looks For: Assent Tested From the Outside · Consideration: What the Requirement Is For, and Where India Departed", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.1-theory-of-contract-formation", "format": "study", "read_time": 25, "version": 8, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Section 2(a)", "Section 10", "Harvey v. Facey", "McPherson v. Appana", "Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India", "Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar", "Section 7", "Hyde v. Wrench", "U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd.", "Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.", "Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt", "Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sambrui", "Section 4", "Household Fire Insurance Co. v. Grant", "Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal and Co.", "Section 5", "Byrne v. Van Tienhoven and Co.", "Section 6", "Section 2(d)", "Durga Prasad v. Baldeo", "Kedar Nath v. Gorie Mohd.", "Doraswami Iyer v. Arunachala Ayyar", "Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu", "Section 25 Explanation 2", "Gopal Co. Ltd. v. Hazarilal Co.", "Section 25", "Rajlucky Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee", "Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani", "proposal", "invitation to treat", "mirror rule", "revocation", "consideration" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.1-theory-of-contract-formation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.1-theory-of-contract-formation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2", "1.3.2.1", "1.3.2.2", "1.3.2.3", "1.3.2.4" ] }, { "key": "1.4.2.1", "level": 4, "title": "Doctrine of Frustration", "blurb": "A Doctrine Built Out of an Exception · Absolute Contract to Statutory Rule: Four Positions and Where Each Died · Why India Decides Without Choosing a Theory", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.2-doctrine-of-frustration", "format": "study", "read_time": 33, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "Section 56", "Which Paragraph Each Illustration Serves", "Paradine v. Jane", "Taylor v. Caldwell", "Davis Contractors Ltd. v. Fareham Urban District Council", "Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.", "Section 65", "Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd.", "Parshotam Das v. Batala Municipal Committee", "Krell v. Henry", "Herne Bay Steam Boat Co. v. Hutton", "Robinson v. Davison", "Boothalinga Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami Nadar", "Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India", "Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath", "A.F. Ferguson and Co. v. Lalit Mohan Ghose", "Tsakiorglou and Co. Ltd. v. Noblee and Thorl GmbH", "M/s. Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. v. Union of India", "Easun Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.", "Maritime National Fish Ltd. v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd.", "Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja Harmohinder Singh", "Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas and Co.", "Avery v. Bowden", "restitution", "frustration", "force majeure", "anticipatory breach" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.2-doctrine-of-frustration-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.2-doctrine-of-frustration-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.3.5.1", "1.3.5.2" ] }, { "key": "1.4.3.1", "level": 4, "title": "Damages and Remoteness", "blurb": "Three Measures, One Breach · Section 73: The Frame of Liability · Remoteness: From Hadley to Heron II · The Indian Line on Remoteness · Turning Loss Into Money: The Market-Rate Measure", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.3-remedies-damages-ld-quantum-meruit", "format": "study", "read_time": 32, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "Section 73", "Hadley v. Baxendale", "British Columbia Saw Mills v. Nettleship", "Simpson v. London and North Western Railway Co.", "Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd.", "Heron II Koufos v. C. Czarnikow Ltd.", "Karsandas H. Thacker v. Saran Engineering Co.", "Working the Market-Rate Measure", "Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas", "Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India", "Jamal v. Moola Dawood Sons and Co.", "S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.", "damages for breach", "remoteness of damage", "mitigation of loss", "nominal damages" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.3-remedies-damages-ld-quantum-meruit-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.3-remedies-damages-ld-quantum-meruit-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.3.6.1", "1.3.6.2" ] }, { "key": "1.4.3.2", "level": 4, "title": "Agreed Sums and Restitution", "blurb": "Section 74: Agreed Sums, and the End of the Penalty Distinction · Must Loss Be Proved Under Section 74? · Forfeiture: Earnest, Deposits and the Ceiling", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.3-remedies-damages-ld-quantum-meruit-pt2-agreed-sums-and-restitution", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "Section 74", "Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd.", "Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.", "Maula Bux v. Union of India", "Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das", "Shri Hanuman Cotton Mills v. Tata Aircraft Ltd.", "Section 75", "Planche v. Colburn", "Craven-Ellis v. Canons Ltd.", "Section 70", "State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons", "liquidated damages and penalty", "quantum meruit", "earnest money", "restitution", "quasi contract" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.3-remedies-damages-ld-quantum-meruit-part2-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.3-remedies-damages-ld-quantum-meruit-part2-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.3.6.1", "1.3.6.2" ] }, { "key": "1.4.4.1", "level": 4, "title": "Privity and Third-Party Rights", "blurb": "The Half the Legislature Settled, and the Half It Did Not · Constructive Consideration: What England Built, Abandoned, and India Kept", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.4-privity-and-third-party-rights", "format": "study", "read_time": 37, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Venkata Chinnaya Rau v. Venkata Ramaya Garu", "Tweddle v. Atkinson", "Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge and Co.", "Beswick v. Beswick", "Krishna Lal Sadhu v. Pramila Bala Dassi", "Jamna Das v. Ram Avtar Pande", "Subbu Chetti v. Arunachalam Chettiar", "M.C. Chacko v. State Bank of Travancore", "Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Hussaini Begum", "Rana Uma Nath Bakhsh Singh v. Jang Bahadur", "Devaraja Urs v. Ram Krishniah", "Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.", "Section 226", "Section 230", "Section 231", "Section 232", "Section 233", "Section 234", "Section 25 Explanation 2", "consideration", "agency" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.4-privity-and-third-party-rights-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.4-privity-and-third-party-rights-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.4.5.1", "level": 4, "title": "Capacity Reconsidered", "blurb": "A Protection That Operates by Subtraction · One Principle, Three Doctrines · A Century of Retreat · Whose Incapacity Is It? · Two Theories of Incapacity in One Section", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.5-capacity-reconsidered", "format": "study", "read_time": 21, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "capacity as a protection that operates by subtraction", "incapacity attaching to a party rather than to a transaction", "why the protected minor is given no election where a defrauded party is", "the anti-circumvention principle uniting no estoppel and no tort on a contract and the limit of restitution", "Sadiq Ali Khan v. Jai Kishore", "Gadigappa v. Balagowda", "Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh on general law yielding to special", "Burnard v. Haggis against Jennings v. Rundall", "Leslie v. Sheill and restitution stopping where repayment begins", "the century of retreat from each of the three consequences", "Suraj Narain v. Sukhu Aheer and the fresh-consideration route", "Anant Rai v. Bhagwan Rai and an agreement void but not unlawful", "the ceiling of benefit to him or his estate", "S. Subrahmanyam v. K.S. Rao and the guardian's power to bind", "why the estate is capable throughout while the will is not", "no personal liability for necessaries and no adjudication as an insolvent", "minority as a status against unsoundness as a transactional and momentary condition", "Inder Singh v. Parmeshwardhari Singh", "R. Lingaraj v. Parvathi on total incapacity against weakness of intellect", "Rajinder Kaur v. Mangal Singh and the court's own duty", "the English rule making such a contract voidable", "disqualification by other law as policy incapacity rather than protective incapacity" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.5-capacity-reconsidered-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.5-capacity-reconsidered-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.3.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2", "1.3.2.1", "1.3.2.2", "1.3.2.3", "1.3.2.4" ] }, { "key": "1.4.6.1", "level": 4, "title": "Consent and Its Vitiations", "blurb": "A Category Defined Only by What Destroys It · The Head That Does Not Belong · Four Heads, One Variable · Three Remedial Regimes for Five Heads · The One Place the Act Reverses a Burden", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.6-consent-and-its-vitiations", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "free consent defined negatively and the consequences of a closed list", "growth by stretching the heads rather than adding one", "mistake as the head that denies consent instead of vitiating it", "why mistake is void and the other four voidable", "Section 13 and Section 20 as one idea stated twice", "the four heads as a spectrum ordered by the defendant's state of mind", "coercion requiring no intention", "undue influence requiring no dishonesty", "Derry v. Peek and intention to deceive", "misrepresentation as an honest belief", "damages for deceit available only on fraud", "the Exception to Section 19 and why active fraud is spared it", "fools have to be protected against knaves", "Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University", "the power to insist that the contract be performed as if the representation were true", "Section 19A's discretionary setting aside on terms", "the election as the mark of a flaw in the transaction", "Section 16(3) as the Act's only reversed burden", "Raghunath Prasad and the order of the enquiry", "why the reversal sits only in the relational head" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.6-consent-and-its-vitiations-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.6-consent-and-its-vitiations-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.4.1", "1.3.3.1", "1.3.3.2", "1.3.3.3", "1.3.3.4", "1.3.3.5" ] }, { "key": "1.4.7.1", "level": 4, "title": "Suretyship in Court", "blurb": "A Promise to Pay Another's Debt, for Nothing · Derivation Is the Whole Doctrine · What the Surety Is Buying · Order Is Not Content · Almost All of It Is Default Rules", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.7-suretyship-in-court", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "a promise to pay a debt that is not one's own and for which one receives nothing", "consideration located in a different pair of parties", "the surety's obligation as derivative rather than independent", "co-extensive liability", "why variance and release and composition and loss of security are one idea", "the creditor may not change the thing the surety guaranteed", "Section 139 as the general principle behind the specific discharges", "subrogation on payment", "the creditor's securities as the surety's fund whether or not he knew of them", "the implied promise of indemnity and the rightfully-paid limit", "contribution between co-sureties", "why the surety's rights are the price of a derivative liability", "Section 128's procedural edge as a rule about order and not about content", "the whole chapter as default rules displaceable by contract", "revocation of a continuing guarantee by notice and by death in the absence of a contract to the contrary", "and the indemnity boundary as a question about who may be pursued" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.7-suretyship-in-court-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.7-suretyship-in-court-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.4.8.1", "level": 4, "title": "Bailment, Pledge and Possession", "blurb": "Obligations That Attach to the Goods · A Lien Is Not a Property Right · Where Possession Becomes Security · Why Redemption Cannot Be Lost by Default", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.4.8-bailment-pledge-and-possession", "format": "study", "read_time": 17, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "the one chapter of the Act about possession rather than promise", "duties attaching to the holding of goods and not to the terms of a bargain", "the finder placed under a bailee's duties without agreeing to anything", "one standard of care for every bailee whether paid or unpaid", "the departure from the English graded standards", "where the gratuitous distinction survives", "a free loan recallable at any time", "termination of a gratuitous bailment on death", "lien as a right given by law and not by contract", "a lien conferring no property or ownership and dying with possession", "particular lien for labour or skill", "general lien conferred by status on a closed list of five", "pledge as the point at which possession becomes security", "actual and constructive delivery and real rather than merely physical possession", "the pawnee's power of sale on reasonable notice with surplus and shortfall", "subsequent advances presumed part of the original debt", "redemption absolute until actual sale", "Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali", "and pledge by non-owners as a system of exceptions protecting the person who relied on appearances" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.4.8-bailment-pledge-and-possession-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.4.8-bailment-pledge-and-possession-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.11.1", "1.2.11.2", "1.3.8.1", "1.3.8.2", "1.3.8.3" ] } ] }, { "level": 5, "name": "Delhi Judiciary", "topics": [ { "key": "1.5.0.1", "level": 5, "title": "Mastery Digest", "blurb": "PART A: WHAT THE LAW WILL NOT ENFORCE · PART B: CONTINGENT CONTRACTS (Sections 31 to 36) · PART C: PERFORMANCE (Sections 37 to 61) · PART D: GUARANTEE (Sections 126 to 147)", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.0-misc-notes-advanced-void-agreements-guarantee-performance", "format": "study", "read_time": 28, "version": 5, "last_updated": "2026-08-04" } ], "revise": [ "1.2.8.1", "1.2.8.2", "1.2.10.1", "1.2.10.2", "1.3.7.1", "1.3.7.2", "1.3.7.3", "1.3.12.1", "1.4.0.1" ] }, { "key": "1.5.1.1", "level": 5, "title": "Formation Problems", "blurb": "The Question a Court Asks First · Is There an Offer at All? The Invitation-to-Treat Frontier · Certainty, and the Bargain That Was Never Finished", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.1-formation-advanced-problems", "format": "study", "read_time": 40, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Ramji Dayawala and Sons v. Invest Import", "M/s. Progressive Constructions Ltd. v. Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd.", "Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.", "M/s. J.K. Enterprises v. State of M.P.", "Bhagwandas G. Kedia v. Girdharilal and Co.", "Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of M.P.", "Indian Airlines v. Madhuri Chowdhury", "mirror rule", "revocation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.1-formation-advanced-problems-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.1-formation-advanced-problems-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.4.1.1" ] }, { "key": "1.5.2.1", "level": 5, "title": "Frustration and Force Majeure", "blurb": "The Anatomy of the Plea · The Section Itself: Three Rules and Five Illustrations · What \"Impossible\" Was Held to Mean · The Grounds, Worked · Where the Plea Fails", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.2-frustration-and-force-majeure-advanced", "format": "study", "read_time": 36, "version": 6, "last_updated": "2026-08-04", "gloss": [ "Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.", "Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India", "M/s. Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. v. Union of India", "Ganga Saran v. Ram Charan Gopal", "Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath", "Easun Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.", "Dhanrajamal Gobindram v. Shamji Kalidas and Co.", "frustration", "force majeure" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.2-frustration-and-force-majeure-advanced-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.2-frustration-and-force-majeure-advanced-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.3.5.1", "1.3.5.2", "1.4.2.1" ] }, { "key": "1.5.3.1", "level": 5, "title": "Quantifying Damages", "blurb": "What Must Be Established Before Any Figure Arises · The Date and the Market: Where the Figure Comes From · Mitigation: A Defence About Quantum, Not a Duty to Be Proved", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.3-remedies-advanced-damages-specific-performance", "format": "study", "read_time": 30, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-07-28", "gloss": [ "Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India", "Jamal v. Moola Dawood Sons and Co.", "Murlidhar Chiranjilal v. Harishchandra Dwarkadas", "Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd.", "Maula Bux v. Union of India", "Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.", "Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das", "damages", "specific performance" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.3-remedies-advanced-damages-specific-performance-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.3-remedies-advanced-damages-specific-performance-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.8.1", "1.2.8.2", "1.3.6.1", "1.3.6.2", "1.3.12.1", "1.4.3.1", "1.4.3.2" ] }, { "key": "1.5.4.1", "level": 5, "title": "Complex Authority Problems", "blurb": "Is There an Agency at All? · Authority in an Emergency · Delegation: The Distinction That Decides Who Sues Whom · Ratification, and What It Cannot Do · The Agent's Duties and Rights", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.4-agency-complex-authority-problems", "format": "study", "read_time": 27, "version": 4, "last_updated": "2026-07-28", "gloss": [ "Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad", "Lloyd v. Grace Smith and Co.", "fraud", "agency", "ratification", "apparent authority" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.4-agency-complex-authority-problems-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.4-agency-complex-authority-problems-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.12.1", "1.2.12.2", "1.2.12.3", "1.3.9.1", "1.3.9.2", "1.3.9.3", "1.3.9.4", "1.3.9.5" ] }, { "key": "1.5.5.1", "level": 5, "title": "Public Policy as a Category", "blurb": "A Power the Act Confers and the Courts Decline to Use · The Counter-Current, and Where It Broke Through · \"Immoral\" Narrowed by the Same Instinct", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.5-public-policy-as-a-category", "format": "study", "read_time": 20, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "a power the Act confers and the courts decline to use", "public policy as an unruly horse", "Gherulal v. Mahadeo Das and the doctrine as a branch of common law crystallised under well-settled heads", "the ordinary function of a court being to apply the heads rather than create them", "Ratan Chand v. Askar and the argument for new heads", "Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath and heads evolved in the light of the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles", "unconscionable contracts between parties of unequal bargaining power held void rather than voidable because voidability would make the weaker party sue", "immoral narrowed by the juxtaposition argument", "a wager not being immoral", "Section 27 as the one place the legislature took the discretion away from the judge", "a per se rule bought at the price of over-inclusion and paid for in exceptions", "void but not illegal as withdrawal without condemnation", "collateral transactions to a wager", "the speculation line turning on the intention to take delivery", "motive against consideration", "Union Carbide", "stifling of prosecution and where it stops", "maintenance and champerty not per se void in India", "and the unconscionable share" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.5-public-policy-as-a-category-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.5-public-policy-as-a-category-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.5.6.1", "level": 5, "title": "Restitution Without Contract", "blurb": "A Chapter That Refuses to Name Itself · Is It a Principle, or Is It a List? · The Element That Changed Sides · Two Words That Mean Something Else Here", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.6-restitution-without-contract", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "a chapter that refuses to name itself", "certain relations resembling those created by contract", "the Act never using the words quasi-contract or unjust enrichment", "a drafter sidestepping a debate by declining to characterise", "whether the five sections instantiate a principle or form a list", "the finder as the section that fits no theory of enrichment", "Section 68 charging an estate rather than a person", "Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India and the passing-on defence", "restitution reconceived as the plaintiff's loss rather than the defendant's gain", "accounting as a condition precedent", "coercion in Section 72 meaning under pressure and wider than Section 15", "mistake of law recoverable under Section 72 while a contract made under mistake of law stands under Section 21", "Shri Shiba Prasad Singh and the reconciliation", "Trilok Chand Moti Chand and limitation running from discovery or from payment", "why characterisation decides the clock", "the problem of charging a man for a benefit he never asked for", "non-gratuitous intention and voluntary enjoyment as the Act's answer", "Article 299(1) and the government-contract cases", "State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal", "and quantum meruit as a rule of law rather than an inference of fact per Craven-Ellis v. Canons Ltd" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.6-restitution-without-contract-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.6-restitution-without-contract-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.1.1.1", "1.2.3.1", "1.2.3.2", "1.3.2.1", "1.3.2.2", "1.3.2.3", "1.3.2.4", "1.4.1.1" ] }, { "key": "1.5.7.1", "level": 5, "title": "Conditional Obligation", "blurb": "What a Separate Chapter Is For · The Same Structure, Permitted and Forbidden · Two Contingencies That Resolve in Different Ways · Where the Act Deems the Possible Impossible", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.7-conditional-obligation", "format": "study", "read_time": 18, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "every contract being conditional in some sense", "what a separate chapter is for", "the collateral event as the line between a condition on the obligation and the obligation itself", "a subsisting but unenforceable contract as a legal state the Act creates nowhere else", "why a sleeping contract cannot be repudiated", "the contingent contract and the wager as structurally identical", "the promisee's interest in the event as the only separator", "insurance and indemnity and guarantee as risk-allocation forms of one structure", "the asymmetry between a positive and a negative contingency", "resolution by an event against resolution by the exhaustion of possibility", "why the negative contingency needs a clock", "Section 35 as the provision that makes proof of a negative workable", "Section 34 deeming possible things impossible", "the phrase otherwise than under further contingencies as the Act's definition of remoteness", "a deeming provision chosen instead of a standard", "Section 36 and the irrelevance of knowledge", "why fault has no place where there is nothing for the obligation to attach to", "and the division of labour by which the contingency provisions govern the trigger and frustration governs the obligation" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.7-conditional-obligation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.7-conditional-obligation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [] }, { "key": "1.5.8.1", "level": 5, "title": "Performance as a Structure of Obligation", "blurb": "The Assumption the Rest of the Act Makes · One Obligation, or Several? · Performance as a Right · Who May Perform Is Not Who May Enforce · Order as an Allocation of Risk", "tiles": [ { "kind": "part", "label": "Study", "id": "1.5.8-performance-as-a-structure-of-obligation", "format": "study", "read_time": 19, "version": 1, "last_updated": "2026-08-07", "gloss": [ "the Act's silent assumption of one promisor and one promisee", "the joint-promise provisions as what happens when that assumption fails", "whether a joint promise is one obligation owed by several or several obligations", "the three Indian departures from English law as one choice about the unit of obligation worked out three times", "King v. Hoare and successive actions", "performance as a right as well as a duty", "the obligation to perform or offer to perform", "a refused tender excusing the promisor without depriving him of his rights", "promises involving personal skill against promises a representative may perform", "who may perform is not who may enforce", "acceptance of performance from a third person extinguishing the obligation", "privity governing enforcement rather than performance", "the order of performance as an allocation of credit risk", "readiness and willingness as a condition", "prevention as the statutory root of the prevention principle", "default in the promise that should be performed first", "severance of an illegal branch", "appropriation as a rule about who controls the meaning of an ambiguous act", "the three-rung ladder", "the debtor's right exercisable only at the time of payment", "order of time and proportionate discharge", "and the limitation consequence" ] }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Direct Test", "id": "contract-1.5.8-performance-as-a-structure-of-obligation-direct-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 }, { "kind": "test", "label": "Applied Test", "id": "contract-1.5.8-performance-as-a-structure-of-obligation-applied-test", "format": "test", "question_count": 10 } ], "revise": [ "1.2.8.1", "1.2.8.2", "1.3.12.1" ] } ] } ] } ] }