SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
COORDINATOR – DIMPLE MEENA
Please follow the following instructions for submission:
• The case brief should be between 300 - 600 words (excluding endnotes)
• The document should be named (name of the author, Title of the Article example - Romit Jain,
Keshavananda bharti v. Union of india)
• All submissions must be in MS Word format (.doc) or (.docx), with Times New Roman font.
• Kindly give case citation along with the Title. Example - Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403
(Wis. 1891)
• The website uses only endnotes (and not footnotes) as a method of citation. The endnotes must
follow the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (19th Edition).
• The manuscript should not be plagiarized beyond 20%, else the submission would not be
considered at all, and the same shall also lead to non-issuance of the internship certificate upon
completion of the internship tenure.
• Submissions made should be on an exclusive basis i.e., the submission should be unpublished
and should not be under any concurrent consideration.
• Submissions must be sent to WhatsApp group by 28th January.
FORMAT
Facts
Issue
Rule
Held
Rationale
Current Day significance
SAMPLE CASE BRIEF
Murray v Ministry of Defense
[1988] 1 WLR 692
Facts
Margaret Murray, M, was a suspect of supporting IRA, a precluded association in
Northern Ireland. D and five fighters showed up at M's home to capture M at 7am learned
M's character, gathered all the inhabitants of the house in one room, and looked through
the house.
D officially captured the offended party at 7.30 am under area 14 of the Northern Ireland
(Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) which permits individuals from the
military to capture without a warrant and confine for as long as four hours an individual
associated with submitting an offense.
M was taken to a military screening place where she was pat-looked, met, and delivered
at 9.35 am. M guaranteed harms against the Ministry of Defense for bogus detainment
and trespass. The adjudicator excused her activity. M spoke to the Court of Appeal and
afterward to the House of Lords.
Issue
M claimed that she had been wrongfully arrested, as she was given no proper reason for
her detention by the arresting officer.
Rule
The application of Tort of false imprisonment;
The application of tort of detention of suspect and arrest
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act).
Held
It's anything but a fundamental component of the misdeed of bogus detainment that the
casualty ought to know about the reality of forswearing of freedom. Where an individual
is kept by a cop and realized that they were being confined, that added up to a capture
despite the fact that no conventional expressions of capture were spoken by the official.
The inability to make the proper capture until thirty minutes subsequent to going into the
house didn't deliver M's detainment from 7am unlawful and in light of the current
situation of the case it was sensible for D to postpone officially capturing M until D had
avoided potential risk to gather all the individuals in the house in one room and to look
through the house. The intrigue was excused.
Rationale
The court likewise thought about what comprises helpful excusal: in other words,
comprehensively, acquiescence because of grievous conditions at work. It found that,
albeit certain workers are not perceived as such for the reasons for the LRA, the sacred
option to reasonable work rehearse is in any case pertinent to them, and that the custom-
based law agreement of business presently incorporates insurance against helpful excusal.
The worker had an authoritative right not to be excused. It was likewise held that, for an
effective case dependent on productive excusal, the business must not exclusively be
liable for the conditions which instigate the representative to leave; it should likewise be
to be faulted for those conditions.
Current day significance
Murray was followed in Daymon Worldwide SA Inc. v CCMA and Others,i where the
Labor Court found that an organization had done what it could to help a lady who had
surrendered in light of the fact that she had supposedly been explicitly hassled.
In Mogothle v Premier, Northwest Province,ii The Labor Court depended on the
business' obligation of reasonable managing representatives to discover the suspension of
a worker unreasonable not regarding area 186 of the LRA, yet rather as far as the custom-
based law.
(2009) 30 ILJ 575 (LC).
2
Unreported J2622/08 dd 5/1/2009
TOPICS FOR WEEK 1
COORDINATOR – DIMPLE MEENA
1. Bansraj Das v. Secretary of State AIR 1939 All 373 - Deepika
2. P.Rengaswami Pillai v. Srirangam Municipal Council AIR 1954 Mad 213- Deepika
3. Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia v International Transport Workers’
Federation [1982] 2 All ER 67- Faiz
4. Atlas Express Ltd. v Kafco [1989] 1 QB 833- Faiz
5. CTN Cash & Carry Ltd v Gallagher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714- Harshitha
6. Subhash Chandra Mushib v. Ganda Prasad Mushib, AIR 1967 SC 878-
Harshitha
7. Lingo Bhimrao Naik v. Dattatraya Shripad Jamadagni (1937) 39 BOMLR
1233- Kaushik
8. Central Inland Water Transportation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly, AIR 1986 SC
1571- Kaushik
9. Lloyds Bank v. Bundy, [1975] 1 QB 326 - Malika
10. Vokes v. Arthur Murray, 212 So. 2d 1906 (1968)- Malika
11. Bhagwani Bai v. LIC, Jabalpur, AIR 1984 MP 126- Mohnish
12. Esso Petroleum v Mardon, [1976] QB 801- Mohnish
13. Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, 1998 3 SCC 471- Muskaan
14. Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597- Muskaan
15. Saunders v. Anglia Building Society [1970] 3 All ER 961 - Navneet
16. Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. -
Navneet
17. Percept D’Markr v. Zaheer Khan-Oshin
18. Taylor v. Chester- Oshin
19. National Insurance Company Ltd v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak and Company-
Prathna
20. Sundara Gownder v. Balachandran- Prathna
21. Patel v. Mirza- Rachit
22. Ramzan v. Hussaini, AIR 1990 SC 529 - Rachit
23. Deokabai Smt v. Uttam JT 1993 (4) SC 374- Varunendra
24. Cutter v Powell, (1795) 101 ER 573- Varunendra
25. Taylor v. Caldwell, QB (1863) 3 B & S: 122 ER 309- Vasudha
26. Energy Watchdog v. CERC, 2017 SCC Online SC 378- Vasudha
27. Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur, 1954 SCR 310- Vishwa Bharti
28. Kalianna Gounder v. Palani Gounder, (1970) 2 SCR 455- Vishwa Bharti
i
ii
