The Latin maxim 'where there is a right, there is a remedy' — every legal right that is violated must have a corresponding remedy available to the aggrieved person; the law cannot recognise a right without providing a means to enforce it.
Explanation
Ubi jus ibi remedium is one of the foundational maxims of common law — and Indian constitutional law. The maxim was foundational in establishing that: (a) courts have an obligation to provide redress for every violation of a legal right (Ashby v. White, 1703); (b) where a statute creates a right but provides no specific remedy, courts will imply a remedy (judicial remedy); and (c) the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 ('the heart and soul of the Constitution') is itself the constitutional embodiment of this maxim — every fundamental right violation must have a remedy before the Supreme Court. Dr. Ambedkar cited ubi jus ibi remedium as the reason Article 32 (making the right to constitutional remedies itself a fundamental right) was essential to the Constitution.
Statutory Provision
Article 32(1), Constitution of India: 'The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.' This is the constitutional embodiment of ubi jus ibi remedium — every fundamental right has a corresponding remedy in the Supreme Court. The maxim was applied in Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Lord Raym 938 and adopted in Indian law.
A transaction where the corporate debtor transferred an asset for significantly less than its fair market value during the look-back period — voidable under Section 45 IBC by the Resolution Professional or Liquidator.
Explanation
An undervalued transaction under Section 45 IBC is a transfer that diminishes the corporate debtor's estate by receiving significantly less than market value. Examples: selling a property worth Rs. 100 crores for Rs. 20 crores to a related party; gifting assets to family members; selling business divisions at below-market prices. Unlike preferential transactions (which pay existing creditors too much), undervalued transactions deplete the asset base by receiving too little. Look-back period: 12 months for non-related parties; 24 months for related parties. Exception: transactions made in good faith and for a purpose other than defrauding creditors, where the debtor did not know it would be insolvent.
Statutory Provision
Section 45(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: 'If the resolution professional or the liquidator, as the case may be, determines that the corporate debtor has been a party to an undervalued transaction, he shall make an application to the Adjudicating Authority to declare the transaction void and reverse the effect of such transaction in accordance with section 48 of this Code.' Section 46: 'The Adjudicating Authority shall examine the application made under section 45 and if the application is valid and genuine, it shall declare the undervalued transaction as void and restore the position of the corporate debtor to the pre-transaction status.'
A contract where one party makes a promise in exchange for a specific act (not a promise) by the other party — acceptance occurs through performance of the act, not through a promise to perform.
Explanation
In a unilateral contract, only one party is bound by a promise from the outset — the promisor promises to pay/perform if the other party does a specified act. The offeree is not bound to perform the act; they simply perform it to accept the offer and earn the reward. Classic example: a public reward advertisement ('₹10,000 for information leading to recovery of stolen goods'). The finder of information is not obliged to provide it, but if they do, the advertiser must pay. Under Indian law (Section 8 ICA), acceptance by conduct is recognised — performance of the act constitutes acceptance.
Statutory Provision
Section 8, Indian Contract Act, 1872: 'Performance of the conditions of a proposal, or the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal.' This provision recognises acceptance by performance — the mechanism of unilateral contract formation. Section 2(b): 'When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, he is said to accept the proposal' — assent can be by performance (conduct) under Section 8.
The principle that a person should not be allowed to retain a benefit obtained from another without paying for it when there is no legal basis for the enrichment — the law requires them to make restitution.
Explanation
Unjust enrichment is the foundational principle of the law of restitution and quasi-contracts. Under Sections 68-72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the law imposes obligations to pay for benefits received even without any agreement — to prevent one person from enriching themselves at another's expense without legal justification. The elements: (a) the defendant was enriched; (b) at the plaintiff's expense; (c) the enrichment was unjust (without legal basis). The remedy is restitution — restoring the plaintiff to their original position by requiring the defendant to return the benefit or pay its value.
Statutory Provision
Section 70, Indian Contract Act, 1872: 'Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered.' Section 72: 'A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.' Both sections are quasi-contractual provisions that prevent unjust enrichment.
Activities defined under Section 2(o) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) as those intended to bring about cession of any part of the territory of India, or to secede from the Union, or which disclaim, question, disrupt, or are intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.
Explanation
Section 2(o) UAPA defines 'unlawful activity' as any action taken by an individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, signs, visible representations, or otherwise) that is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about cession/secession of part of India's territory, disclaims sovereignty over part of India, or causes disaffection against India. Organisations that engage in unlawful activities may be declared 'unlawful organisations' (Section 3 UAPA) — making membership, support, or funding of such organisations a criminal offence. The UAPA has been used against numerous organisations across the political spectrum — from Sikh separatist groups to Maoist/Naxal organisations to some Muslim organisations.
Statutory Provision
Section 2(o), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended): 'unlawful activity in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise) — (i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or (ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or (iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India.'
Assembly of five or more persons with a common unlawful object.
Explanation
An assembly of five or more persons sharing a common object to commit an offence or to resist the execution of law — every member is liable for acts done in prosecution of that common object.
Carnal intercourse against the order of nature — formerly criminalised by IPC Section 377, partially decriminalised in 2018.
Explanation
The colonial-era offence under IPC Section 377 covering carnal intercourse against the order of nature — read down by the Supreme Court in 2018 to exclude consensual adult acts; non-consensual acts now covered under rape/assault provisions.
Statutory Provision
IPC Section 377 (read down in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018); BNS 2023 does not include an equivalent provision for consensual adult acts.
A general exception under Section 27 BNS that exempts a person who, at the time of committing an act, was of unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what they were doing was wrong or contrary to law.
Explanation
Section 27 BNS 2023 (formerly Section 84 IPC) codifies the McNaghten Rules (English law, 1843) in Indian criminal law. The defence requires: (a) the person was of unsound mind at the time of the act; (b) as a result of that unsoundness, they were incapable of knowing: (i) the nature of the act, OR (ii) that the act was wrong, OR (iii) that it was contrary to law. The standard is a cognitive test — did the accused know what they were doing and that it was wrong? Mere mental illness is not sufficient — the illness must have deprived the person of these specific cognitive faculties at the time of the act. The burden of proving insanity is on the accused (Section 105 BSA).
Statutory Provision
Section 27, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Section 84 IPC): 'Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.'
A principle of statutory and contractual interpretation that an interpretation which makes a provision effective and workable is to be preferred over one that renders it nugatory, void, or meaningless.
Explanation
Ut res magis valeat quam pereat (Latin: 'that the thing may rather have effect than perish') is the principle that courts should prefer interpretations that give effect to a provision over those that nullify it. When two interpretations are possible — one rendering the provision workable and the other rendering it a nullity — the former is preferred. This principle applies to both statutory interpretation and contract interpretation. In constitutional law, it supports interpretations that uphold statutory provisions rather than striking them down; in contract law, it leads courts to prefer readings that make contracts enforceable rather than void.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — this is a fundamental principle of interpretation applied across all legal instruments. The Supreme Court has applied it in constitutional interpretation: when a constitutional provision admits two interpretations — one consistent with the Constitution's objectives and one that defeats them — the former is preferred. Applied in contract law: Section 95 BSA (formerly Section 95 IEA) and related principles support reading contracts to give them effect where possible.
