LANDMARK CASE

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly

(1986) 3 SCC 156 · Supreme Court of India · Contract law

At a glance

Citation: (1986) 3 SCC 156
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Contract law
In one line: Yes. Unconscionable terms in contracts between unequal parties are void under Section 23.

1 Facts

A rule allowed termination of permanent employees on three months' notice.

2 Issue

Can courts strike down unfair contract terms?

3 What the court decided

Yes. Unconscionable terms in contracts between unequal parties are void under Section 23.

4 Why it matters

Leading case on unconscionability.

5 Think about it

When is bargaining power truly unequal?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Contract law

Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas AIR 1966 SC 543
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256
Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2017) 14 SCC 80
Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405
Felthouse v. Bindley (1862) 11 CB (NS) 869
Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya AIR 1959 SC 781

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.