The cases you are expected to cite by name.
Each judgment is set out the way you must reproduce it: facts, issue, held, and the one-line ratio that actually earns the mark — followed by a model answer extract showing how to work it into a script.
Company Law
5 casesSalomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd.
[1897] AC 22 · Foundation & Intermediate
A duly incorporated company is a legal person separate and distinct from its members, however few they are and however completely one of them controls it.
Lee v. Lee's Air Farming Ltd.
[1961] AC 12 · Foundation & Intermediate
A controlling shareholder and governing director may at the same time be an employee of his own company, because the company is a separate legal person capable of contracting with him.
Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche
(1875) LR 7 HL 653 · Intermediate
An act beyond the objects stated in the memorandum is void ab initio and cannot be ratified, even by the unanimous assent of all the shareholders.
Royal British Bank v. Turquand
(1856) 6 E&B 327 · Intermediate
A person dealing with a company in good faith may assume that the company's internal procedures and formalities have been duly complied with.
Foss v. Harbottle
(1843) 2 Hare 461 · Intermediate
Where a wrong is done to a company, the company itself is the proper plaintiff, and the court will not ordinarily interfere at the suit of individual members in matters the majority can lawfully ratify.
Contract Law
2 casesCarlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
[1893] 1 QB 256 · Foundation
A general offer made to the world at large may be accepted by performing the conditions stated in it, and communication of acceptance is not required where the offer dispenses with it.
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
(1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC) · Foundation
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio, and cannot be enforced against him or ratified by him on attaining majority.
Direct Tax
2 casesBacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
(1955) 27 ITR 1 (SC) · Intermediate & Final
Dividend received by a shareholder is income from the shares, not from land, and does not take on the agricultural character of the company's own income.
McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
(1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC) · Final
Legitimate tax planning within the framework of the law is permissible, but colourable devices and dubious methods adopted to avoid tax are not.
International Taxation
1 caseThe company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers to the memorandum.
- 10
- Landmark judgments, and growing
- 1843
- Where the ledger starts — Foss v. Harbottle
- 4
- Parts you must reproduce: facts, issue, held, ratio
- 1
- Model answer extract per case, ready to adapt
Four sentences. That is the whole technique.
Most students lose marks on case law not because they forgot the case, but because they retold it instead of applying it.
- 01
Name it
Give the case name and year. A citation if you are sure of it, nothing if you are not — an invented citation costs more than it earns.
- 02
State the ratio
One sentence on the principle the case laid down. This is the sentence the examiner is looking for.
- 03
Apply it
Connect the principle to the facts you have been given, naming the specific fact that triggers it.
- 04
Conclude
Say what follows for the parties. A question that asks 'advise' is not answered until you have advised.
Have questions?
Find answers.
Still unsure about something? We're happy to help you figure it out.
Talk to usHow should I write a case law in a CA exam answer?
Name the case and its citation, state the principle it laid down in one sentence, apply that principle to the facts in front of you, then conclude. Reciting the facts of the reported case at length earns nothing — the marks are in the principle and its application.
Do I need to remember citations?
The case name and year are enough for most questions, and a correct citation adds credibility. A wrong citation is worse than none at all, so learn them precisely for the landmark cases and name the case alone where you are unsure.
How many case laws should I learn?
Depth beats breadth. Around fifteen to twenty landmark cases, known well enough to state the ratio and apply it, will serve you better across Law, Audit and Tax than a hundred half-remembered names.
What is the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta?
The ratio decidendi is the legal principle essential to the decision, and it binds. Obiter dicta are observations made in passing which do not bind but may persuade. The distinction matters — the influential remarks in McDowell on tax avoidance were made in a concurring judgment and were later substantially narrowed.
Are these case summaries a substitute for ICAI material?
No. They are a revision aid. Case law develops through later judgments and legislative amendment, so always check the position stated in ICAI's study material for your attempt before relying on any principle.
Please note
These summaries are prepared for CA exam preparation and are not legal advice. Case law develops — a decision may be distinguished, read down or superseded by later judgments or by legislative amendment. Verify the current position against ICAI's study material for your attempt and against the reported judgment before relying on any principle stated here.
Knowing the case is not the skill. Applying it under time is.
Get case-based practical questions on any Law, Audit or Tax topic, and have your written answers evaluated for structure, citation and application.
Start your CA journey- Free to start
- All 3 CA levels
- Answer evaluation