BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH

FACULTY OF LAW
TAKE-HOME ASSIGNMENT IN LIEU OF II PERIODICAL TEST 2020
B.A.LL.B X Semester (A+B): Information Technology Law,
Teacher: Akanksha Madaan
Every student has to submit case comment based on following instructions:
Unlike a case summary, a case analysis is a technical piece of legal writing which delves deep
into several layers of the case. You are required to peel these layers off to bring out the issues
and analyse the significance of the case in the light of those issues. You can do this by following
four simple steps:-
1. Re-reading the case keeping in the mind the issues that you are going to discuss in the
Comment;
2. Comprehending complex situations and identifying the legal problems or lacunae in the case;
3. Sieving out relevant details and indicators from the case that support your analysis.
4. Reaching the conclusion by adopting a particular approach
Structure of a Case Comment:
The body of a case comment or note consists of four parts. These are:
 Introduction - A case comment should ideally begin with a short paragraph identifying
the subject of the case so as to give the reader a fair idea regarding the issues you are
going to address in the comment.
 The second paragraph should be a very brief statement of facts stating only the part of the
factual matrix which is essential to the issue being discussed.
 Disposition - You should write the disposition and what was eventually held in the case
in a very precise manner.
 Analysis - This constitutes the main part of the case comment. Here you need to ask
yourself four important questions, such as:
1. Was the Court’s decision appropriate?
2. Does this decision change/conform with existing law? Was the reasoning consistent
with previous reasoning in similar cases? Is it likely that the decision will significantly
influence existing law?
3. Did the court adequately justify its reasoning? Was its interpretation of the law
appropriate? Was the reasoning logical /consistent? Did the court consider all/omit some
 issues and arguments? And, if there was omission, does this weaken the merit of the
decision?
4. What are the policy implications of the decision? Are there alternative approaches
which could lead to more appropriate public policy in this area?
Your answer to these questions must be substantiated by logical assertions and adequate
reasoning.
Conclusion - The conclusion to the case comment should contain the main essence of the
author’s findings and arguments. It is not always necessary to reach a conclusion to decide upon
whether or not the court's decision was right. You can simply end your analysis by briefly stating
the impact of the case and pointing out certain lacunae (if any).

Assignment could be submitted after you come back to my email address

(akanksha.madaan@nalsar.ac.in) by 07 April, 2020. Please also include a 1 page ‘duly signed
self-declaration’ towards the beginning of the assignment mentioning the key sources of
preparing this assignment, whether you have done it absolutely yourself/taking help of others
and the key learning. No marks would be deducted based on the contents of ‘duly signed self-
declaration’.. In case assignment is submitted via email it should bear the subject line:
Assignment by <Name of Student - Exam Roll number>. For Example Richa Mehta – 181389
WORLD LIMIT SHOULD NOT EXCEED TO 1500 - 2000
ASSIGNMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IF COPIED WITH OTHER STUDENT.
Assignment for students with class roll numbers:
o Roll no 1-3, 79 : K. Ramajayam V. The Inspector of Police

o Roll no 4- 6, 80: Syed Asifuddin And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh [2005
CriLJ 4314]

o Roll no 7 – 9, 81: Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of

Commercial Tax [2006 144 STC 59 Kar ]

o Roll no 10 – 12, 82: Poona Auto Anillaries Pvt. Ltd., Pune Versus Punjab
National Bank, HO New Delhi & Others

o Roll no 13 – 15, 83: Shreya Singhal V Union of India (2015)

o Roll no 16 – 18, 84: Avnish Bajaj vs State, famously known as Bazee.com case
(2005)
o Roll no 19 – 21, 85: Bhim Sen Garg vs State Of Rajasthan and Others. on 13
June, 2006 [2006 CriLJ 3643]
o Roll no 22 – 24, 86: Shankar vs State Rep. [2010]

o Roll no 25 – 27, 87: Sharat Babu Digumarti vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(Bazee.com Case, Appeal)

o Roll no 28 – 30, 89: Dr. L. Prakash vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2002)

o Roll no 31 – 33, 90: Mohammed vs State on (2010)

o Roll no 34 – 36, 91: Sreekanth C.Nair vs Licensee/Developer (2008) [Blocking of

Website]

o Roll no 37 – 39, 92: Firos vs State Of Kerala (2006)

o Roll no 40 – 42, 93: Christian Louboutin Sas V. Nakul Bajaj & Ors

o Roll no 43 – 45, 94: Google India Pvt Ltd VS. Visaka Industries Limited (2009)

o Roll no 46 – 48, 95: Gaussian Network Pvt. Ltd V Monica Lakhanpal & Another
(2012)

o Roll no 49 – 51, 96: Vyakti Vikas Kendra & other vs Jitender Bagga & Google
(2012)

o Roll no 52 – 54, 97: Anvar P.V vs P.K. Basheer & Others

o Roll no 55 – 57, 98: Harpal Singh V. State of Punjab (2016

o Roll no 58 – 60, 99: K. Ramajayam V. The Inspector Of Police

o Roll no 61 – 63, 100: Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna
Reddy & Anr (2009)

o Roll no 64 – 66: United States Supreme Court in the matter of CALDER v.

JONES, (1984)

o Roll no 67 – 69: Sreekanth C.Nair vs Licensee/Developer (2008) [Blocking of

Website]

o Roll no 70 – 72: Infosys Technologies Limited vs Akhil Gupta (2005)

 o Roll no 73 – 75: Yahoo! Inc. vs Akash Arora (1999)

o Roll no 76 – 78: Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd (2004)

In case of any query you can reach me during office hours from 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM