Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act
Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Act
Standing/Capacity
Standing/Capacity
Wh
Wh
o cannot sue?
o cannot sue?
All persons have capacity to sue and be All persons have capacity to sue and be sued in tort.sued in tort.
This, however, is a general rule and is This, however, is a general rule and is subject to modification in respect of subject to modification in respect of certain categories of persons. It necessitates to study
certain categories of persons. It necessitates to study the following:the following:
Who cannot sue; andWho cannot sue; and
Wh
Wh
o cannot sue?
o cannot sue?
Following persons may not sue due to restriction on personality, partially or Following persons may not sue due to restriction on personality, partially or fully.
fully.
Foreign StateForeign State
Alien Enemy Alien Enemy
ConvictConvict
InsolventInsolvent
Husband and WifeHusband and Wife
F
F
oreign State
oreign State
A foreign state cannot sue in any Court A foreign state cannot sue in any Court of India unless such State has of India unless such State has beenbeen recognised by the Government of India.
recognised by the Government of India.
As per Section 87A (1) (a), CPC As per Section 87A (1) (a), CPC ³Foreign State´ means any State outside India³Foreign State´ means any State outside India which has been recognised by the Central Government.
As per As per Section 84, CPCSection 84, CPC a foreign state a foreign state may sue in any may sue in any competent court:competent court: provided that the object of the suit is t
provided that the object of the suit is to enforce a private right vested in to enforce a private right vested in the ruler he ruler or such state or in any officer of such State in his public capacity.
or such state or in any officer of such State in his public capacity.
[As per Section 8[As per Section 87A (1) (b) CPC7A (1) (b) CPC ³Ruler´³Ruler´, in relation to a foreign State, means, in relation to a foreign State, means the person who is for the time being recognised by
the person who is for the time being recognised by the Central Government tothe Central Government to be the head of that state.]
Private Rig
Private Rig
h
h
ts:
ts:
The private riThe private rights spoken of in this section dghts spoken of in this section does not mean individual oes not mean individual rightsrights asas opposed to those
opposed to those of the body politic but of the body politic but those private rights of the those private rights of the StateState whichwhich must be enforced in a Court of Justice
must be enforced in a Court of Justice as distinguished from its political or as distinguished from its political or territorial rights
territorial rights which must, from their very naturewhich must, from their very nature, be made the subject , be made the subject or or arrangement between on e State and another.
Mirza Ali Akbar v. United Arab Republic, AIR Mirza Ali Akbar v. United Arab Republic, AIR 1966 SC 230,1966 SC 230, It was held by the Supreme Court that µprivate rights¶ It was held by the Supreme Court that µprivate rights¶ means rights which maymeans rights which may be enforced by a foreign state against private individuals as distinguished from be enforced by a foreign state against private individuals as distinguished from rights which one State in its political capacity may
rights which one State in its political capacity may have as against another have as against another State in it s political capacity.
Alien Enemy
Alien Enemy
Alien enemy is a person of enemy nationality or a person Alien enemy is a person of enemy nationality or a person residing in or carryingresiding in or carrying on business in enemy territory, whatever his nationality. An alien enemy cannot on business in enemy territory, whatever his nationality. An alien enemy cannot sue in his own right.
sue in his own right.
Johnstone v. Pedler, (1921) 2 AC 262Johnstone v. Pedler, (1921) 2 AC 262
It was held that an alien enemy residing within the realm by It was held that an alien enemy residing within the realm by the express or tacitthe express or tacit licence of the Crown is temporarily free from his enemy
licence of the Crown is temporarily free from his enemy character and cancharacter and can invoke jurisdiction of courts.
As per Section 83, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, alien enemies residing in India As per Section 83, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, alien enemies residing in India with the permission of the Central Government and alien friends, may sue in with the permission of the Central Government and alien friends, may sue in any court otherwise competent to try the suit, as
any court otherwise competent to try the suit, as if they were citizens of if they were citizens of India,India, but alien enemies residing in India without such permission, or residing in a but alien enemies residing in India without such permission, or residing in a foreign country, shall not sue in any such c
foreign country, shall not sue in any such court.ourt.
Further, every person residing in a foreign country, the Government of which isFurther, every person residing in a foreign country, the Government of which is at war with India and carrying on business in
at war with India and carrying on business in that country without a license onthat country without a license on that behalf granted by the Central Government is deemed to be an alien enemy that behalf granted by the Central Government is deemed to be an alien enemy residing
Convict
Convict
A convict can under English Law sue f A convict can under English Law sue for wrongs to his person and or wrongs to his person and property likeproperty like any other citizen.
any other citizen.
1870-19481870-1948
Under the Forfeiture Act, 1870, a convict whose sentence was Under the Forfeiture Act, 1870, a convict whose sentence was in force andin force and unexpired, and who was not ³lawfully at large under any license´ could not unexpired, and who was not ³lawfully at large under any license´ could not suesue for an injury to his property, or f
for an injury to his property, or for recovery of a debt.or recovery of a debt.
Under English Law, a convicted person, in spite of Under English Law, a convicted person, in spite of his imprisonment, retains allhis imprisonment, retains all civil rights which are not taken away
civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary expressly or by necessary implication.implication.
The Indian Law is the same.The Indian Law is the same.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
It was held that ³conviction of a It was held that ³conviction of a person does not draw any iron curtain betweenperson does not draw any iron curtain between him and his rights and he is not
him and his rights and he is not reduced to a non-person´.reduced to a non-person´.
I
I
nsolvent
nsolvent
Insolvent person may be defined as ³one who is unable Insolvent person may be defined as ³one who is unable to satisfy creditors or to satisfy creditors or discharge liabilities, either because liabilities exceed assets or because of discharge liabilities, either because liabilities exceed assets or because of inability to pay debts as they mature´.
inability to pay debts as they mature´.
An insolvent person may be sued for a An insolvent person may be sued for a tort committed by him either before or tort committed by him either before or during insolvency, and if a decree is obtained against him, the amount awarded during insolvency, and if a decree is obtained against him, the amount awarded is a debt provable in insolvency.
In case of torts committed against an insolvent person, a In case of torts committed against an insolvent person, a distinction is to bedistinction is to be drawn between torts to the person and torts to property.
drawn between torts to the person and torts to property.
In case of torts committed to property, the In case of torts committed to property, the right of action in respect of right of action in respect of insolvent¶sinsolvent¶s property passes to the Official Assignee or Receiver for
property passes to the Official Assignee or Receiver for the benefit of histhe benefit of his creditors.
creditors.
In case of torts exclusively to In case of torts exclusively to the person, reputation or feelings of the insolventthe person, reputation or feelings of the insolvent remains with the insolvent.
But where a torBut where a tort causes injury both to the pt causes injury both to the person and propertyerson and property of the insolvent,of the insolvent, the right of action will be split and will
the right of action will be split and will pass, so far as pass, so far as it relates to the property, toit relates to the property, to the Official Assignee or Receiver, and will remain in the insolvent so
the Official Assignee or Receiver, and will remain in the insolvent so far as itfar as it relates to his person.
relates to his person.
One must understand that in such a case either tOne must understand that in such a case either the cause of action is he cause of action is divideddivided between him and the trustee or they may join together in one
between him and the trustee or they may join together in one action in whichaction in which case damages will be assessed under two separate heads.
H
H
usband and
usband and
W
W
ife
ife
EnglandEngland
Prior to 1882, a married woman could not sue for any Prior to 1882, a married woman could not sue for any tort committed by a thirdtort committed by a third person unless her husband joined with her as plaintiff.
person unless her husband joined with her as plaintiff.
She could also not be sued for a She could also not be sued for a tort committed by her unless her husband wastort committed by her unless her husband was made a defendant.
made a defendant.
Further, she could not sue her husband and the husband could not sue Further, she could not sue her husband and the husband could not sue her for her for any tort committed by one against the other.
These anomalies have been removed by the Married Women¶s¶ Property Act,These anomalies have been removed by the Married Women¶s¶ Property Act, 1882
1882 and the Law Reform (and the Law Reform (Married Women and TortfeasorMarried Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935.s) Act, 1935.
A married woman can sue for any tort A married woman can sue for any tort committed by a third person and can alsocommitted by a third person and can also be sued for any tort committed by her without
be sued for any tort committed by her without joining her husband who cannotjoining her husband who cannot be made liable or made party to a suit
be made liable or made party to a suit simply because he is the husband.simply because he is the husband.
Finally, by the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act, 1962, each Finally, by the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act, 1962, each of the parties toof the parties to a marriage has the same right of action in t
a marriage has the same right of action in tort against the other as if they ort against the other as if they werewere not married
not married butbut the court has a discretion to stay the court has a discretion to stay the proceedings to preventthe proceedings to prevent them from using it as a forum f
them from using it as a forum for trivial domestic disputes without any chance of or trivial domestic disputes without any chance of substantial benefit to either of them.
IndiaIndia
Marital status of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Muslims in Marital status of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Muslims in India isIndia is governed by their personal laws and not by the c
governed by their personal laws and not by the common law.ommon law.
Marriage under these person laws does not affect the capacity of Marriage under these person laws does not affect the capacity of the parties for the parties for suing
suing or for being suor for being sueded nor doenor does it confer any pros it confer any protectiotection to any of the spousn to any of the spouseses for any tortious act committed by one against the
Corporation
Corporation
A corporation is not a real person but only A corporation is not a real person but only a juristic or fictitious person anda juristic or fictitious person and
cannot, unlike real persons, be brought into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by any cannot, unlike real persons, be brought into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by any manner of falsehood.
manner of falsehood.
Thus when a libel had been made against a corporation, in the aggregateThus when a libel had been made against a corporation, in the aggregate capacity, it is in fact, the
capacity, it is in fact, the individuals composing it and not the corporation in theindividuals composing it and not the corporation in the aggregate capacity whose reputation has been actually
aggregate capacity whose reputation has been actually injured.injured.
Therefore the law is that a corporation cannot sue for Therefore the law is that a corporation cannot sue for defamation affectingdefamation affecting personal reputation only.
personal reputation only.
Obviously it is individual member who can have a cause Obviously it is individual member who can have a cause of action and allegeof action and allege loss or personal reputation.
Mayor of Manchester v. Williams, (1891) 1 QB 94Mayor of Manchester v. Williams, (1891) 1 QB 94
The plaintiff corporation suit for damages failed in respect of a statementThe plaintiff corporation suit for damages failed in respect of a statement
containing charges of corrupt practices in the administration of municipal affairs, containing charges of corrupt practices in the administration of municipal affairs, for such statement was held not to injuriously affect the
for such statement was held not to injuriously affect the reputation of thereputation of the corporation as such.
However, a corporation can sue for defamation, when it affects However, a corporation can sue for defamation, when it affects itit
business and properly even though the charge may be levelled against business and properly even though the charge may be levelled against the individual members composing it.
the individual members composing it.
Two conditions must be fulfilled:Two conditions must be fulfilled:
The statement must be of such nature that it The statement must be of such nature that it would be defamatory, if would be defamatory, if directed against the individual;
directed against the individual;
It must be of such It must be of such a nature that it tends to cause a nature that it tends to cause actual damage to theactual damage to the corporation in terms of its property or business.
South Hilton Coal Co., v. North Eastern News South Hilton Coal Co., v. North Eastern News Association, (1894) 1 QB 133Association, (1894) 1 QB 133
The plaintiff Company¶s suit for damages was decreed in respect of stThe plaintiff Company¶s suit for damages was decreed in respect of statementatement where in it was charged with failure to
where in it was charged with failure to provide decent and sanitaryprovide decent and sanitary
accommodation for it¶s workmen and their families because such a statement accommodation for it¶s workmen and their families because such a statement was calculated to injure in the way of
Wh
Wh
o cannot be sued?
o cannot be sued?
There are nine There are nine classesclasses of persons who cannot be of persons who cannot be sued in tort. They are:sued in tort. They are:
Foreign Sovereigns;Foreign Sovereigns; Ambassadors; Ambassadors; Infants;Infants; Lunatics;Lunatics; Corporations;Corporations;
Persons having Parental or Quasi-parental authorityPersons having Parental or Quasi-parental authority
Persons having Judicial and Executive AuthorityPersons having Judicial and Executive Authority
Trade Unions;Trade Unions;
1.
1.
F
F
oreign Sovereigns
oreign Sovereigns
English LawEnglish Law
Unless a foreign sovereign submits to the jurisdiction of the Court, Unless a foreign sovereign submits to the jurisdiction of the Court, EnglishEnglish courts have no jurisdiction over
courts have no jurisdiction over an independent foreign sovereign.an independent foreign sovereign.
No court can entertain an action against a foreign sovereign for anything doneNo court can entertain an action against a foreign sovereign for anything done or omitted to be done, by him in his
or omitted to be done, by him in his public capacity as representative of thepublic capacity as representative of the nation of which he is the head.
Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, (1894) 1 QB 149Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, (1894) 1 QB 149
I
I
ndian Law
ndian Law
The heads of all countries are exempt from the jurisdiction of the The heads of all countries are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts.Indian Courts.
The real principle on which the exemption of every sovereign from theThe real principle on which the exemption of every sovereign from the jurisdiction of every Court has been deduced is that the
jurisdiction of every Court has been deduced is that the exercise of suchexercise of such jurisdiction would
jurisdiction would be incompatible with be incompatible with his real dignityhis real dignity i.e. with his absolutei.e. with his absolute independence of every superior authority.
independence of every superior authority.
Section 86 Section 86 of the Code of the Code of Civil Proceof Civil Proceduredure lays down that:lays down that:
³No ruler of a sovereign State may be sued ³No ruler of a sovereign State may be sued in any Court otherwise competent toin any Court otherwise competent to try the suit except with the
U
U
nited States of America
nited States of America
United States law prohibits most civil lawsuits by United States law prohibits most civil lawsuits by an individual against a foreignan individual against a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
However, the Act includes a number of exceptions that, when sHowever, the Act includes a number of exceptions that, when satisfied, allow for atisfied, allow for such lawsuits to be filed in U.S.
such lawsuits to be filed in U.S. Courts. One of these exceptions applies to tCourts. One of these exceptions applies to thehe victims of state-sponsored terrorism.
2
2
.
.
Ambassadors/Diplomatic Agents
Ambassadors/Diplomatic Agents
The protection of unhampered and free exercise of the diplomatic function wasThe protection of unhampered and free exercise of the diplomatic function was recognised as one of the fundamental purposes of the law of diplomatic
recognised as one of the fundamental purposes of the law of diplomatic
immunity in the Havana Convention, 1928, the Draft of the Harvard Research immunity in the Havana Convention, 1928, the Draft of the Harvard Research Committee, 1932 and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Committee, 1932 and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.Relations, 1961.
In The Parlement In The Parlement BelgeBelge (1880) 5 PD 197, 20(1880) 5 PD 197, 207, Brett LJ, asserted that ³7, Brett LJ, asserted that ³thethe immunity of an ambassador from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the c
immunity of an ambassador from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the country toountry to which he is accredited is based upon his
which he is accredited is based upon his being the representative of thebeing the representative of the independent Sovereig
independent Sovereign or State, which sends him n or State, which sends him upon the faith of his beingupon the faith of his being admitted to be clothed with the same independence of and superiority to all admitted to be clothed with the same independence of and superiority to all
Ambassadors cannot be sued for torts either in the Courts Ambassadors cannot be sued for torts either in the Courts of England or in theof England or in the Courts of India on principles of international policy. The immunity also extends Courts of India on principles of international policy. The immunity also extends to the family of such minister or
to the family of such minister or ambassador.ambassador.
In India, the In India, the provision of Section 86 of thprovision of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Proceduree Code of Civil Procedure applies inapplies in case of Ambassador also.
case of Ambassador also.
The remedy against an ambassador is to move one¶s own Government toThe remedy against an ambassador is to move one¶s own Government to induce the Government of that country to take an action against t
induce the Government of that country to take an action against thehe ambassador and his staff, which they may think t
ambassador and his staff, which they may think to fit to satisfy the o fit to satisfy the GovernmentGovernment which complains.
I
I
ndia
ndia
To give effect to the To give effect to the Vienna Convention Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations, of Diplomatic Relations, 1961, 1961, IndiaIndia formulated the Diplomatic Immunities Privileges Act, 1964, which
formulated the Diplomatic Immunities Privileges Act, 1964, which essentiallyessentially deals with the diplomatic privileges and immunities as set out in the c
deals with the diplomatic privileges and immunities as set out in the convention.onvention.
Accordingly, diplomatic agents enjoy absolute immunity from the Accordingly, diplomatic agents enjoy absolute immunity from the criminalcriminal
jurisdiction of the receiving state, and immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state, and immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.
jurisdiction.
This immunity of diplomats extends not merely to their own persons, but tThis immunity of diplomats extends not merely to their own persons, but to their o their suite and members of their family forming part of their household, provided that suite and members of their family forming part of their household, provided that they are not nationals of the host country.
3
3
.
.
Minor (
Minor (
I
I
nfant)
nfant)
As per sections 10 a As per sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Connd 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872tract Act, 1872 a minor isa minor is incompetent to contract.
incompetent to contract.
In Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose, (1903) 30 Cal. 539, it was In Mohori Bibee v. Dhurmodas Ghose, (1903) 30 Cal. 539, it was held that aheld that a minor¶s agreement being void ab initio; no action can be brought under the law minor¶s agreement being void ab initio; no action can be brought under the law of contract against him.
of contract against him.
The law of torts does not make any The law of torts does not make any distinction on the basis of age. Thus a distinction on the basis of age. Thus a childchild of seven years could be sued for
of seven years could be sued for trespass like a person of trespass like a person of full age.full age.
However if the tort is such However if the tort is such as requires a special mental element such as as requires a special mental element such as deceit,deceit, malicious prosecution, a child cannot be held liable for the same unless
malicious prosecution, a child cannot be held liable for the same unless sufficient maturity for committing that tort can be proved in this
Walmsley v. Humenick, (1954) 3 D.L.R. 232Walmsley v. Humenick, (1954) 3 D.L.R. 232
The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the defendant, a child of fiveThe Supreme Court of British Columbia held that the defendant, a child of five years, could not be held liable for negligence because he had not reached that years, could not be held liable for negligence because he had not reached that stage of mental development where it could be said that the should be
stage of mental development where it could be said that the should be foundfound legally responsible for his negligent acts.
Sometimes, the Sometimes, the same act on the part of same act on the part of a minor may result in such wronga minor may result in such wrongs ±s ± aa tort and the breach of contract. The question will arise in
tort and the breach of contract. The question will arise in such a case are:such a case are:
I. Can a minor be sued under the law I. Can a minor be sued under the law of torts although permitting such an actionof torts although permitting such an action may mean indirect enforcement of a void agreement? Or,
may mean indirect enforcement of a void agreement? Or,
II. Will he be exempt from liability in tort, II. Will he be exempt from liability in tort, also because his act is also also because his act is also breach of breach of contract for which he can¶t be sued?
Johnson v. Pye, (1665) 1 Sid 258Johnson v. Pye, (1665) 1 Sid 258
A minor obtained a loan of pounds 300 falsely representing his age. It A minor obtained a loan of pounds 300 falsely representing his age. It was heldwas held that he could not be asked to
that he could not be asked to repay the loan in action for deceit.repay the loan in action for deceit.
Ballet v. Mingay, (1943) K.B. 281Ballet v. Mingay, (1943) K.B. 281
A minor hired a microphone and an amplifier and improperly passed it to a A minor hired a microphone and an amplifier and improperly passed it to a friend. The infant was held liable for detinue.
friend. The infant was held liable for detinue.[1][1]
[1]
[1] When the defendant is wrongfully detaining the goods belonging to theWhen the defendant is wrongfully detaining the goods belonging to the plaintiff and refuses to deliver the same on lawful demands, the plaintiff can plaintiff and refuses to deliver the same on lawful demands, the plaintiff can recover the same by bringing an action for detinue.
Liability of parents for c
Liability of parents for chhildren·s tortsildren·s torts
As a general rule, a parent or a As a general rule, a parent or a guardian cannot be held liable for theguardian cannot be held liable for the torts of a child. There are two
torts of a child. There are two exceptions to this rule:exceptions to this rule:
When the child is father¶s servant or agent, the fWhen the child is father¶s servant or agent, the father is vicariously liable.ather is vicariously liable. [Not as father but in the capacity
[Not as father but in the capacity of an employer or principal]of an employer or principal]
When the father himself, by his own negligence, affords his child anWhen the father himself, by his own negligence, affords his child an opportunity to commit a tort, he is liable.
Bebee v. Sales, (1916) 32 T.L.R. 413Bebee v. Sales, (1916) 32 T.L.R. 413
The father supplied an airgun to his son, aged 15 years. The father supplied an airgun to his son, aged 15 years. Even after someEven after some complaints of mischief caused by the use of t
complaints of mischief caused by the use of the gun, he allowed the gun tohe gun, he allowed the gun to remain with the boy, who, thereafter, accidentally wounded the plaintiff. The remain with the boy, who, thereafter, accidentally wounded the plaintiff. The father was held liable.
4
4
.
.
Lunatics
Lunatics
As per section 84 of the I As per section 84 of the Indian Penal code, Insanity is a good defence in thendian Penal code, Insanity is a good defence in the Criminal law when at the time of commission of the crime,
Criminal law when at the time of commission of the crime, the accused bythe accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his actact or that what he was doing was
or that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law .either wrong or contrary to law .
Lunacy, like infancy is not a good defence in Lunacy, like infancy is not a good defence in an action for a tort an action for a tort except in caseexcept in case where intention, knowledge, malice, or any other mental condition is essential to where intention, knowledge, malice, or any other mental condition is essential to create a tortuous liability, and the lunatic may be found incapable of having
create a tortuous liability, and the lunatic may be found incapable of having such mental condition or intention or knowledge sufficient to impose liability such mental condition or intention or knowledge sufficient to impose liability upon him.
upon him.
Ranagangulu v. Seaswan, AIR 1947 Ker. 25Ranagangulu v. Seaswan, AIR 1947 Ker. 25
The Kerala High Court held that lunacy cannot be regarded as a ground The Kerala High Court held that lunacy cannot be regarded as a ground of of exemption from civil wrong as it is ordinarily considered in law
exemption from civil wrong as it is ordinarily considered in law of crimesof crimes because the object of the law of tort
Prof. WinfieldProf. Winfield has quoted three reasohas quoted three reasons for fixing the liability ns for fixing the liability on theon the lunatics:
lunatics:
where one or two innocent persons must bear loss, twhere one or two innocent persons must bear loss, the loss must fall onhe loss must fall on him who did the act;
him who did the act;
public policy which requires the rule in order to ipublic policy which requires the rule in order to include his relative to keepnclude his relative to keep the lunatic under restraint and also in order to prevent tort-feasors from the lunatic under restraint and also in order to prevent tort-feasors from feigning insanity;
feigning insanity;
5
5
.
.
Corporations
Corporations
Whether Corporation liable for fraud or maliceWhether Corporation liable for fraud or malice
At one time it was thought that a At one time it was thought that a corporation could not be held liable for wrongscorporation could not be held liable for wrongs involving malice or fraud on the ground that to support an action f
involving malice or fraud on the ground that to support an action for such aor such a wrong it must be shown that the wrong doer
wrong it must be shown that the wrong doer was actuated by a motive in was actuated by a motive in hishis mind and that ³ corporation has
mind and that ³ corporation has no mind´.no mind´.
It is now settled that a corporation is It is now settled that a corporation is liable for wrongs even of malice and fraud.liable for wrongs even of malice and fraud. A corporation may be sued for malicious prosecution or for deceit.
Whether the corporation is liable for the torts of it¶s Whether the corporation is liable for the torts of it¶s servants?servants?
A corporation is liable for torts committed by its A corporation is liable for torts committed by its agents or servants to the sagents or servants to the sameame extent as a principal is liable for torts
extent as a principal is liable for torts of his agent or an of his agent or an employer for the torts of employer for the torts of his servant, provided the tort is committed in the
his servant, provided the tort is committed in the course of doing an act which iscourse of doing an act which is within the scope of the powers of the c
within the scope of the powers of the corporation.orporation.
It may thus be liable for ³assault, fIt may thus be liable for ³assault, false imprisonment, trespass, conversions,alse imprisonment, trespass, conversions, libel or
Can a corporation be sued for µUltra-vires¶ torts?Can a corporation be sued for µUltra-vires¶ torts?
A corporation will not be liable if the act of its servant is not authorised by the article of A corporation will not be liable if the act of its servant is not authorised by the article of its incorporation, in other words, which is ultra vires of the corporation.
its incorporation, in other words, which is ultra vires of the corporation.
Poulton v. London and S.W.E. Rly. Co., (1867) LR 2 QB 534Poulton v. London and S.W.E. Rly. Co., (1867) LR 2 QB 534
A station master in the employment of the defendant company arrested the plaintiff for A station master in the employment of the defendant company arrested the plaintiff for refusing to pay the freight for a horse that had been carried on the defendant¶s railway. refusing to pay the freight for a horse that had been carried on the defendant¶s railway. The railways company had authority under the Act of Parliament to arrest a person who The railways company had authority under the Act of Parliament to arrest a person who did not pay its fare but not to arrest a person for non-payment for the carriage of goods. did not pay its fare but not to arrest a person for non-payment for the carriage of goods.
It was held that the railway company was not liable as the company having no power inIt was held that the railway company was not liable as the company having no power in itself to arrest for such non-payment it could not give the station master any power to do itself to arrest for such non-payment it could not give the station master any power to do the act.
Tiruveriamuthu Pillai v. Municipal Council, AIR 1961 Tiruveriamuthu Pillai v. Municipal Council, AIR 1961 Mad. 230Mad. 230
The plaintiff¶s dog was killed by the employee of a Municipal council in The plaintiff¶s dog was killed by the employee of a Municipal council in thethe course of the discharge of their function of killing stray
course of the discharge of their function of killing stray dogs in the municipaldogs in the municipal town. In an action by the plaintiff for damages against the Council
town. In an action by the plaintiff for damages against the Council for the loss of for the loss of the dog, it was held that the Council is
the dog, it was held that the Council is liable for damages. A corporation cannotliable for damages. A corporation cannot be immune form liability in respect of torts brought about at its
In Municipal Board of Ahmedabad v. Panubhai,(1934) 37 Bom. LR 468, held byIn Municipal Board of Ahmedabad v. Panubhai,(1934) 37 Bom. LR 468, held by Rangnekar, J:
Rangnekar, J:
³A corporation cannot be deemed to be actuated by that kind of ³A corporation cannot be deemed to be actuated by that kind of malice whichmalice which essential to the maintenance of an action for malicious prosecution, instituted by essential to the maintenance of an action for malicious prosecution, instituted by the officer, in the scope of their duty,
the officer, in the scope of their duty, provided the necessary ingredients of provided the necessary ingredients of such a prosecution are made out. A corporation may, in t
such a prosecution are made out. A corporation may, in the assertion of itshe assertion of its rights render itself liable for malicious prosecution.´
6
6
.
.
Persons
Persons
h
h
aving Parental or Quasi Parental
aving Parental or Quasi Parental
Aut
Aut
h
h
ority
ority
Parents and persons in loco parentis have a right to Parents and persons in loco parentis have a right to administer punishment onadminister punishment on a child to prevent him from doing mischief to him or
a child to prevent him from doing mischief to him or others.others.
However one must remember that such an authority warrants the use However one must remember that such an authority warrants the use of of reasonable and moderate punishment only and therefore, if there
reasonable and moderate punishment only and therefore, if there is anis an excessive use of force, the defendant may be liable for
excessive use of force, the defendant may be liable for assault, battery or falseassault, battery or false imprisonment, as the case may be.
In England, as per Section 1(7), Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, aIn England, as per Section 1(7), Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, a parent, teacher, or other person having lawful control or charge of a
parent, teacher, or other person having lawful control or charge of a child or child or young person is allowed to administer punishment on him.
young person is allowed to administer punishment on him.
The authority of a teacher to correct his The authority of a teacher to correct his students is not limited only to students is not limited only to thethe wrongs which the student may commit upon the school premises but may wrongs which the student may commit upon the school premises but may alsoalso extend to the wrongs done by him outside the s
extend to the wrongs done by him outside the school because there is not muchchool because there is not much opportunity for boy to exhibit his moral conduct while in school
opportunity for boy to exhibit his moral conduct while in school under the eye of under the eye of the master the opportunity is while he is at play
R. v. Newport (Salop) Justices, (1929) 2 R. v. Newport (Salop) Justices, (1929) 2 K.B. 416K.B. 416
It has been held that if the school rules It has been held that if the school rules prohibited smoking, both in the schoolprohibited smoking, both in the school and in the public, the school master was justified in
and in the public, the school master was justified in caning a student whom hecaning a student whom he had found smoking cigarette in a public street.
7
7
.
.
Persons
Persons
h
h
aving Judicial and Executive
aving Judicial and Executive
Aut
Aut
h
h
ority
ority
Judicial Officers¶ Protection Act, 1850 grants protection to a judicial officer for Judicial Officers¶ Protection Act, 1850 grants protection to a judicial officer for any act done or ordered to be done by
any act done or ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty.him in the discharge of his judicial duty. He is protected even though he exceeds his jurisdiction provided that at
He is protected even though he exceeds his jurisdiction provided that at thatthat time he honestly believed that he had jurisdiction to do or order the
time he honestly believed that he had jurisdiction to do or order the actact complained of.
complained of.
The Object of the above stated protection is to enable the judicial officers The Object of the above stated protection is to enable the judicial officers toto administer the law without any fear of unwarranted litigation against them. administer the law without any fear of unwarranted litigation against them.
Section 1 of the Act reads as Section 1 of the Act reads as follows:follows:
³No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting³No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil
judicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil court for any act court for any act done or ordereddone or ordered to be done y him in t
to be done y him in the discharge of his judicial duty whether or not within the discharge of his judicial duty whether or not within thehe limits of his jurisdiction:
limits of his jurisdiction:
Provided that he at the time in good faith, believed himself to Provided that he at the time in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction tohave jurisdiction to do or order the act complained of; and no officer of
do or order the act complained of; and no officer of any court or other person,any court or other person, bound to execute the lawful warrants or orders of acting
bound to execute the lawful warrants or orders of acting judicially shall be liablejudicially shall be liable to be sued in any civil c
to be sued in any civil court, for the execution of any ourt, for the execution of any warrant or order which hewarrant or order which he would be bound to execute, if within the jurisdiction of the person issuing
Limits of suc
Limits of suc
h
h
protection
protection
1. No such protection is granted if a 1. No such protection is granted if a magistrate is acting mala fide and outsidemagistrate is acting mala fide and outside his jurisdiction.
his jurisdiction.
Sailajanand PandeSailajanand Pandey v Suresh Chandra Gupta, AIR 1969 y v Suresh Chandra Gupta, AIR 1969 Pat. 194Pat. 194
The magistrate acting mala fide, illegally and The magistrate acting mala fide, illegally and outside his jurisdiction, orderedoutside his jurisdiction, ordered the arrest of the plaintiff. The Patna High Court held that he
the arrest of the plaintiff. The Patna High Court held that he was not entitled towas not entitled to the protection given by the Judicial Officer¶s Protection Act, 1850 and was, the protection given by the Judicial Officer¶s Protection Act, 1850 and was, therefore, liable for the wrong of false imprisonment.
2. The protection of judicial privilege applies only to judicial proceedings as2. The protection of judicial privilege applies only to judicial proceedings as contrasted with administrative or ministerial proceedings and where,
contrasted with administrative or ministerial proceedings and where, a judgea judge acts both judicially and ministerially or administratively, the protection is not acts both judicially and ministerially or administratively, the protection is not afforded to the act done in the later capacity.
afforded to the act done in the later capacity.
State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram, State of U.P. v. Tulsi Ram, AIR 1971 All. 162AIR 1971 All. 162
Five persons were prosecuted for certain offences. One of them was Five persons were prosecuted for certain offences. One of them was acquittedacquitted by the Sessions Court and another by the High
by the Sessions Court and another by the High Court. The High Court upheldCourt. The High Court upheld the conviction of only three of the five
the conviction of only three of the five persons and authorised the issue of persons and authorised the issue of warrants against these three convicted persons. The judicial magistrate acting warrants against these three convicted persons. The judicial magistrate acting negligently signed an order for the arrest of all the five
They filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs. 2,000 from the judicial officer andThey filed a suit claiming compensation of Rs. 2,000 from the judicial officer and the State of U.P. stating that their arrest before their relations and
the State of U.P. stating that their arrest before their relations and friends on thefriends on the day of Holi festival had caused much humiliation, disgrace, physical discomfort day of Holi festival had caused much humiliation, disgrace, physical discomfort and mental suffering to them.
and mental suffering to them.
The lower appellate court held that the judicial officer was protected by theThe lower appellate court held that the judicial officer was protected by the Judicial Officer¶s Protection Act, 1850 but the State of U.P. was
Judicial Officer¶s Protection Act, 1850 but the State of U.P. was vicariouslyvicariously liable and passed a decree of Rs. 500 against the
The Allahabad High Court, on an appeal made by the State of U.P. The Allahabad High Court, on an appeal made by the State of U.P. held that theheld that the State was not liable because the act done by
State was not liable because the act done by its servant was in its servant was in the discharge of the discharge of his duties imposed by law.
his duties imposed by law.
Further, it held that the judicial officer was liable for the Further, it held that the judicial officer was liable for the wrongful arrest of thewrongful arrest of the plaintiff-respondents as the judicial officer was not exercising any judicial plaintiff-respondents as the judicial officer was not exercising any judicial
function but only an executive function while issuing warrants and therefore, the function but only an executive function while issuing warrants and therefore, the protection under the Judicial Officers¶ Protection Act, 1850 could not be
protection under the Judicial Officers¶ Protection Act, 1850 could not be available in this case.
Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the President, Governors and Raj- Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the President, Governors and Raj-pramu
pramukhs of Stakhs of States and Stes and Sardaardar ±r ± i ±i ± RiyasaRiyasat of Jammu & Kt of Jammu & Kashmir aashmir arere exempted from the jurisdiction of any court in India.
exempted from the jurisdiction of any court in India.
Under several statutes public servants are protected against prosecution for Under several statutes public servants are protected against prosecution for acts done in pursuance thereof:
acts done in pursuance thereof:
Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of Section 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898);1898);
Section 16 of the Glanders and Farcy Act (XIII Section 16 of the Glanders and Farcy Act (XIII of 1899);of 1899);
Section 16 of the Dourine Act (V of Section 16 of the Dourine Act (V of 1910);1910);
Section 56 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act Section 56 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act (IX of 1910);(IX of 1910);
Section, 272 of the Cantonments Act (II of 1924);Section, 272 of the Cantonments Act (II of 1924);
Section 117 of the Indian Factories Act (LXIII of Section 117 of the Indian Factories Act (LXIII of 1948);1948);
Section 2 of the Indemnity Act (XXVII of Section 2 of the Indemnity Act (XXVII of 1919);1919);
Section 293 of the Indian Income Tax Act (XLVIII of Section 293 of the Indian Income Tax Act (XLVIII of 1961);1961);
Section 87 of the Indian Mines Act (XXXV of 1952);Section 87 of the Indian Mines Act (XXXV of 1952);
Section 14 of the Indian Naval Armament Act (VII of Section 14 of the Indian Naval Armament Act (VII of 1923);1923);
Section 24 of the Bombay Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Section 24 of the Bombay Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors RegistrationRegistration Act (Bom XIV of 1954).).
8
8
.
.
Trade
Trade
U
U
nions
nions
As per section 13 of the T As per section 13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, every registered Trade Unionrade Unions Act, 1926, every registered Trade Union shall be a body corporate with all attributes of a
shall be a body corporate with all attributes of a legal personality.legal personality.
Section 18 of the Section 18 of the ActAct enacts that no suit shall enacts that no suit shall lie against a registered lie against a registered tradetrade union, its members or officers in respect of any
union, its members or officers in respect of any act done in contemplation or act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the
furtherance of a trade dispute to which a member of the Trade Union was aTrade Union was a party on the ground only
party on the ground only
that such act induces some other person to that such act induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or break a contract of employment, or
