Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Ashutosh must compensate Gulshan for his loss consequent to the start of the new tuition centre.
Gulshan cannot blame Ashutosh if he cannot retain his students.
Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered a loss after he shut down his tuition Centre.
Gulshan should have improved his quality with lower fees to retain his students in the light of competition brought in by Ashutosh.
उत्तर
Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered a loss after he shut down his tuition Centre.
Explanation:
Damnum sine injuria a Latin maxim that means damage without legal injury. When there is the actual damage caused to the plaintiff without infringement of his legal right, no action lies against the defendant. In order to make someone liable in tort, the plaintiff must prove that he has sustained legal injury. Damage without injury is not actionable in the law of torts. The case presented before us is a perfect example where the phrase "Damnum sine injuries" applies. Inspite of the fact that Gulshan incurred huge losses due the competition given by Ashutosh, he cannot hold Ashutosh liable for the same and claim damages as none of his legal rights was infringed and Damage without injury is not actionable in the law of torts. Hence "Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s Centre and though Gulshan suffered loss, after he shut down his tuition Centre." seems most appropriate.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Who heads the four members Committee appointed to study the Centre-State relations especially the changes took place since Sarkaria Commission
Mark the best option:
Principles: In case, where the government is a party, the government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Facts: The Government of the State of X entered into an agreement with a retired Professor of Botany. Resultantly he wrote the book.
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?
The Law of the contract is different from the law of tort in which way...?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
- The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
(1) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
Facts:
Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.
Suggested Decisions
(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
Suggested Reasons
(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,
Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:
Legal Principle: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the State is not vicariously liable in tort.
Factual Situation:
A’ was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by Police and was detained in the police lock-up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things was seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. HE moved against the State in tort. In the words of the Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized.” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal principle: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.
Factual situation: PUL, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Pune. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board “for PUL employees only”. M, a villager from a neighbouring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Pune. A bus belonging to PUL happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was a PUL bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to driver’s negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against PUL claiming damages. DECISION:
