Contractutual and toryuous lability .pptx

Tortious liability arises from an infringement of an obligation that is essentially settled by law: this obligation is to people in general and its infringement is remediable through unliquidated damages.

1. CONTRACTUTUAL
AND TORYUOUS
LABILITY
NAME : SHREYANSH SINGH
ONE YEAR LLM PROGRAME

2. INTRODUCTION
Tortious liability arises from an infringement of an
obligation that is essentially settled by law: this
obligation is to people in general and its infringement
is remediable through unliquidated damages.
The maxim ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’ ignited the
development of the Law of Torts and the torts
submitted by people against one another whereas
perceived in custom-based law.
The issue of State Liability in Torts has now taken on
exceptional importance. The principle of welfare state
establishes a link between the individual’s rights and
the State’s obligations.

3. Liability of
Administration
in Tort

•State liability refers to the liability of the state arising
from the acts of omission/ commission committed by
its servants. It has been governed by written or
unwritten laws and is not a static concept.
•The State’s liability for the tortious acts of its servants,
known as the tortious liability of the State, makes it
liable, voluntarily or involuntarily, for acts of omission
and commission, and puts it before the Court of Law in
a claim for unliquidated damages to such acts.
•Law of Torts like various other laws has travelled
through the British to this country and is now varied
because it is regulated by local laws and constitutional
provisions.

4. English law
•In England, the Crown’s outright
insusceptibility was acknowledged under
precedent-based law. The administration
depended on the maxim “the King can’t
be blamed under any circumstance”.
•In 1863, in Tobin v. R., the court observed:
“if the Crown were at risk in tort, the rule
might have appeared to be insignificant”.
•In 1947 the Crown Proceeding Act was
enacted which put the Government in an
indistinguishable position from a private
person’s view.
Indian Law
•The maxim ‘the king can’t be blamed
under any circumstance’ was never
acknowledged in India. The government’s
absolute insusceptibility was not
understood in the Indian legal system
before the constitution’s beginning and in
numerous cases, the government was
subjected to its employees’ convoluted
actions.
• Article 294(4) of the Constitution, the
liability of the Government of the Union or
a Government of the State can arise ‘from
some contract or other.’
• Article 300 (1), the degree of such liability
is settled. It states the Union of India or
State Government’s liability to be the
same as that of Dominion of India and the
Provision before the Constitution
commenced.

5. Respondeat
Superior
•Respondent Superior (Let the master
answer) was brought to the premise of the
subordinates’ limited economic capacity,
and the irresponsible behavior of
superiors such as masters or employers
was controlled. There are two
requirements of the doctrine:
•A true master-servant and
employer-employee relationship.
•The tortious act of a servant and an
employee must be one within the scope of
his employment. The ‘scope of
employment’ refers to the act performed
under the express or implied authority of
the superiors.

6. Qui-Facit
per Alium
Facit per se

According to this maxim, by employing servants the
master is obliged to perform the duties, he is responsible
for their actions in the same way as he is responsible for
his actions.
Indirectly, in the role portrayed by the agent, the concept
is in practice or present such that the role performed is
seen as the work of the agent himself.
In H.E. Nasser Abdulla Hussain vs. Dy. City a tenet of law
canonized the dictum: “Qui facit per alium facit per se”. It
was held in the case of Ballavdas Agarwala vs. Shri J. C.
Chakravarty, that the sections vicariously fastened the
responsibility on the masters for the acts of the servants.

7. Compensation by State

Tort is any wrong or injury not arising out of contract for which there is a remedy by
compensation or damages.
According to section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, if a person is lawfully doing anything for
another person or delivering anything to him the other person enjoys the profit thereof, the
latter is obliged to indemnify the former or restore the thing so done or delivered to him.
If the agreement with the Government is null and void according to Article 299(1), the party
obtaining the advantage under that agreement is obliged to restore it or indemnify the
individual from whom it was obtained.

8. •In Bhim Singh v. the State of J&K, where the petitioner, a member of the
Legislative Assembly, was arrested while he was travelling to Srinagar to attend
the Legislative Assembly in gross violation of his constitutional rights
under Article 21 and Article 22(2) of the Constitution, the court granted the
petitioner monetary compensation of Rs. 50,000 by way of exemplary costs.
• In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, the Supreme Court observed
that when the public servant causes injustice and pain to the common man mala
fide, and capricious acts while discharging official duties, it makes the State liable
to pay damages from public funds to the aggrieved individual. The State is
constitutionally obliged to recover the reimbursement sum from the public
servant in question.

9. Conclusion
All state actions and their instrumentalities must be directed towards the
objectives set out in the Constitution. Every government advance should be
towards fair conventions, social and financial improvement, and open welfare.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution forbids a State from depriving a person of
his life and freedom except in compliance with a process laid down by law.
Article 32 and Article 226 have not only made the protection of sovereign
immunity entirely inapplicable but also overthrown it all together because it
cannot go along with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

10. •http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2
000/Liability-of-State-In-Contract-And-In-Tor
ts.html#:~:text=The%20first%20important%2
0case%20involving,Secretary%20of%20State
%20for%20India.&text=Hari%20Bhanji%2C%
20In%20this%20case,civil%20Courts%20coul
d%20entertain%20them.
•https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/179.
pdf
•https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream
/10603/126943/13/13_chapter%205.pdf

References