Ubi jus ibi remedium

Law of torts maxim UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM

1. UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM RAHUL GAUR

2. MEANING It is a latin maxim which means for every wrong law provides a remedy. Principle contemplated in the maxim is that, when a person's right is violated the victim will have an equitable remedy under law. The maxim also states that the person whose right is being infringed has a right to enforce the infringed right through any action before a court. 

3. DEFINITION For every wrong there is a remedy. Law dictionary defines it as,” Where there is a right there is a remedy.”

4. APPLICABILITY The law of torts. The Trust Act Section 9 of CPC- entitles a civil court to entertain all kinds of suits unless they are prohibited. The Specific Relief Act- provides for equitable remedies like specific performance of contracts, injunction, declaratory suits .

5. INGREDIENTS The loss must ne unliquidated. The main remedy must be for damages. The nature of act varies from situation to situation.

6. EXCEPTIONS If there is a breach of a moral right only. If the right and remedy both were in within the jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts. Where due to his own negligence a party either destroyed or allowed to be destroyed, the evidence in his own favor or waived his right to an equitable remedy .

7. CASES MARETTI V/S WILLIAMS (1930) 1 b & Ad 415 The plaintiff had sufficient fund in his account in the defendant’s bank. In spite of this, the banker had refused to honor his cheque. It was held that the bank was liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, as his legal right is being violated.

8. ASHBY V/S WHITE (1703) 2LD Ramonds 938 The defendant, a reputed officer in a parliamentary election, wrongfully refused to take the vote of plaintiff, although the plaintiff did not suffer any loss by this refusal because the candidate for whom he wanted to vote won in spite of that.  Holt, C.J  said, – “every injuria imports a damage though it does not cost the party one farthing”. So the Defendant was held liable to pay damages to plaintiff.

9. BHIM SINGH V/S STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AIR 1986 SC 494 The petitioner Bhim Singh an MLA of j&k assembly was illegally detained by the police while he was going to attend the Assemble Session and was thus prevented from exercising his legal right to attend the assembly. The supreme court of India awarded him RS 50,000 by way of compensation for violation of his fundamental right .