Month: July 2020

P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma

Posted on

The case analysis is written by Mohit Bhardwaj a second-year student of Unitedworld School of Law. In this case comment, the author has briefly explained the case of P. Seetharamayya Vs. G. Mahalakshmamma.

INTRODUCTION

This case is a clear one of damnum sine injuria. In this case the appellant asked for mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to fill in the trench on the defendants’ land, for permanent injunction against these defendants against putting up bunds or digging a trench, and for damages for the loss caused by flow of water.

Case Numbers

1933 and 1934 of 1953

Hon’ble Judges/Coram

Mohammed Ahmed Ansari, J.

Decided on

27.09.1957

Equivalent Citation

AIR 1958 AP 103, MANU/AP/0130/1957

Cases Referred

Nield v. N.W. Rly

Brief Facts and Procedural History

The parties to the appeals are owners of adjacent lands. The fifth defendant had constructed a bund on her land to preserve part of it from damage by flow of water through a breach in the embankment of the vagu. Defendants Nos.1 to 4 dug a trench to ward off water entering into their plot. These defendants further constructed another bund to the north of their and as additional safeguard.

The appellants’ case is that the fifth defendant on account of bitter enmity between her and the other defendants, put up bunds in her plot, and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 dug the trench as well as put up a bund to the north and the west of their plots; that thereby rain water falling on their plot flowed into appellants’ plot, completely washing variga and groundnut crops raised therein; which the appellants twice put up bunds along a length of 150 feet to the west of their plot to prevent the flow of rain water, but each time the bunds were washed away.

The appellant asked for mandatory injunction to demolish the bunds and to fill in the trench on the defendants’ land, for permanent injunction against these defendants against putting up bunds or digging a trench, and for damages for the loss caused by flow of water.

Issues Before the Court

  1. Can defendants protect their land from normal rain water?
  2. Can defendants protect their land from flood water?
  3. Whether any legal injury has been caused to the plaintiff?

Ratio of the Case

In this case it was urged before the court that there was no stream on the west of the defendant’s lands and, therefore, they have not the right of riparian owners in times of flood. But the finding of the Lower Appellate Court about there being a stream, was supported by the description given to the channel in the Commissioner’s plan.

The Case contends that the flood is a common enemy against which every man has a right to defend himself, and it would be mischievous if the law were otherwise, for a man must then stand by and see his property destroyed, out of fear lest dome neighbour might say ‘you have caused me an injury.’ 

However, there is a great distinction between protecting oneself from an apprehended danger and getting rid of the consequences of an injury which has actually occurred. The distinction was clearly marked in Whalley v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co. [(1884) 13 QBD 131],

It was further contented that the right of protection against flood water should not be confused with the customary right of an agriculturist in this country It appears to us that in India, the right of an agriculturist to drain off into the lower lands the water brought into his land for ordinary agricultural operations is a customary right. He is entitled to do so by custom; otherwise, it will be impossible to carry out agricultural operations successfully.

It is further contented that no legal injury is caused to the plaintiff as the principal of damnum sine injuria prevails its states that injury which is being suffered by the plaintiff but there is no violation of any legal right of a person. In such circumstances, where there is no violation of the legal right of but the injury, or damage is being suffered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can’t bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law, unless there is some infringement of a legal right is present.

Decision of the Court

Therefore, this is a case of damnum sine injuria, and the plaintiff must adopt their own protective measures against the flood water”. In these circumstances, both the appeals fail, and are dismissed with costs throughout.

Latest Posts

Archives

Jayalakshmi Salt Works Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujrat

Posted on

The case analysis is written by Nimisha Mishra, a second-year student of NALSAR University of Law. In this case comment, the author has briefly explained the case of Jayalaxmi Salt Words Ltd vs State Of Gujarat.

INTRODUCTION

Tort law is based on the moral foundation that no party can injure or harm other party intentionally or unintentionally. Intention is irrelevant in tort law. This case is a landmark case since it decides when the state could be held liable for its negligent act. The innocence of common citizens was taken into consideration while deciding the case. 

Equivalent Citation

1994 SCC (4) 1, JT 1994 (3) 492

Bench

Hon’ble Justice Sahai, R.M., Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh (J)

Date of judgement

4th May, 1994

Relevant Act 

Limitation Act, 1908

Relevant Section

Section 133(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, Article 36 of the Limitation Act, Article 120 of the Constitution of India. 

Facts of the case

In 1954 the State of Gujarat built a dam or Bundh so as to avoid land getting wasted. The project got completed in 1955. The appellant, owner of Jai Laxmi Salt Pvt. Ltd. already wrote many times to the authorities concerned to either divert the location or abandon the project completely, since the dam would directly affect his factory premise. However, his request was not taken into consideration by the concerned authority. On the subsequent year, heavy rainfall started pouring and appellant ran from one authority to another to lessen the water level of the dam, but his appeal was not heard. As a result of which on 4th and 5th July of 1956, the appellant’s factory got flooded. After the flood receded the premise, the appellant approached the court for compensation for a total of four lakh. A committee was formed by which the actual loss of the appellant was calculated which amounted to Rs. 158735 which was unpaid. 

Issues presented before the court

  1. Whether Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or Article 120 applies in the present case?
  2. Whether the rule of strict liability as derived in Rylands v. Fletcher by the Supreme Court is invoking Article 36 of Limitation Act? 

Ratio of the case

The case revolves around an important question of whether Article 36 of the Limitation Act or will it be covered under Article 121 of the Constitution of India. When the case went to the High Court it was decided in the favour of the state, contending that the suit is barred by time. The court while deciding the case held that the construction of bundh is not a non-natural use of land and its main purpose is the welfare of the public and therefore the state is not liable. Act of God as a defence was cited to the state. Article 36 was also cited by the learned judge contending that the suit should have been filed within 2 years but it was filed after 2 years, 11 months and 15 days, therefore, the suit is barred the time. 

Later the appeal was filed in Supreme Court, where it differentiated malfeasance, non-feasance and misfeasance. All these three words require ill intention and malice on the part of the wrongdoer. But the court was of the opinion that tort as a law should not be restricted within categories. Law of Torts is developing with the circumstances of the society and therefore it should have a wide approach. The negligent act of the state should not be defended and the injury of the common man should not remain uncompensated. The doctrine of just, fair and reasonableness should be taken into consideration. After the findings of the bunch, it’s planning and construction was found to be negligent. The construction of the bundh was a public duty and any loss arising out of it makes state liable under tort for the negligence while keeping in mind the modern and developing society. The basic duty of care is the foundation in which the whole law of torts stands. Injury and damage is the basic ingredient of the tort. In the modern context, the law of tort is not only restricted to injury and damage but it also includes defective planning, mistake and discharge of public duty. The construction of bundh was a duty of the state therefore any injury caused to the common man because it makes the state liable for a public tort which needs to be compensated. By giving tort a broader scope it can be said that Article 120 should apply and the time to file suit should not be restricted to only 2 years period. 

The time taken into consideration to file suit should not be calculated from the date of construction of the bundh but from the date of injury cause to the appellant. The appellant cannot claim damages from the day of construction of bundh because under the tort law damages can be claimed only after the injury is caused. 

Final decision

To gain the confidence of people in law and to do justice it is necessary to make liable for its negligence. After evaluating and observing all the factors, the court came to a conclusion that state is liable for its negligent conduct. The suit of appellant is not time barred since the two years will be calculated after the injury is done. Therefore article 120 is applicable to the case and not Article 36. The appellant was allowed the damages by the court. 

Conclusion

The Law of Tort is a branch of law which is greatly influenced by the socio, economic and political changes of the society. The compensation was necessary to provide to the appellant in this case otherwise it would have caused greater injustice to him. A common man, in a developing country, will find it a huge task to arrange the court fees and not be given justice because the state acted negligently while doing the welfare of the citizens and hence he should be given justice. Therefore it should not be rigidly applied in negligent cases; rather there should be greater scope to include changing society. 

Latest Posts

Archives

Sustainable Energy for All: Changes

Posted on

This article is written by Samridhi Sachdeva pursuing BBA LLB from Gitarattan International Business School, GGSIPU. This article provides details on the UN-based system that is sustainable energy for all and also discusses its history and objectives in detail.

INTRODUCTION

The Sustainable Energy for All termed as SEforAll, was formed to transform the energy systems of the world. It is an international organisation which works with leaders in government, the private sector and civil society to continue moving. It was also formed to end poverty and try to provide more and more job opportunities in the coming years.

The present CEO and the special representative appointed by the UN Secretary General is Damilola Ogunbiyi. He took hold of his office in January, 2020. He is also the Co-Chair of the UN energy. Previously, she was the Managing Director of Nigerian Rural Electrification Agency (REA), which involved the mobilising stakeholders and finance required to deliver energy access to the people andd communities that need it the most.

It comes with some objectives that needs to be achieved by 2030. It also forms plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the climate warming below 2°C, with Paris government.

About the Office

The headquarters are in Vienna and Austria. Their Satellite office is in Washington, DC in US. The initiative Sustainable Energy for All shared closed links with UN. It also has partnership with UN agencies and with the CEO of the Sustainable Energy for All becoming the Special Representative of UN Secretary General for SEforAll and Co-chair of UN-energy. The staff is based on the places Vienna, Austria and US. 

History

This initiative was launched in September, 2011 by the UN Secretary General, Ban ki-moon. The first CEO of the initiative, Kandeh Yumkella  was appointed in 2012 by the UN Secretary General. He was also appointed as the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General.

Also, 2012 is marked as an important year in the history of Sustainable Energy for All. It was declared as the International Year for Sustainable Energy for All, giving clear signal about the end of poverty and climate change assessment. It provides a significant opportunity to share models that work and can help to fill the requirements of existing funding or capacity. It gives chances to ensure that the political momentum on this area is focussed and maintained.

Objectives

The initiative works to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7). The main goal is to get universal access to Sustainable Energy by 2030. The objectives are mutually reinforcing and consistent. The objectives are listed below: 

  1. Ensuring universal access to modern energy services.
  2. Doubling the rate of improvement of energy efficiency.
  3. Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global mix.

Now, the affordable renewable energy technologies are coming together to bring the modern energy resources to the rural communities, where extension of the conventional power grid is going to be expensive and impractical. 

The efficiency devices used for lighting and other resources require minimum energy and ultimately decrease the amount of power required to support them. And finally, the alternative unconstrained expansion of modern conventional fossil fuel based energy systems would lock in a long period of infrastructure commitment to an unsustainable emissions path for the climate of the world.

Changes in 2019 Plans

  1. SDG7, 2019 report revealed that the progress was lacking to achieve the objectives. For the record, 840 million people in the world lack electricity access and almost 3 billion people live without clean cooking. Hence, the SEforAll organised event in Amsterdam from June 18-20, 2019 where the charrettes focussed on different issues on the critical path to deliver the goals of SDG7.
  2. SEforAll has done new research under the Energising Finance research series. This series consists in depth knowledge and analysis on the supply and demand for finance among the two key areas of energy access- electricity and clean cooking. 
  3. SEforAll is also a co-lead with the governments of Ethiopia and Denmark and UN Secretary General’s Climate Action Summit team, and organised the Energy Action Forum, a day prior to the summit.
  4. SEforAll launched a Cooling for All Secretariat, in January 2019, which promotes awareness on the need for universal access to cooling and also provide data and knowledge about the same.
  5. A total number of 573 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa have no access to electricity. Therefore, Electricity for All in Africa is an initiative that aims to help countries and regions to develop new strategies for tackling their electricity access problems.

Work plan of 2020

  1. Energy Efficiency First- This will assist leaders to unlock finance and broker relationships.
    1. Cooling for All: Leaders will be engaged by SEforAll to protect the most vulnerable populations from intensifying global heat.
    2. Energy Efficiency Accelerators: The SDG 7.2 goal (doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030) will be achieved with the help of SEforAll.
  2. Leave No One Behind- It will make sure that the energy poor are put on front and centre.
    1. Electricity for All in Africa: The convening power of SEforAll will be used to engage key industry stakeholders, financiers and government to help in the electrification plans that are integrated in nature and reach all populations in the 16 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
    2. Big Market for Clean Fuels: It will try to focus on accelerating access to clean cooking solutions, specifically on driving finance and big markets for clean fuel.
    3. Gender and People-Centred Accelerator: SEforAll is the world’s biggest example on gender diversity and women empowerment through its own structure and general work in sustainable energy sector.
    4. Energy and Health: It will try to create systemic changes that are essential to achieve the universal electrification of health facilities by 2030.
  3. Sustainable Energy Diplomacy- To move forward with the action agenda on Sustainable Energy by supporting both global architecture and global movement.
    1. Support to SRSG and UN: The CEO supports the UNSG, DSG and roles of co-chair of UN energy and also the special representative of the UN secretary general and as member of UN climate principals. This will help SRSG to fulfil all of these roles.
    2. Engagement in International FORA: The participation in international and regional events is targeted, to speed up decisions that can influence the key elements of critical path towards SDG7 and energy transitions to meet the agreement with the Paris government.

Conclusion

Social, health, environmental, economic and security benefits will be brought up after achieving the Sustainable Energy for All objectives. Dramatic changes to clean the energy sector that the Sustainable Energy for All objectives imply have the potential to support the global economy by providing growth and job opportunities in rapidly growing industries. 

Latest Posts

Archives

State of A.P. v. Govardhanlal Pitti, (2003) 3 SCALE 107

Posted on

This analysis is written by Ishika Gupta pursuing BBA L.LB from Gitarattan International Business School. This analysis aims to provide all the necessary details about the case in brief.

INTRODUCTION

This case is basically about acquisition of a years old land by the state in order of public welfare. The state is of the view that such destructive land could not be use as a public place and should be under the control of government. However, the respondent did not wanted to giveaway the land even in return of compensation.

Case Number

Appeal (civil) 6969 of 1999 

Equivalent Citation

1995 (5) SCC 587, 2002 (4) SCC 160

Bench

Hon’ble Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Justice D.M. Dharamadhikari

Decided on

2nd December, 2003

Relevant Act/ Section

Land Acquisition Act – Sections 4(1), 6 and 17(4)

Constitution of India- Article 136,226 

Rent Control Act

Rent Control and Eviction Act

Administrative Law

Facts of the Case

This is an appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against Division Bench judgment dated 22.07.1999 passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 652 of 1999.  On the basis of facts and circumstances, High Court came to the conclusion that acquisition of school building with its appurtenant land by State in action was liable to be quashed being “malicious in law”.   The school building was in possession of the State as tenant of the respondent herein from year 1954.  In 1977, respondent filed petition before Rent Controller for eviction of State for school building on the ground that it had been dilapidated and required reconstruction.  The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller.  However, the appeal before the Additional Judge was allowed.  Further, High Court allowed the petition for early eviction.  Thereafter, in breach of the undertaking given by the State for evicting the building, State issued notification u/s 4(1) & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act granting compensation of Rs. 2,60,908.68 to respondent.  This is an appeal preferred by the State against eviction order by the High Court. 

Issues Before the Court

1)  Whether the school building was in dilapidated and dangerous

condition?

2)  Whether continuance of the school in the same building and location would serve public purpose and fulfil educational needs of children in old city?

3)   Whether the order of High Court of Andhra Pradesh was malicious in law?

4)  Whether exercise of statutory power by the State were colourable or mala fide?

5) Whether the new norms whatsoever fixed for setting up of a school building may not be applicable to existing building?

Judgment

Supreme Court after considering all the facts and circumstances and arguments of both the parties, admitted that the school building was 100 years old and it is in dilapidated and dangerous condition.  In the considered opinion of the Supreme Court, public interest in such building was being served from 1954 onwards at the same location.  Supreme Court relied upon cases, “State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga & Ors.” (1952 SCR 889), “State of U.P. & Anr. V. Keshav Prasad Singh” (1995 (5) SCC 587) and “First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. V. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr.” (2002 (4) SCC 160).    It further held that shifting of the school building to alternate site cannot be an alternative to avoid possible collapse of building.  On this ground alone, it cannot be held that the public purpose for acquiring the building cannot be accepted. Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the present appeal.

Ratio of the Case

Ratio decidendi of a case is whether the facts the judge has determined to be material facts of the case, plus the judge’s decision based on those facts of the material facts that the judge creats law.

Thus, Ratio Decidendi = Material Facts + Decision

In this case, the Supreme Court kept in mind the material fact that 

1) the school building was 100 years old.

2) the school building was in the centre of the city.

3) It was in dilapidated and dangerous condition.

4) the building can anytime collapse and can cause a serious disaster taking many lives.

5) That the shifting of the school building to alternate site cannot be an alternative to avoid eviction.

6) Hence the Supreme Court keeping in mind all the material facts and equivalent judgment on the subject, allowed the appeal in favour of the State and granted acquisition of the school building by the State.

Decision of Court

The court allowed the appeal and made the decision in favour of the state and left the parties to bear the cost of this appeal on their own.

Latest Posts

Archives

Introduction and Kinds of Negotiable Instrument

Posted on

This article is written by Gaurav Lall pursuing BBA LL.B. (Hons.) at United World School of Law. The article speaks about a brief introduction and kind of negotiable instruments under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

INTRODUCTION

The aspect of present-day business activities added to the development of more current methods for encouraging financial-based transactions. Already, money was the most widely recognized mode of trading products and services for their value. The introduction of negotiable instruments has acquired, radical changes in business activities nowadays. A Negotiable Instrument is that document which includes a ‘promise to pay’ a certain amount of money to the bearer of the document. It is a mode of transferring a debt from one person to another. These are the documents which carry exchangeable value and have wider acceptability. Through this, it can be concluded that the two most important characteristics of a negotiable instrument has value and are easily exchangeable. In India, the negotiable instruments are governed by the Negotiable Instruments Act which was enacted, in India, in 1881. According, to Section 13 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 a ‘negotiable instrument’ means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer. Before its enactment, the provisions of the NI Act were applicable in India, and the present Act is also based on this act with certain modifications. 

Characteristics of a Negotiable Instrument

Uninhibitedly transferrable: The property in a negotiable instrument gets moved by a straightforward procedure of conveyance in the event that it is payable to conveyor, support and conveyance or payable to order. 

Recuperation: One can sue upon the instrument in his own name. 

Assumption as to consideration: These instruments are dared to have been made, drawn, acknowledged, supported, arranged or moved for thought. 

Payable to request or bearer: It must be payable either to request or bearer. 

Holder’s free from all imperfections: The holder (one who gets the instrument in compliance with common decency and for consideration) at the appointed time gets title free from all deformities. 

Assumption as a holder: Every holder of negotiable instrument is ventured to be holder at the appointed time.

Case Law

Rangachari (N.) v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

The Supreme Court in this case held that the Law merchant must be treated as negotiable instruments. The court further has observed that negotiable instruments are simply instruments of credit that are partially convertible into money and easily acceptable from one hand to another.

Chandrabolu Bhaskara Rao v. Betha Saidi Reddy

The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that since promissory note is not a compulsorily conclusive document, even if the signatures of the attesters are taken and after its execution it does not amount the material alteration. So it does not get spoiled. Therefore, whether there were attesters or not at the time of its execution is immaterial, more so when its execution is admitted.

Kinds of Negotiable Instruments

1. Promissory Note

The promissory note is a marked record of written guarantee to pay an expressed sum to a specified individual or the bearer at a predefined date or on request. It is a written instrument containing a genuine standard marked by one party to pay a specific entirety of cash just to, or to the request for someone in particular or to the bearer of the instrument. Thus, a promissory note contains a guarantee by the debtor to the creditor to pay a specific amount of cash after a specific date. The debtor is the creator of the instrument.

“Section 4 of the NIA defines promissory note is as an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency-note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.”

2. Bills of Exchange

Bills of Exchanges are similar to promissory notes where one party promises to pay the sum of money to another party or to any other person in his order on a fixed future date. Just like a promissory note, business people use it to provide short-term trade credits to their business partners. The person on whose name it is endorsed (drawee) will have a valid claim on the bill writer (the Drawer) for the amount mentioned on the bill. In case of the urgency of a fund, the drawee can discount his bill before the due date from any bank and get the bill amount from the bank after deducting some discount on it and after that bank will collect the full billing 

“Section 5 of NIA defines bill of exchange as an instrument in writing, containing an unconditional order, signed by the maker, directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument.”

3. CHEQUES

Cheques are the substitute of the monetary standards and a very safe mode of transfer of payments among the merchants or dealers. It can either be a cheque holder and one who possesses that will get the amount mentioned on it or an account payee cheque endorsed in the name of the particular entity. In contrast to currencies, it generally has a particular expiry date and henceforth can’t be stored for a longer time period. It has no risk of stolen unless, a bearer of cheque. It generally takes time to transfer funds in the accounts of the recipient and hence it is considered as the less liquid form of transfer.

 “Section 6 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (NIA) defines a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand.”

CONCLUSION

Today, in the modern business world Negotiable Instrument plays a significant role as well as advantageous mode of settling account. A negotiable instrument is a special type of contract for payment of money which is unconditional and capable of transfer by negotiation. It make the economy goes round. The law identifying to negotiable instrument for instance, negotiable instrument Act 1881 has a tremendous importance as considerable amount of litigation in Indian courts which revolve around this sphere. 

Latest Posts

Archives