ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

INTRODUCTION TO ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The concept of absolute liability evolved in India after the case of M.C Mehta vs Union of India[1] famously known as “Oleum Gas Leak case”. This is one of the historic cases in the Indian Judiciary. The Supreme Court, while deciding the

Oleum gas leak case of Delhi in 1986, found strict liability woefully inadequate to protect citizens’ rights in an industrialised economy like India and replaced it with ‘the absolute liability principle’

The case of M.C Mehta is based on the principle of strict liability but with no exception were given and the individual is made absolutely liable for his acts.  It is based under this principle that the defendant won’t be allowed to plead defence if he/she was at fault as it was laid down in Ryland vs Fletcher case. After the Bhopal gas leak case many people lost their lives and are suffering from some of the fatal diseases through the generation and because of this there was an urgent need to develop a rule under strict liability which had no exceptions available to the defendant to escape from the liability.

The rule laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India is much wider with respect to the rules laid down the House of Lords in the case of Ryland vs Fletcher. Absolute liability does not require the cause of incident or the ‘consent’ of the facility’s operators to be known to make any enterprise liable. The liability is triggered by the mere escape of hazardous substances, irrespective of the cause. It was propounded by the Supreme Court that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and if any harm results to anybody on account of the accident in operation,  the enterprise would be held strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

Under the absolute liability principle, the apex court held that a company in a hazardous industry cannot claim any exemption.

1. It has to mandatorily pay compensation, whether or not the disaster was caused by its negligence. The court said a hazardous enterprise has an “absolute non-delegable duty to the community”.
2. The principle of absolute liability is part of Article 21 (right to life). 

No Need to Show Negligence

For them to be held responsible, there is no need to show they were negligent, or did something which caused the leak – the very fact that it happened from their plant is enough.

There are no exceptions or defences whatsoever to this ‘absolute liability’, which is what makes it makes it stronger than the legal standard that is generally followed in other countries

Scope of New Rule of Absolute Liability

– The Scope of new rule is very wider in all terms than old rule.

-Do not have any exception

-Very wide scope.

-Cover not only public negligence or fault but cover even personal injuries caused due to the negligence of neighbour.

 -Now cover not only the occupier of land but also non occupier of the land.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY :

A JOURNEY FROM STRICT LIABILITY 

a) Doctrine of Strict Liability

In  the curious case of strict liability, the aforementioned concept of ‘fault’ is absent, along with intention and motive. This is because there are many activities which are so dangerous that they constitute risks to persons and property, and responsibility must be borne by some person in case of any harm. The law allows the potentially harmful activities to be carried on for the sake of social utility, but only in accordance with safety measures and the doctrine of strict liability – called so because the liability arises even without any negligence on the part of the defendant.

The doctrine of “strict liability” evolved in  Fletcher v. Rylands[1]. In this case, Rylands hired contractors to build a reservoir on his land. While building it, the contractors discovered some flaws and left them unfixed. After some time, Rylands’s reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher’s adjoining mine causing £937 worth of damage.  Blackburn, J. opined that any person who for his own purposes brings on his land 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[2].

The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher^[1] :

The rule in this case rests on the idea of foreseeability­ of damage; the person who is the source of damage is penalized for failing to avert the reasonably foreseeable damage.

Facts: Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours. Fletcher owned a mill, for the energy purposes of which he hired independent contractors and engineers to construct a water reservoir on his land. It so happened that there were old unused shafts under the site of the reservoir which the engineers failed to notice and block. Due to the negligence of the contractors, when water filled Fletcher’s reservoir, the water entered Rylands’ coal mine and caused huge loss, for that is where the shafts led. Subsequently, Ryland filed a suit against Fletcher. The defendant claimed that it was the fault of the contractors’, and the cause of damage was unknown to him.

Issues: The issue was very concise – Can the defendant be held liable, even if it was the act of someone else due to which an entity on his land escaped? It was notable because there was no negligence or intention on part of the defendant.

Judgment: The House of Lords rejected the plea of the defendant and held him liable for all the damages to Rylands’ mine. According to the rule set by this case, if a person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous thing, a thing which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, he will be prima facie answerable to the damage caused by its escape even though he had not been negligent in keeping it there. Despite there being no fault or negligence on the part of the defendant, he was held liable because he kept some dangerous thing on his land and the said dangerous thing has escaped from his land and caused damage.      

Essentials of Strict Liability

Certain qualifications were given to decide whether a liability is strict liability or not. Only after these essential qualifications are satisfied, can a liability can be termed as strict liability. These essentials, which are elucidated upon further on, are:

• Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
• The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
• It must be non-natural use of land.

1.Dangerous thing

This simply means that the defendant will be liable when the thing that escaped from his premises was a dangerous thing. The word ‘dangerous’ here implies that it is likely to do any sort of mischief if it escapes from the land. The collected water in Fletcher’s reservoir was the dangerous thing in the above mentioned case.

2. Escape

It is also essential that the thing causing harm must escape from the premises of the defendant, and it should not be within the reach of the defendant once it escapes.

3. Non-Natural Use Of Land

For the use to be non-natural, it must be some special use that brings with it increased danger to others. It must not be the ordinary use of land or use as is proper for the general benefit of community.

The Exceptions

There are certain exceptions to this rule, which are:

1. Default of the Claimant

If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of the claimant himself, there is no remedy for him.

2 . Consent of the claimant

Where the claimant has expressly or implicitly consented to the presence of the source of danger and there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant, the defendant is not liable.

3 . Act of God

An event which directly and exclusively results from natural causes that could not have been prevented by the exercise of foresight or by the exercise of caution may be called an Act of God. Say, if the escape was unforeseen and without any human intervention, caused by some super natural force, then the defendant will not be liable.

4 . Statutory Authority

An act done under the authority of a statute exempts the defendant from tortious liability. However, the defence cannot be pleaded if the if there is any kind of negligence on the part of the defendant.

5 . Act of Third Party

The rule of strict liability doesn’t apply when the damages are caused due to the act of a stranger, i.e. a person who is not the servant nor is under the control of the defendant. However, due care must be taken by the defendant to avoid the damages if the act of the stranger can be foreseen by the defendant.

b) Doctrine of Absolute Liability

The principle of “absolute liability” was first ever applied by the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [3](popularly known as Oleum gas leak case). In this case, oleum gas leaked from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers, Delhi and caused damage to several people. A pending public interest litigation (PIL) by M.C. Mehta provided the opportunity to the Court to pass a series of orders dealing with the after-effects of gas leak. In this case, the Court disapproved the application of the principle of strict liability. The Supreme Court opined that:

“an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.” 

VELLORE CITIZENS WELFARE FORUM V. UNION OF INDIA

Facts

In the present case the Petitioner- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, filed a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petition was filed against the water pollution caused due to excessive release of pollutants by the tanneries and other industries in the State of Tamil Nadu into the river Palar. Palar River was the main source of water for the livelihood of the surrounding people. Later, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Research Centre, Vellore discovered that approximately 35,000 hectares of agricultural land has turned either entirely or partially barren and not fit for cultivation. This is one of the landmark cases whereby the Supreme Court critically analyzed the relationship between environment and industrial development.

Issue Raised

Whether the tanneries should be permitted to keep on working at the expense of the health of individuals and the environment?

Arguments from the Parties

Petitioner

The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner argued that the whole surface and sub-soil water of river Palar has been intoxicated and as a result, it has turned out non-accessible for consumption to the inhabitants of the region. They further contended that the tanneries in the State of Tamil Nadu have caused serious damage to the environment in the region. A study conducted by a non-administrative association, covering 13 towns of Dindigul and Peddiar Chatram Anchayat Unions, uncovers that 350 wells out of an aggregate of 467 wells used for drinking and water system purposes have been contaminated.

Respondent

The advocates from the side of the tanneries argued that the quality concerning Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) fixed by the Board wasn’t legitimized. This Court by the request dated April 9, 1996, coordinated the NEERI to examine this angle and offer its input. In its report, NEERI has legitimized the models stipulated by the Board. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has not completely set down models for inland surface water release for Total Dissolved Solids, sulphates, and chlorides. the selection on these guidelines rests with the individual State Pollution Control Boards in line with the prerequisites supported nearby site conditions. The rules stipulated by Tamil Nadu Pollution Board Control (TNPCB)  have been advocated. The principle endorsed of the TNPCB for inland surface water release is met for tannery squander waters cost-viably through appropriate embed control gauges in tanning activity, and normally structured and viably worked wastewater treatment plants (ETPs and CETPs).

Judgement:

The Supreme Court after hearing both the parties and examining the report ruled making all efforts to maintain a harmony between environment and development. The Court observed that these Tanneries are the major foreign exchange earner to the country and also provide employment to several people. But at the same time, it harms the environment and poses a health hazard to everyone. The Court ruled in favour of Petitioners and directed all the Tanneries to deposit a sum of rupees ten thousand in the office of Collector as fine. The Court further directed the State of Tamil Nadu to award Mr M. C. Mehta with a sum of Rupees Fifty thousand as a token of appreciation towards his efforts in protecting the environment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also made it a point to emphasize on the formation of green benches in dealing with matters related to the protection of the environment.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION V. UNION OF INDIA

Facts of the Case

In 1934, Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) was consolidated in India. It manufactured chemicals, batteries, and pesticides. In 1970, in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh,  UCIL established a pesticide plant. On the night of 2-3^rd December 1984,very toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) leaked from the plant. Although no official death count was undertaken, it is estimated that while the casualities were about 20000, the number of people who suffered unrecoverable physical damage was about 60000.

Issue before the Court

The validity of the agreement ordered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Arguments Raised

Appellants

• The appellants challenged that whether in the suits for damages, tort courts in India have the jurisdiction to grant interim compensation or damages, and is it permissible to selectively incorporate and adapt in Indian parts of English Statutory Laws relating to the grant of interim compensation while ignoring safeguards specifically indicated in that Law?
• The appellants questioned the observations of the judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which are per incuriam, and thus, not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the M.C. Mehta case had confined the doctrine of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher, and the newly introduced doctrine of absolute liability should not have retrospective effects.
• The appellants argued the responsibility determination of a shareholder of a company (whatever his percentage of shareholding) for the so-called torts of a company limited by shares, this is contrary to the Scheme and specific provisions of the Companies Act 1956 (particularly S. 34 and S. 426). Did they maintain the same, given the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil was holding UCC liable impermissible in Law?
• The appellants contended that having held that interim compensation could not be awarded under S.151 of the Civil Procedure Code (as found by the District Judge). Was it permissible for the learned High Court Judge to summarize the entire issue of liability and hold that interim compensation was payable under the “substantive law of torts.”

UCC pointed out the absence of statutory procedure required to be followed under the Scheme, which was not observed even after two years had elapsed since the Scheme promulgation. It claimed that no credible information was there before the Court about the nature, category, and genuineness of the claims nor even any simple approximation about the injury and damage caused to the alleged claimants. In these circumstances submitted (in the written submission dated August 17, 1987), the formulation of proposals for further immediate relief that may be required was considerably hampered. It also pointed out that there was no material on record about any of the claimants’ present health status.

Respondents

• The respondents furnished that the appellant was responsible to pay the interim compensation to gas victims under ‘substantive law of torts’ because the terms “other authority” used in Article 372 (1) of the Constitution of Indian, in the context of the said Law, included a competent Civil Court (which in this case is District Court of Bhopal) exercising jurisdiction under S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. As a result, it was beyond doubt in the Bhopal suit, whichever was the enterprise occupied in the high-risk activity, be it UCC or UCIL, it was responsible to pay the damages as per the rules of absolute liability
• Moreover, they withstood that even if the decision in M.C Mehta’s case was taken after the Bhopal gas tragedy, there was no reason to think that the principle of absolute liability laid in the case can not be used here.
• The respondents reiterated that since the UCIL did not have sufficient assets to meet the claims of the magnitude of disaster injured parties and UCC held majority shares, thus, the Court was justified in raising the corporate veil of the Corporate entity of Indian Company, UCIL.
• Concerning the interim payment, the respondents questioned that while the Indian Council of Medical Research is involved in epidemiological studies, can the gas injured parties survive till the time all the real data with correct preciseness is collected and proved and adjudged in refined forensic style in working out final amount of reimbursement with the precision of quantity  and quality?
• In response to the nature, category, and genuineness of the claims, the respondents responded that due to the enormous magnitude of filing of claims, the process of scrutinizing, categorizing, and ascertaining of their claims is bound to take time, and it was the responsibility of Government of India to provide relief and rehabilitation of the injured parties.

Judgment

The Supreme Court ordered UCC to pay damages of 750 crores “in full settlement of all claims, rights, and liabilities arising out  and relating to of Bhopal Gas Tragedy disaster.” All all criminal proceedings quashed and civil proceedings were disposed of,. Later, several petitions were filed to resuscitate criminal charges.

The judgment has been criticized on several grounds, especially for quashing criminal proceedings in the first place. The pertinent delay and lack of responsibility have often raised the question “If lives in India are less valuable than the rest of the world?” because the people’s outrage and grievances would have been addressed if a dreadful act had taken place elsewhere,. The state would not have been permitted to escape the liability. However, if we ignore the downside, we will notice that several enactments like the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 have been enacted to introduce sustainable and responsible development.

Facts Of The Case

• Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour were husband and wife from Ceylon ( Sri Lanka) and once they went for a vacation to England in the year 1915
• But unfortunately during the course of vacation, Mrs. Balfour fell ill; she was in urgent need of medical attention.
• Then they decided and made an agreement that Mr. Balfour would return to Ceylon and his wife, that is Mrs. Balfour shall stay back until she recovers from her illness.
• They had also decided that during that period of time Mr. Balfour shall pay Mrs. Balfour 30 pounds as maintenance every month until everything falls into place, unless she recovers and returns back to Ceylon.
• Now this understanding and interpretation was made when their relationship was fine and there was not any sort of sourness in between them.
• But slowly and gradually their relationship deteriorated which resulted in non- payment of the amount of maintenance by Mr. Balfour to Mrs. Balfour
• But Mrs. Balfour decided to sought to enforce the agreement and moved to the court.
• Mr. Balfour wrote the letter to his wife suggesting to make their separation permanent.
• And at later point of time they separated legally, that means they were divorced.
• Mrs. Balfour had brought the action against Mr. Balfour for non-payment of the amount he was supposed to pay in court of law in the year 1918.

Issues Raised In The Case

1. Did Mr. Balfour ever intended to enter into any sort of agreement with his wife, Mrs. Balfour?
2. Is the agreement between Mr. And Mrs. Balfour valid in nature at all?
3. Does the contract between husband and wife enforceable in court of law?

Contention At The Part Of The Appealant (Mr. Balfour)

The Agreement made between Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour was purely domestic in nature, it does not hold any legal enforcement. Moreover Mr. Balfour never had any sort of intention to to form an agreement which is legal in nature.

Contention At The Part Of The Respondent (Mrs. Balfour)

The husband must be obliged to pay her the maintenance because, because the husband got into the domestic agreement by entering into the contract that he would pay her the amount of 30 pounds as support for which she had agreed to stay back in England.

Judgement
As mentioned above, the agreement was not legally binding, the agreements made in personal family relationships are not counted in law of contract the agreements made between spouses to provide capitals or monetary benefits does not hold any legally binding authority. Generally, spouses or parties to marriage do make arrangements for personal and household expenses, but there is never a legal instinct in those things.

The court of Appeal had unanimously ruled that there was no such enforceable agreement between Mr. Balfour and Mrs. Balfour. Subsequently, Mr Balfour was allowed. Basically, the law revolves around the concept that there must be an intention on the part of both the parties to create a legal relationship in order to validate a contract. This was the ratio decidendi of the case. Whether the parties intended to create a legal relationship or not is determined by examining the circumstances that existed, under which the execution of the contract was done.

Short Analysis Of The Case
Initially, at the first instance of the case, Justice Sargant had held that, the claims made by Mrs. Balfour are valid and Mr. Balfour should be entitled to pay her the maintenance which he promised to pay. Finally, Mr. Balfour appealed in the court of appeal. In the court of Appeal, it was held by the bench of judges, Warrington LJ, Duke LJ, Atkin LJ that the agreement is not enforceable in court of law. Atkin LJ observed it with regard to owing to its domestic nature. Whereas Warrington LJ and Duke LJ did so because they doubted that Mrs. Balfour gave consideration. The doctrine of intention to create a legal relation was invoked by Atkin LJ basically.

It was said that the doctrine was with regard to public policy and domestic agreement has got nothing to do with it. The court can not indulge into such trifle issues relating to personal and family agreements.

Though there may be certain circumstances, where husband and wife may enter into an agreement which is legally binding in nature, but here in this case there was no such circumstance. The doctrine attracted attention and gained prominence. This intention is sometimes also referred as animus contrahendi.

In one of the later case of Jones vs. Padavatton, Salmon LJ had said that the this is factual in nature. It does not possess any legal presumption.
Intention to create a legal relationship is one of the essential elements required to enter into a contract.

Conclusion
By studying and going through the case of Balfour vs. Balfour (1919), we understand that a mere social agreement made within a family can not be enforced in court of law, these agreements do not hold any legally binding authority. Second thing is there must be an intention to create a legal relation at the part of the parties. Owing to all this, Mr. Balfour could not be sued by Mrs. Balfour in court of law. This case has often been seen in conjunction with Merritt vs. Merritt 1970] 2 All ER 760; [1970] 1 WLR 121. In this case, though the couple was married but they already had an estranged relationship, when the agreement was made, so in this scenario, any sort of agreement between them was to be considered that of legal in nature.

The difference between void and voidable contracts Is that a void contract is illegal and unenforceable while a voidable contract is legal and the parties can enforce it. A void contract is invalid or entirely against the law, so no one involved can say it’s enforceable under the law. Contracts that are voidable are valid and legally enforceable.

Null and Void

The word void means something isn’t valid and it isn’t legally binding. When we say a contract is void, that means it’s null, void, and that it is not backed by the force of law. That makes it unenforceable, and if anyone breaches an unenforceable contract, the other party to the contract has no legal recourse against them.

A contract can be valid when formed and later become void. This happens when the contract fulfills all the necessary conditions of a valid contract when it’s formed, but the laws change later or something changes to make fulfilling the contract impossible and beyond the capacity of imagination or beyond the control of the involved parties. Then, at that time, it becomes void. The things necessary to establish a valid contract include:

• Capacity
• Consideration
• Lawful object
• Free consent

What Makes a Contract Voidable

A voidable contract binds one party and the other party has the option to change their mind. This means they can cancel the contract anytime they want. The party that isn’t bound by the contract has the control in this type of contract. A mutual mistake on the part of both parties to a contract makes it voidable. If one or more pieces of material information are omitted from the contract, that also makes it voidable. A contract involving a minor is one example of a voidable agreement.

Minors can enter contracts, but if minors decide to breach the terms of a contract there isn’t any form of legal action that can be taken against them. This makes minors unbound parties in the contract. Another example of an unbound party in a contract is someone who’s either under the influence or someone who isn’t mentally capable of entering into a contractual agreement.

Legal Contract Forms

Both void contracts and voidable contracts are forms of legal contracts. A void contract, however, is invalid from the very beginning because it regards an illegal act. A voidable contract becomes invalid when one of parties involved cancels it for legal reasons. Because a void contract is holding against the law, neither party can enforce it. The voidable contract is both legal and valid until canceled or revoked. Starting at the beginning, a void contract can’t be enforced legally.

While no law is in place to support a void contract as a valid, existing contract, at least one party involved can be bound by a voidable contract. Neither obligations nor rights are associated with a void contract. With the voidable contract, which is covered under the law, only one party has the option of whether to continue it or rescind it. Legal liability can’t be assessed on either party to the contract if it’s void, but the voidable contract is upheld until the unbindable party chooses to rescind it.

When a contract is no longer enforceable, it becomes void. When a tactic like coercion, misrepresentation, or fraud are used in establishing a contract, it becomes voidable. A contract that is void can’t be made into a valid contract by two parties agreeing to the contract because you can’t legally agree to do something that’s illegal. A voidable contract, however, can be made valid by the party who isn’t bound, if they agree to give up the right to rescind the contract.

When a contract is ruled void, the court treats it as if it never existed. When a contract is ruled voidable, it can become a void contract based on the conditions that were in place when the contract was formed or it can be avoided under the law. Also, one party, or potentially both, has an option to void the contract. With a void contract, one or both parties have to do something that’s either impossible to do or illegal to do.

GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL CASE

Facts: In this case, the defendant was a school teacher who used to work in plaintiff school. Due to some conflicts which arose between the defendant and plaintiff, defendant had left the school. Later, he set up a rival school next to that of plaintiff. Defendant school teacher was very popular for his teaching. Boys from the plaintiff school left it and started to join in defendant�s school, because of this competition the plaintiff had to reduce them from 40peneace to 12penance. The plaintiff sued defendant for monetary loss occurred.

Issues Raised In This Case:

1. Can defendant be held responsible for the monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff, just because he had fixed a rival school and damaged the right of plaintiff?
2. Did this case cover the essentials of Damnum sine injuria? And if yes then the defendant couldn�t be held liable?

Judgement:
It was held by court that; no suit could lie. It was held by court of law that defendant couldn�t be held liable. The court stated that:
compensation is no ground of action even though the monetary loss is caused, but if no legal right is violated.

It also further stated that, the defendant had lawfully set up his own school and he nowhere violated any legal right of plaintiff.

It was believed by the court that, students liked the teaching style of defendant, hence it was at the discretion of the students to study in which ever school they want to.

Appellant has no right to stop the defendant to run a business as a competition to his school.

Case Analysis:
Law of Torts is understood to be An instrument to form people adhere to conduct of reasonable behavior and respect the rights and interests of one another.

1. And the same are kept in mind while giving the judgment of the case at the top of the decision of the law of court.
2. The case which we discussed above is related to An act which caused damage but no legal right is infringed or compromised
3. This is known as Damnum Sine injuria which means: Damage without legal injury.

The decision taken in the case GLOUCESTER GRAMMER SCHOOL, was also applied to the similar case Chasemore vs Richards (1859). In this case the plaintiff was running a mill on his own land, and for the same purpose he was using stream water for a long time. The well which was dug in his own land did cut the supply of underground water supply.

Damnum Sine Injuria:

This is a legal maxim in law of torts which deals with damages caused without injury. So it basically deals with the damages caused where there is no involvement of infringement of legal rights. Since there is no infringement of legal rights to any particular person, hence this cannot be enforced in court of law.

The mere fact that a man is injured by another’s act gives in itself no cause of action; if the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even though the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is exercising a legal right.

Damnum sine Injuria is a Latin word, which mean DAMAGE WITHOUT INJURY, and hence the word itself clearly establishes that if a person suffers from any kind of damage, but if there is no Inter vision with the legal rights of a person, then neither it can be enforced in the court of law, nor a person can claim any compensation.

The maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is dived into three parts:

1. Damnum includes anything which is related to substantial loss, harm, damage with respect to money, health etc.
2. Injuria means infringement of a right given by the law by the plaintiff
3. Sine means without

The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is that if one exercises his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and without infringing others legal right; such an exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in favor of that other person. Damages can be in any form either in the form of any substantial harm or loss suffered from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc.

RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

Rylands vs. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 is one of the landmark cases of tort law.  In this case, The House of Lords laid down the rule recognizing ‘No Fault’ liability. The ‘Rule of Strict Liability’ originated in this case. By this rule, a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same. Further, this case paved the way for ‘The Rule Of Absolute liability’ in India.

Judges (sitting)

 Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth

Decided on

17 July 1868

Major contribution of the case

‘The Rule of Strict Liability’ originated in this case.

Facts of the case

The defendant, Rylands got a reservoir constructed, through independent contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill. There were some old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors failed to observe. So they didn’t block the shafts. When water was filled within the reservoir, it burst through the shafts. As a result plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land was flooded. The defendant didn’t know about the shafts and he had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been. The negligence was on the part of independent contractors. Since the plaintiff, Fletcher has to suffer losses, he sued defendants.

Issues raised

• Whether there was any nuisance or not?
• Was the use of Defendant’s land unreasonable and thus was he to be held liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff?

Judgment

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the six Exchequer judges. Lord Cairns, while speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Justice Blackburn in the court of Exchequer Chamber but included a further limitation on liability. The one more requirement is that the land from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate.  The decision of House of Lords added a requirement that the use be ‘non-natural’. The judgement of this case was delivered on 17 July. In this the court consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay didn’t attend the case.

Three essentials, for the application of the Rule of Strict Liability

• Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of thing from one’s land arises when the thing collected was a dangerous thing. It means a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the dangerous thing was a very large body of water

• The thing thus brought or kept by an individual on his land must escape.

For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the world outside the occupation and control of the defendant

• It must be non-natural use of land.

Water collected within the reservoir in such an enormous quantity in Rylands v. Fletcher was held to be non-natural use of land. In order to show that, the use is non-natural, it must be shown that use is some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

A number of defences to the rule of strict liability too  was developed in this case and some later cases:

• Escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default
• Escape was a consequence of vis major
• Consent of the plaintiff
• Act of third party
• Statutory authority

Impact of the case in India

In M. C. Mehta v. Union Of India, the Supreme court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19th-century rule of English law. The honourable Supreme Court said it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailing in India at the present day. It evolved the rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ as a  part of Indian law in preference to the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. This rule was not subject to any of the exceptions under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The defences to the Rule of Strict Liability can be used by the persons who had established ‘hazardous and inherently dangerous’ industries to escape the liability for the havoc caused, by pleading some exceptions. So to remove that grey area and in order to increase accountability on the part of persons engaged in such kind of activities, the rule of ‘Absolute Liability’ has been evolved in India.

Conclusion

Ryland vs. Fletcher played a great role in deciding owners’ liability when he is bringing any dangerous object in his premises. It was necessary to have a law that could increase the duty of the owner. So that he can be more careful while bringing any dangerous object in his premises. The world is progressing very fast and in this era of industrialization, privatisation and globalization disputes regarding the duty of care are burgeoning rapidly so there was a need for a law that could solve these problems. This was done in this case. In the context of India, this  Rule of strict liability paved the way for ‘The Rule of Absolute Liability’ in India.

M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA

FACTS OF THE CASE

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others is the first river pollution case to emerge in environmental public interest litigation. In 1985, Mehta filed a writ petition charging that, despite the advances made in the legal code, government authorities had not taken effective steps to prevent environmental pollution of the river Ganga. Using the judicial remedy of mandamus, he called upon state agencies to prevent leather tanneries and the municipal corporation of Kanpur from disposing of industrial and domestic effluent in the river. Justice Kuldip Singh expanded this petition to include all large cities in the Ganga basin. In some law reports, this is called the “Ganga Pollution Case.In this petition the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the time they incorporate certain treatment plants for treatment of toxic effluents to arrest water pollution. Mehta requested the court to order the leather tanneries of the district of Kanpur to stop discharging their untreated effluent into the river. He also claimed that the Municipal Corporation of Kanpur was not undertaking treatment of domestic sewage.

SUBJECT MATTER

All human beings for obvious reasons depend on the environment to survive. A safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment is integral to the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights including rights to life, health, food, water and sanitation. Without which it is technically impossible for humans to survive. Therefore, human rights also include a right to healthy environment. This relationship is increasingly recognised, as the right to a healthy environment is enshrined in over 100 constitutions. Despite this, at least three people a week are killed protecting our environmental rights- while many more are harassed, intimidated, criminalised and forced from their lands.

LAWS INVOLVED

• Article 52A (g) on the Constitution of India
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

JUDGEMENT

In this petition the petitioner requested the court to request the Supreme Court (“the Court”) to restrain the respondents from releasing effluents into the Ganga river till the time they incorporate certain treatment plants for treatment of toxic effluents to arrest water pollution. At the preliminary hearing the Court directed the issue of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, The Court highlighted the importance certain provisions in our constitutional framework which enshrine the importance and the need for protecting our environment. Article 48-A provides that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life.

The Court stated the importance of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (‘the Water Act’). This act was passed to prevent and control water pollution and maintaining water quality. This act established central and stated boards and conferred them with power and functions relating to the control and prevention of water pollution. Section 24 of the Act prohibits the use of the use of any ‘stream’ for disposal of polluting matter. A ‘stream’ under section 2(j) of the Act includes river, The Act permits the establishment of Central Boards and State Boards. Section 16 and Section 17 of the Act describe the power of these boards. One of the functions of the State Board is to inspect sewage or trade effluents, plants for treatment of sewage and trade effluents.

CONCLUSION

India has a prominent environmental heritage which can be attributable to its biodiversity. The ganga pollution case is very important case and first of its own kind where supreme court cleared that development cannot be done on the value of environment. Then also the judgement seemed to be failed as the river Ganga is still polluted.

Although there were several schemes campaigns by the government like Namami Gange cleanup campaign – the Ganga River Basin Management Plan and the National Mission for Clean Ganga all of them so far proved equally ineffective. If take whole schemes and plans we can conclude that the biggest obstacle for the Ganga cleanup is not the money, tools, or practices, though these are very significant. Instead, it is whether India as a whole is ready to take stand and has the national spirit and the capacity to use these decades of focused investment and management to ensure that by mid-century Indians can swim, fish, and drink safely from the mother river. So, it requires we the people included in it the it would no longer to achieve this.

VALIDITY OF CONTRACT : CONTINGENT CONTRACT
INTRODUCTION
A Contract is enforceable by law in keeping with the section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For each contract, there is a free consent of
the parties that are competent to each other for a lawful consideration and object as given under section 10 the said Act. However, the consent of
the parties for performing the contract shall be free from coercion, undue influence, etc. As provisions made under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
is predicted on Sir Pollock’s definition that states any contract and the ability to perform a contract is considered to be valid when it is
enforceable by court of law. Therefore, for the creation of any Contract, there should be a lawful consent, wherever the considerations are paid
or secure that shall be implemented beneath law.

Contracts can be classified into two groups on the basis of conditions:

Absolute Contracts: These are the contracts where there’s condition and can be performed in all circumstances.

Contingent Contracts: These are the contracts where there’s a condition and also known as the “Conditional Contracts”.

The word Contingent normally suggests that ‘Subject to Change’. It’s a form of conditional contract during which performance becomes due
solely upon the happening or non happening of some event which is of sure nature. Therefore, uncertainty is the symbol of the longer term. Once
the contract is obligated and condition is satisfied among the parties then they have to perform their obligations. If the situations obligatory

within the contract aren’t satisfied then the contingent contract becomes void and it needn’t to be performed. So, a Contingent Contract is to be
performed under some circumstances solely. Therefore, Section 31 to 36 of the said Act deals with the Contingent Contracts. [1]
According to Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it defines Contingent Contract as the contract to try to do or not to do something, if
some events collateral to such contract will or doesn’t  happen. That means the performance of a contract depends upon some unsure event. If
the events happen, the contract will be performed and if the events don’t happen it’ll not be performed. For example: There is a contract between
A and B for which A has to pay B Rs. 20,000 if B’s house burnt in any circumstances. Here, it is commonly regarded as a contingent contract
because the performance of such contract depends on contingency that is unsure. The simplest way to determine whether the contract is
contingent or not, is uncertainty. If contingency is for certain it’s not a contingent contract however if the consistency is uncertain then, it’s a
contingent contract. Therefore, all contracts of insurance (except life insurance) guarantee and indemnity are contingent contracts. There are few
essential parts of a Contingent contract.

ESSENTIALS OF CONTIGENT CONTRACT

1. Performance of the Contract
   The performance of the contract must be conditional i.e. condition for which the contract has been entered into must be a future event, and it
   should be uncertain.
2. Contingency Relate to Collateral Matters
   highlights that the contingency has contemplated by the contract must be collateral to the contract. It means that a contract already arisen or a
   subsisting contract is there, but its performance cannot be demanded unless the contemplated event happens or does not happen.
3. Will of the Party

The particular event so considered as for contingency must depend on the act of the party but it does not depend on the will of the party.A
contract for sale of goods enjoin the condition that the goods would be inspected before despatch was held to be a firm contract. The import of
materials agreeable to such a contract was valid.

4. Uncertain Event

If the event is sure to happen, then the contract is due to be This is not a contingent contract. The event should be uncertain.

RULES REGARDING PERFORMANCE OF A CONTINGENT CONTRACT

 The following are the rules regarding performance of a contingent contract:

1. Contingent contract upon the happening of a future uncertain event :

When the happening of such event has possible it becomes enforced and if the happening of such event becomes impossible it becomes void.
EX: ‘A’ contracts to pay ‘B’ a sum of money when ‘B’ marries ‘C’.’C’ dies without being married to ‘B’. The contract becomes void.

2. Contingent contract upon the non happening of a future uncertain event : 

When the happening of such event becomes impossible it becomes enforced and when such event has possible it becomes void.
EX: “A” agrees to sell his car to “B” if “C” dies. The contract cannot be enforced as long as “C” is alive

3. Contingent contract upon happening of an event within a specified time :
 
When such event has happened within the specified time it can be enforced and if the happening of such event becomes impossible within the
specified time it becomes void.
EX: ‘A’ agrees to pay ‘B’ a sum of money if ‘B’ marries ‘C’,’C’ marries ‘D’. The marriage of ‘B’ to ‘C’ must be considered impossible now,
although it is possible that ‘D’ may die and that ‘C’ may afterwards marry ‘B’.

4. Contingent contract upon non happening of an event within a specified time :

 When the happening of such event becomes impossible within the specified time it can be enforced and if the happening of such event has
happened within the specified time it becomes void.
EX: ’A’ promises to pay ‘B’ a sum of money if a certain ship returns within a year. The contract may be enforced if the ship returns within a
year, and becomes void if the ship is burnt within the year.

5. Contingent contract upon impossible events : 
Such an agreement cannot be enforced since it is void. Whether the impossibility of the event was known to the parties or not is immaterial.
EX: ‘A’ agrees to pay ‘B’ Rs 1000/- if ‘B’ will marry A’s daughter, ‘X’. ‘X’ was dead at the time of the agreement. The agreement is void.

6. Contingent contract upon future conduct of a living person:
 When such person acts in the manner as desired in the contract it can be enforced and if such person does not acts in the manner as desired in
the contract it becomes void.

TYPES OF CONTINGENT CONTRACTS

Contracts contingent upon the occurrence of an uncertain event :
These contracts become valid only if the uncertain event mentioned in the contract occurs. For instance, let’s say A and B enter into a contract
wherein A promises to sell his goods in transit to B provided the goods safely reach the harbor. Since, the sale of goods by A is dependent upon
a condition (that the goods reach the harbor), this is a contingent contract. If the ship does not make it to the harbor, the contract becomes void.
Contracts contingent upon the non-occurrence of an uncertain event :
Sometimes, a contingent contract may depend upon the nonoccurrence of an uncertain event. For example, if A promises to sell his goods in
transit to B if the ship carrying the goods does not come back, then the contract becomes valid if the ship sinks in the sea; if it safely reaches the
harbor, the contract becomes void.
Contracts contingent upon the occurrence of an uncertain event within a specified timeframe :
In these contracts, the event must occur within the period specified in the contract. For example, A promises to sell the goods in transit to B, if
the ship carrying the goods safely arrives the harbor within eight days. If the ship comes on the ninth day or anytime thereafter, the contract
becomes void.
Contracts contingent upon the nonoccurrence of an uncertain event within a specified timeframe :
For example, let’s say, A contracts to sell the goods in transit to B if the ship carrying the goods does not reach the harbor within eight days.
Then, the contract becomes void if the ship arrives on the sixth day or anytime before eight days. On the other hand, if the ship does not come
until eight days, the contract becomes valid; it does not matter whether or not it comes or does not come after the eighth day has passed.
Contracts contingent upon an impossible event :

If the performance of a contract is dependent upon an impossible event, such a contract is ab initio void, i.e., void right from the beginning. For
example, A promises to pay B $7,000 if B marries C, who died five years back. Now, since C is already dead, it’s not possible for B to marry
her. So, the contract becomes null and void.

RIGHTS OF PAWNEE AND PAWNOR

As per section 172 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a Pledge is a contract where a person deposits an article or good with a lender of money as security for the repayment of a loan or performance of a promise. Pledge is also known as a pawn. The depositor or the bailor is the Pawnor and the bailee or the depositee is the Pawnee. The Pawnee is under the duty to take reasonable care of the goods pledged with him. Let us learn about the Rights of Pawnee and Pawnor.

Key features of Pledge are:

• The property under pledge shall be delivered to the Pawnee.
• Such delivery shall be in the pursuance of the contract.
• This delivery shall be for the purpose of security.
• Also, delivery of articles shall be upon a condition to return.

 RIGHTS OF PAWNEE

Pawnee has the following rights:

• Pawnee has a right to retain the goods pledged until payment of debt, interest and any other expense incurred for maintenance of such goods. For example, X pledges his gold jewelry for some loan from a bank. In such a case bank has all the rights to retain the gold jewelry not only for adjustment of loan amount but also for payment of interest accrued on such loan amount.
• Pawnee has a right to file a suit for recovery of debt while retaining the goods pledged as security.
• He has a right to sue for the sale of goods pledged and the payment of money due to him.
• Pawnee has a right to seek reimbursement of extraordinary expenses incurred. However, he cannot retain goods with him in such a case.
• Pawnee has a right to sell the goods after giving reasonable notice and time to pawnor. Pawnee can sue pawnor for deficiency, if any, after the sale of such goods. Also, if there is any surplus on sale of goods pawnee must return it to pawnor.

RIGHTS OF PAWNOR

   In case pawnee makes any unauthorized sale of goods pledged without giving proper notice and time to pawnor than pawnor has following rights:

• Right to file a suit for redemption of goods by making payment of debt.
• Right to claim for damages and loss on the ground of conversion.

LIEN

A lien is a legal right to claim a security interest in a property provided by the owner of the property to the creditor. It is generally used as a guarantee for some sort of legal obligation such as loan repayment.

In other words, a lien ensures that a creditor obtains the right to the property if a borrower fails to meet his legal and/or financial obligations. The grantor (the owner of the property) is called the lienee while the party that receives the lien is referred to as the lienor or lien holder.

TYPES OF LIENS

CONSENSUAL

Consensual liens are created by contractual obligations between the concerned parties. The most common examples are loans obtained to purchase real estate or personal property (chattel). They can be mortgages or auto loans.

 NON- CONSENSUAL

Non-consensual liens arise from statutory or common law. The most notable example is a tax lien, which is imposed by law against the property of a taxpayer. If a taxpayer fails to pay the taxes owed to the government, the tax agency can seize his or her real or personal property for the amount of the lien.

EXAMPLE OF LIEN

John wants to purchase a new house. In order to afford the purchase, he borrows $300,000 from ABC Bank. The bank wants to guarantee the repayment of the loan, and it requires John to provide the house as the collateral for the loan.

The bank files the documents with the government agency required to register the lien. Upon the completion of the process, the bank becomes the holder of the collateral provided by John (in this case, John’s house).

If John is unable to meet his financial obligations according to the mortgage agreement with ABC Bank, the bank will take possession of the property and will be able to sell it to satisfy the loan obligation.

BAILOR

A bailor is an individual who temporarily give up the possession but not ownership of a good or other property under a bailment. The bailor gives the possession of the good or property to another individual, known as the bailee.

BAILEE

 A bailee is an individual who gains possession, but not ownership, of a good or other property. The bailee is also known as a custodian, is given with the possession of the good or property by another individual known as the bailor.

This relationship, in legal terms as a bailment, is based on a contractual agreement between the bailor and the bailee. The bailment specifies the terms and purpose of the change in custody and is outlined in writing such as a receipt or chit.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF BAILOR

RIGHTS OF BAILOR

• RIGHT TO ENFORCE BAILEE’S PERFORMANCE

The bailor delivers goods to the bailee for some specific purpose, and in case of non-gratuitous bailment,  the bailor has an elemental right to achieve that purpose or obtain the benefit through the latter.

• RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGES

In the case of bailment, the bailor has the right to claim for damages against the loss, if any, caused to the goods bailed due to the bailee’s negligence or misconduct.

• RIGHT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOODS

If any third person does some injury to the goods bailed or deprives the rights of bailee of the use of the goods, the bailor may file a suit against the wrong-doer, and recover compensation from him.

• RIGHT TO DEMAND RETURN OF GOODS ALONG WITH ACCRETION TO, IF ANY

The bailor enjoys the right to have the goods bailed delivered back to him in a safe condition and after the time of bailment has expired or the purpose behind the bailment has been achieved. And, in the absence of any contrary term in the contract, the bailor is also entitled to any accretion to the goods bailed if it occurred while the goods were in the study of bailee.

DUTIES OF BAILOR

• DUTY TO DISCLOSE FAULTS

In the case of gratuitous bailment, the bailor is expected to disclose all the defects to the bailee known to him and which would get in the way with the use of goods bailed. A non-gratuitous bailment carries a greater responsibility on the part of the bailor. He will be liable even if he was not in the know of the defects.

• DUTY TO REPAY BAILEE’S EXPENSES

A bailor is bound to repay to the bailee expenses incurred by him for work done on the goods received under conditions of bailment, and in which he is not receiving any remuneration or deriving any benefit.

• DUTY TO INDEMNIFY THE BAILEE

The bailor is bound to make good the loss suffered by the bailee that is in excess of the benefit derived, where he had delivered the goods without a reason and compelled the bailee to return them before the expiry of the period of bailment.

• DUTY TO COMPENSATE BAILEE FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY

In every contract of bailment warrants the bailee about the bailor’s title being defect-free. And, if bailee subsequently suffers any loss by the reason of the bailor’s title being defective, it is the duty of the bailor to compensate the bailee for breach of warranty.

• DUTY TO CLAIM BACK THE GOODS

The bailor is bound to accept the goods returned by the bailee in accordance with the terms of bailment. If he refuses or fails to accept back the goods, if offered at a proper time and at a proper place, without any reasonable ground, he will be responsible for any damage to the goods and not the bailee.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF BAILEE

RIGHTS OF BAILEE

• RIGHT TO COMPENSATION

The bailor is responsible to the bailee for any loss which the bailee may sustain and the bailor was not entitled to make the bailment, or to give directions respecting them. If the bailor has no right to bail the goods or to give directions respecting them and consequently the bailee is exposed to some loss, the bailor is responsible for the same.

• RIGHT TO EXPENSES OR REMUNERATION

The conditions of the bailment, the goods are to be kept, or to have work done upon them by the bailee for the bailor, thus the bailee is to receive no remuneration, the bailor will have to repay to the bailee the necessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of the bailment.

• RIGHT OF LIEN

If the bailee lawful charges are not paid he may retain the goods. So the right to retain any property until the charges due in respect of the property are paid is called the right of lien. The Supreme Court cited the following passage from HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND as to the nature of this right.

DUTIES OF BAILEE

• DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE

In the cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as an ordinary and prudent man of sound mind.

Union of India v. Udho ram & sons.

Facts– Certain goods were consigned by M/s Radha Ram Sohan Lal from Calcutta to Delhi by rail. Some of the articles out of this consignment, having been stolen during transit, the same were not delivered to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought an action to recover compensation for the same. The trail court found that the wagon in which the goods were loaded was properly rivetted and sealed when the train left Howrah at 1:30 am, but seals and rivets of one of the doors of the wagon were found open when it reached Chandanpur station after 2 hours. The theft took place at an in-between point when the train stopped there for the home signal at 2:05 am for about 15 minutes. It was found that railway protection police were also there in the guard’s van.

Issues before the court –

Whether the railway authorities were liable for the loss of the goods in transit?

Whether the railway authorities were in the position of the bailee and liable to indemnify for the loss caused?

Judgement – It was held that the railway did not take due care. Firstly, they did not prove from record that the railway protection police which escorted the train was sufficient in strength, and secondly, that unlike a prudent man, the railway protection police did not keep an eye on wagons, particularly when the train stopped, to prevent the theft of the goods. Hence, the defendants were held liable.

• DUTY OF UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOODS

The bailee should use the goods bailed to him strictly in accordance with the conditions of the contract of bailment. If he illegally uses the goods bailed to him, the contract of bailment becomes voidable at the option of the bailor.

 The bailor may terminate the bailment;

According to section 153 If the bailee make unauthorize use of goods or uses the goods which is inconsistent with the conditions of bailment, then the bailor has the option to terminate the bailment and claim back the goods.

Illustration– A lets to B, for hire, a car for his own use. B lends the car to C for commercial purpose. A can terminate the bailment.

The bailor may recover compensation for the loss caused due to unauthorized use of goods;

According to section 154, If the bailee makes such use of goods which is contrary to the conditions of bailment, and there happens any damage to the goods due to such unauthorize use, the bailee is liable to compensate bailor for such loss.

Illustration- A hires a car from B for travelling to Delhi but instead went to Mumbai. The car met with an accident. A is liable to compensate B for loss.

• DUTY OF NOT TO MIX THE GOODS BAILED WITH HIS OWN GOODS

The bailee must keep the goods bailed separate from his own goods. He should not mix his goods with another without any prior permission of the bailor.

If the bailee without bailor’s consent mixes bailor’s goods with his own goods, there arises two possibilities.

Section 156– When the goods can be separated;

When the mix goods ca be separated, both remain the owners in accordance with there respective shares. The bailee has to bear the expenses of separation of goods and also for any damage arising from the mixture.

Section 157– When the goods cannot be separated;

If the nature of the goods is such that the bailor’s goods cannot be separated from those of bailee’s, then it is deemed to be the loss of goods and bailor can recover compensation for the same.

• DUTY TO RETURN THE BAILOR THE INCREASE OR PROFIT ON THE GOODS BAILED. (SECTION 163) 

According to this section “In the absence of any contract to the contrary, the bailee is bound to deliver to the bailor, or according to his directions, any increase or profit which may have accrued from the goods bailed.”

For example- A leaves a cat in the custody of B to be taken care of. The cat gives birth to 5 kittens. B is bound to deliver the kittens as well as the cat to A.

BHIM SINGH V. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

INTRODUCTION
An arrest made without reasonable suspicion and the individual arrested is concerned in a cognizable offence, can give rise to a claim
for damages for false or wrongful imprisonment. Considering the needs of the day where  illegal arrest is made without any rhyme or
reason and with total abuse of the power, Courts are not lagging behind in awarding a suitable compensation and exemplary cost to the
ultimate sufferer in such a scenario . In such situations, Courts are not supposed to remain silent spectators. For the wrongful arrest of
the group of persons under section 151of Criminal Procedure Code, the police had been directed to pay Rs.10000 as a compensation
to every individual that was arrested. Where it is shown that an arrested individual ,with mischievous and malicious intent , the Court
shall have the power to compensate the sufferer by granting suitable monetary compensation and exemplary cost. The Constitutional
safeguard for the protection of arrested persons is in general violated by police officials and sometimes, Magistrate may also neglect to
act in accordance with the law and such a situation arose in Bhim Singh vs. State.

FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr. Bhim Singh, an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir was arrested and was detained in police custody and was deliberately prevented
from attending sessions of the legislative assembly that were held on 11th September, 1985. He was arrested on an intervening night
between 9th and 10th September 1985 by the Quiz kunda police station’s officer , on an allegation that a case under section 153A of
Ranbir Penal Code has been registered against him for delivering an inflammatory speech at the public gathering held near parade
ground, Jammu on 8th September 1985. He was not produced before the Magistrate till 13th September. As his whereabouts were not
known, a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the supreme court by his wife. On inquiry of the Supreme Court, it was found that Mr.
Bhim Singh was illegally detained by the police, aided by collusion and by a casual attitude with the Magistrate, who ordered for
remand without production of the arrested person before him. The Court pointed out that the Magistrate acted without proper sense of
responsibility for personal liberty and the police arrested the imprisoned with malicious intent and it certainly was a gross violation of
the constitutional right of the accused person under article 21 and 22(2).

JUDGEMENT BY THE COURT
After hearing the arguments of both the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case , the honorable Supreme court has
observed that the law enforcement officials acted in the most arbitrary way and ruled “if the non-public liberty of a member of
the legislature is to be treated within such fashion ,one can only think of what may happen to lesser mortals”. Moving forward ,the
apex court reminded the duties of “police officials who are , the custodians of law and order within any state should have the
best respect for private liberty of citizens and will not float the laws by stopping to such absurd acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law
and order must not become the predators of civil liberties. Their duty is to safeguard .” Chinnappa Reddy J. and Khalid J. followed the
choice of Supreme Court in Rudul Shah and Sebastian Hongray cases and expressed their view that , when someone involves us with

the complaint that he has been arrested with mischievous and malicious intentions ,where  his Constitutional and legal rights were
invaded, the malice and invasion might not be washed away by his being unfettered. The petitioner for such gross violation of the
fundamental rights granted to him by the constitution of our country ,was awarded monetary compensation by way of exemplary
costs. Within the cases of ‘ Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar and Anr.’ and within the case of ‘ Sebastian Hongray v. UOI, it has been
 noticed that just in case of such a violation of the basic rights provided by the Constitution, it is necessary to compensate the victim
by way of exemplary costs. The respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was ordered to pay to the petitioner Rs.5000 within 2
months starting from the date of the judgment. The number was to be deposited with the Registrar of the Court which might then be
paid to the petitioner
ANALYSIS
The tort of false imprisonment is one of the most severe kinds of human rights violations. The Indian socio-legal system is based on
non-violence, mutual respect and human dignity of an individual. Even prisoners have human rights because, the prison torture is not
the last drug in the Justice Pharmacopoeia but a confession of failure to do justice to a man alive . In fact, the same is recognized by
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 20 with its sub-clauses re-enforces this and seeks to protect convicts from being held
down due to ex post facto laws (Art. 20 (a)), double jeopardy (Art. 20 (b)) and self-incrimination (Art. 20 (c)).
The right of a person to personal liberty, freedom, and life with dignity has been guaranteed and safe guarded by the Constitution
under Articles 20 and 21 and cannot be abrogated even during an emergency, and false imprisonment is incongruous of the same
situation. The fact that a convict is imprisoned and has to serve a sentence, doesn’t give the jail authorities any right to trouble or
torment him unnecessarily. It is a false notion that the prisoner subject to intolerable hardships is remediless. The term of
imprisonment is a decisive and vital factor that is to be considered in order to compute and award damages. And while awarding
damages for false imprisonment physical or mental injury has to be kept in mind. The mere fact that the person has been imprisoned
raises the claim of nominal or compensatory damages, if no other harm was caused to the plaintiff. If the person is unlawfully

confined or tormented by any police officer or government officer, then he/she or any person on his behalf can file for the writ of
habeas corpus. The writ ensures the liberty of the person who has been confined. The person who is about to be falsely arrested or
imprisoned can also use reasonable force in order to prevent false arrest. He can use this force for self-defense but has to make sure
that the force used is reasonable based on the circumstances.

CONCLUSION
Social and economic justice is the signature tune of the Indian Constitution. It guarantees and protects fundamental rights that cannot
be ordinarily derogated from. To protect these rights, the Constitution has provided for writ remedies enforceable by the High Courts
and the Supreme Court of India . Often these rights are violated by the state, though in some cases private parties may also be
involved. An important dimension of these remedies is the award of compensation as part of the relief that can be granted to the
affected person. This arises from the fact that not only does the state have a legal duty in protecting the rights guaranteed, but also a
social duty to compensate the affected individuals or parties when the state violates any of these rights. Through various decisions of
the Courts in India, it may be stated that this dream of human rights enthusiasts is now an obligation of the state. The rights have been
interpreted to imply a contract between the State and the citizens, a breach of which might be regressive monetarily.

A perfectly competitive market is one in which the number of buyers and sellers is very large, all engaged in buying and selling a homogeneous product without any artificial restrictions and possessing perfect knowledge of market at a time. In the words of A. Koutsoyiannis, “Perfect competition is a market structure characterised by a complete absence of rivalry among the individual firms.” According to R.G. Lipsey, “Perfect competition is a market structure in which all firms in an industry are price- takers and in which there is freedom of entry into, and exit from, industry.”

CHARACTERISTICS OF PERFECT COMPETITION

The following are the conditions for the existence of perfect competition:

• Large Number of Buyers and Sellers

The first condition is that the number of buyers and sellers must be so large that none of them individually is in a position to influence the price and output of the industry as a whole. The demand of individual buyer relative to the total demand is so small that he cannot influence the price of the product by his individual action.Similarly, the supply of an individual seller is so small a fraction of the total output that he cannot influence the price of the product by his action alone. In other words, the individual seller is unable to influence the price of the product by increasing or decreasing its supply.Rather, he adjusts his supply to the price of the product. He is “output adjuster”. Thus no buyer or seller can alter the price by his individual action. He has to accept the price for the product as fixed for the whole industry. He is a “price taker”.

• Freedom of Entry or Exit of Firms

The next condition is that the firms should be free to enter or leave the industry. It implies that whenever the industry is earning excess profits, attracted by these profits some new firms enter the industry. In case of loss being sustained by the industry, some firms leave it.

• Homogeneous Product

Each firm produces and sells a homogeneous product so that no buyer has any preference for the product of any individual seller over others. This is only possible if units of the same product produced by different sellers are perfect substitutes. In other words, the cross elasticity of the products of sellers is infinite.

No seller has an independent price policy. Commodi­ties like salt, wheat, cotton and coal are homogeneous in nature. He cannot raise the price of his product. If he does so, his customers would leave him and buy the product from other sellers at the ruling lower price.The above two conditions between themselves make the average revenue curve of the individual seller or firm perfectly elastic, horizontal to the X-axis. It means that a firm can sell more or less at the ruling market price but cannot influence the price as the product is homogeneous and the number of sellers very large.

• Absence of Artificial Restrictions

The next condition is that there is complete openness in buying and selling of goods. Sellers are free to sell their goods to any buyers and the buyers are free to buy from any sellers. In other words, there is no discrimination on the part of buyers or sellers.Moreo­ver, prices are liable to change freely in response to demand-supply conditions. There are no efforts on the part of the producers, the government and other agencies to control the supply, demand or price of the products. The movement of prices is unfettered.

• Profit Maximisation Goal

Every firm has only one goal of maximising its profits.

• Perfect Mobility of Goods and Factors

Another requirement of perfect competition is the perfect mobility of goods and factors between industries. Goods are free to move to those places where they can fetch the highest price. Factors can also move from a low-paid to a high-paid industry.

• Perfect Knowledge of Market Conditions

This condition implies a close contact between buyers and sellers. Buyers and sellers possess complete knowledge about the prices at which goods are being bought and sold, and of the prices at which others are prepared to buy and sell. They have also perfect knowledge of the place where the transactions are being carried on. Such perfect knowledge of market conditions forces the sellers to sell their product at the prevailing market price and the buyers to buy at that price.

• Absence of Transport Costs

Another condition is that there are no transport costs in carry­ing of product from one place to another. This condition is essential for the existence of perfect compe­tition which requires that a commodity must have the same price everywhere at any time. If transport costs are added to the price of the product, even a homogeneous commodity will have different prices depending upon transport costs from the place of supply.

• Absence of Selling Costs

Under perfect competition, the costs of advertising, sales-promotion, etc. do not arise because all firms produce a homogeneous product.

Oligopoly is a market situation in which there are a few firms selling homogeneous or differenti­ated products. It is difficult to pinpoint the number of firms in ‘competition among the few.’ With only a few firms in the market, the action of one firm is likely to affect the others. An oligopoly industry produces either a homogeneous product or heterogeneous products.

The former is called pure or per­fect oligopoly and the latter is called imperfect or differentiated oligopoly. Pure oligopoly is found primarily among producers of such industrial products as aluminium, cement, copper, steel, zinc, etc. Imperfect oligopoly is found among producers of such consumer goods as automobiles, cigarettes, soaps and detergents, TVs, rubber tyres, refrigerators, typewriters, etc.

CHARACTERISTICS OF OLIGOPOLY

• Interdependence

There is recognised interdependence among the sellers in the oligopolistic market. Each oligopolist firm knows that changes in its price, advertising, product characteristics, etc. may lead to counter-moves by rivals. When the sellers are a few, each produces a considerable fraction of the total output of the industry and can have a noticeable effect on market conditions.He can reduce or increase the price for the whole oligopolist market by selling more quantity or less and affect the profits of the other sellers. It implies that each seller is aware of the price-moves of the other sellers and their impact on his profit and of the influence of his price-move on the actions of rivals.

Thus there is complete interdependence among the sellers with regard to their price-output policies. Each seller has direct and ascertainable influences upon every other seller in the industry. Thus, every move by one seller leads to counter-moves by the others.

• Advertisement

The main reason for this mutual interdependence in decision making is that one producer’s fortunes are dependent on the policies and fortunes of the other producers in the indus­try. It is for this reason that oligopolist firms spend much on advertisement and customer services.As pointed out by Prof. Baumol, “Under oligopoly advertising can become a life-and-death matter.” For example, if all oligopolists continue to spend a lot on advertising their products and one seller does not match up with them he will find his customers gradually going in for his rival’s product. If, on the other hand, one oligopolist advertises his product, others have to follow him to keep up their sales.

• Competition

This leads to another feature of the oligopolistic market, the presence of com­petition. Since under oligopoly, there are a few sellers, a move by one seller immediately affects the rivals. So each seller is always on the alert and keeps a close watch over the moves of its rivals in order to have a counter-move. This is true competition.

• Barriers to Entry of Firms

As there is keen competition in an oligopolistic industry, there are no barriers to entry into or exit from it. However, in the long run, there are some types of barriers to entry which tend to restraint new firms from entering the industry.

They may be:

(a) Economies of scale enjoyed by a few large firms

 (b) control over essential and specialised inputs

(c) high capital requirements due to plant costs, advertising costs, etc.

 (d) exclusive patents and licenses; and

(e) the existence of unused capacity which makes the industry unattractive. When entry is restricted or blocked by such natural and artificial barriers, the oligopolistic industry can earn long-run super normal profits.

• Lack of Uniformity

Another feature of oligopoly market is the lack of uniformity in the size of firms. Finns differ considerably in size. Some may be small, others very large. Such a situation is asymmetrical. This is very common in the American economy. A symmetrical situation with firms of a uniform size is rare.

• Demand Curve

It is not easy to trace the demand curve for the product of an oligopolist. Since under oligopoly the exact behaviour pattern of a producer cannot be ascertained with certainty, his demand curve cannot be drawn accurately, and with definiteness. How does an individual seller s de­mand curve look like in oligopoly is most uncertain because a seller’s price or output moves lead to unpredictable reactions on price-output policies of his rivals, which may have further repercussions on his price and output.The chain of action reaction as a result of an initial change in price or output, is all a guess-work. Thus a complex system of crossed conjectures emerges as a result of the interdependence­ among the rival oligopolists which is the main cause of the indeterminateness of the demand curve.

• No Unique Pattern of Pricing Behaviour

The rivalry arising from interdependence among the oligopolists leads to two conflicting motives. Each wants to remain independent and to get the maximum possible profit. Towards this end, they act and react on the price-output movements of one another in a continuous element of uncertainty.On the other hand, again motivated by profit maximisation each seller wishes to cooperate with his rivals to reduce or eliminate the element of uncertainty. All rivals enter into a tacit or formal agreement with regard to price-output changes. It leads to a sort of monopoly within oligopoly.They may even recognise one seller as a leader at whose initiative all the other sellers raise or lower the price. In this case, the individual seller’s demand curve is a part of the industry demand curve, having the elasticity of the latter. Given these conflicting attitudes, it is not possible to predict any unique pattern of pricing behaviour in oligopoly markets.

 THE CASE IVORY TRADERS & MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

This case is based on the trading of ivory which is illegal. Basically the meaning of ivory is teeth of elephant. It is used for making the ornaments and other articles. And we know that it is banned because the trading of ivory is illegal. The animals get harm due to this. It is found tusks of the elephant. The case Ivory traders & manufacturers association VS Union of India, (AIR 1997 DEL 267) is based on the trading of the ivory.

• According to article 48A of the Constitution of India: “protection and improvement and safeguarding of forests and wildlife.
• The State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

NAMES OF JUDGES

The bench of:-

 The Hon’ble CJ Mr. M Jagannadha Rao

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Dev

 The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh

FACTS OF THE CASE  

• The petitioners are dealers and artisans in ivory carry on the and trade in ivory including the manufacture of articles which are derived from ivory lawfully imported in India prior to be ban.
• They import the parts of his stock of mammoth ivory from Russia and parts of it from Hong Kong for the purposes of the business.
• Ivory derived from mammoth, extinct species of wild animal and ivory derived from elephants. As the mammoth and elephants both are different from each other.
• This case is totally based on environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife. The State shall protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
• Four countries are involved in this trading these are India, Russia, Hong Kong and china.
• The court reasoned that the amendment act explicitly bans the use of ivory for commercial use: “no person can commence or carry on business as a dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made, there from, or as manufacturers of such articles”. The court puts special emphasis on the words ivory imported into India as being designed deliberately. The intention is to cover all descriptions of ivory, including from mammoth.
• Therefore, they plead that they are persons affected by amendment act.
• The cannot even retain the possession and control of the ivory lawfully imported by them and articles made or derived there from as the same has been made an offence U/S 51 of act read with section 49 c (2). They say that the ban is unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary.

IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

• First of all the restriction is unreasonable unfair and arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India.
• As per the amendment act extinguishes the title of the petitioners over the imported ivory lawfully required by them and articles made there from without making any provisions for compensation thereof.
• The petitioners trade only in imported fossil ivory and articles manufactured there from.
• The mammoth imported from abroad and actually the act does not deal with this kind of ivory at all.
• The act only covers elephant ivory articles made there from. That the elephant ivory and mammoth ivory are of different types and can be distinguished from each other.

IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

• That the impugned legislation was enacted to provide protection to the wildlife and it must be viewed in that perspective.
• That the necessity of population and conservation of wildlife is essential for the very existence of human life.
• There is an illegal killing of the India elephants for the ivory.
• Due to this wildlife of our country is also depleting. We have to control this depletion and we have to take strict steps to control all these things.
• As I have discussed above about the depletion of wildlife this is all because of human activities. As the initiative is taken by the government. Is they constructed the wildlife sanctuaries and the national parks to only save the animals and our wildlife also.
• The human beings are exploiting animals because of the rise of money in the products of wild animals. The trade of ivory was banned in 1986 in India. And the opportunity is left with traders to dispose of the stock.

JUDGEMENT

It needs to be noticed that the Amendment Act 44 of 1991 has been enacted to carry out the mandate of the directive principles as enshrined in Article 48-A. The State has the power to completely prohibit a trade or business which has an adverse impact on the preservation of species of wild life which are on the verge of extinction both because it is inherently dangerous practice to destroy such animals in terms of ecology and also because of the directive principles contained in Article 48A of the Constitution. When the Legislature prohibits a pernicious, noxious or a dangerous trade or business it is in recognition of society’s right of self protection. Act 44 of 1991 inserted Clause (I a) in Section 49-B (1) (a) in the principal Act. As per it- ‘No person can commence or carry on business as a dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made, there from, or as manufacturer of such articles.’ It is also noteworthy that Sub-clause (I a) uses the words ‘ivory imported into India’. These words have been designedly and deliberately used by the Legislature. The legislation intended to cover all descriptions of ivory imported into India including mammoth ivory to prevent Indian ivory from entering into the market under the pretext of mammoth ivory or African ivory. Once the mammoth ivory is shaped into an article or curio, it looks exactly like an article made from elephant ivory which was said on the basis of the articles shown in Court. The respondent in its affidavit has also expressed the same difficulty in distinguishing. Also when a buyer intends to buy a curio, he is not interested to know whether it was created from elephant ivory or mammoth ivory as an average buyer also does not have the expertise or the knowledge to distinguish between article made from mammoth ivory and Indian ivory and buys it purely on aesthetic considerations or as a statue symbol. To give permission to trade in Articles made from mammoth ivory would result in laundering of Indian ivory — a result which the legislation wants to prevent for the reasons already explained above.

CONCLUSION

No citizen has fundamental rights to trade in ivory or ivory articles. Article 14 of Constitution of India is violative unreasonable, unfairness and arbitrariness. The petitioners have no fundamental right to carry on a trade or business in exhibiting or traders of animals covered by the impugned notification is prevention of unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. We have to conserve our environments. The ivory trade in India and provide a safe and protected environment for the Indian elephant.