↓Skip to main content

Day 23 at Padala Rama Reddi Law College 3Y LLB

·2725 words·13 mins
PRRLC Law School Contracts Family Law Environmental Law Law of Torts Constitutional Law Osmania University LLB 3YDC Semester 1
Prithvi Raj Kunapareddi
Author
Prithvi Raj Kunapareddi
Solving problems for things I care about.

Class Notes - 24th October, Thursday, 2024
#

Today’s notes cover the classes conducted on Thursday, 24th October 2024, for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College. The subjects included Contracts - 1, Law of Torts, Environmental Law, Family Law - 1, and Constitutional Law - 1. Notes may contain inaccuracies, discretion is advised.

Notes for Day 22 can be found here

Contracts - 1
#

Faculty: Dr Radha Kumari

Key Concepts Discussed (Cont from day 22):
#

  • Acceptance cannot precede an offer:

    • An acceptance is valid only if it follows a clear offer. One cannot accept something that has not yet been offered, as there is no basis for a mutual agreement.

  • Acceptance must be given before the offer lapses or before the offer is withdrawn:

    • For a contract to be formed, acceptance must occur while the offer is still valid. If the offer has lapsed or been withdrawn, any subsequent acceptance is ineffective. This principle ensures that acceptance aligns with the existence of the offer.

  • Acceptance cannot be implied from silence:

    • Silence does not constitute acceptance unless explicitly agreed upon by both parties or if previous dealings between the parties suggest otherwise. For acceptance to be valid, there must be an affirmative action or communication from the offeree.
    • Felthouse v. Bindley - the court held that silence cannot be construed as acceptance.

Revocation of Offer or Lapse of Offer:
#

An offer remains open until it is either accepted or revoked. Offers can be revoked before acceptance under various circumstances:

  • By Communication of Notice of Revocation:

    • The offeror can revoke their offer at any time before it is accepted, provided they communicate the revocation. According to Section 6(i) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the revocation is complete when the notice reaches the offeree before they have accepted the offer.

  • By Lapse of Time (Section 6(ii)):

    • If the offer specifies a time limit for acceptance and that time passes without acceptance, the offer lapses. If no time is specified, the offer lapses after a reasonable period, depending on the nature of the contract. Reasonable period depends on the circumstances. To avoid disputes, it is advisable to have everything clearly stated.

  • By Non-Fulfilment of a Condition Precedent (Section 6(iii)):

    • An offer may be conditional. If the condition specified in the offer is not fulfilled by the offeree, the offer lapses. For example, if an offer is contingent on obtaining a license and the license is not acquired, the offer cannot be accepted.

  • By Death or Insanity of the Offeror (Section 6(iv)):

    • An offer is considered revoked if the offeror dies or becomes insane, provided that the offeree becomes aware of this fact before acceptance. If acceptance occurs before knowledge of death or insanity, the contract remains valid. In practice, this is difficult to prove, however, it is the law.

  • If a Counter Offer is Made:

    • When an offeree makes a counter offer, it implies rejection of the original offer. The original offer is considered revoked and cannot be accepted thereafter. This principle was established in the case of Hyde v. Wrench (1840), where it was held that a counter offer terminates the original offer.

  • If Acceptance is Not According to the Prescribed or Usual Mode (Section 7(ii)):

    • If the offeror prescribes a particular mode of acceptance and the offeree fails to adhere to it, the offeror may consider the acceptance as invalid. In these sorts of cases, the offeror must object to the variation in the mode of acceptance within a reasonable time and let it be known to the offeree, or else it will be treated as valid and accepted.
    • E.g. A sends B a letter that says if you are interested in buying the horse ‘Secretariat’, you must respond by post within 7 days of the receipt of this offer. B sends a messenger to A saying that he is interested. In this case, B did not reply by the mode prescribed. A must now inform B that the acceptance is not in the mode prescribed and therefore would not amount to acceptance. If A fails to inform B, the acceptance is deemed valid.

Family Law - 1
#

Faculty: Dr Sriveni

Section 9 | Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR)
#

Conjugal Rights are those rights available to a husband and wife after marriage, ensuring that they can enjoy the mutual companionship that is inherent to the marital relationship. These rights include:

  • Cohabitation: The right to live together under the same roof.
  • Comfort and Company of the Partner: Emotional and physical companionship.
  • Sexual Relationship: The right to engage in marital relations.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR)
#

  • RCR allows a spouse to request the return of marital rights if the other spouse has withdrawn from the society without reasonable cause.
  • Valid Reason for Withdrawal: Only desertion is generally considered a valid reason for RCR.
  • Invalid Reasons for Withdrawal: Certain situations do not justify withdrawal from conjugal society, such as:
    • Taking care of parents of a spouse.
    • Dislike for the spouse or refusal to engage in sexual relations.
    • Unwillingness to follow dietary preferences, such as being forced to eat meat.

RCR Scenarios and Relevant Case Laws
#

The following table outlines different scenarios, along with case laws that provide clarity on RCR petitions:

Scenario Case Law Outcome
Agreements to live separately before marriage. A.E. Thirumal v. Rajaram Court held that pre-marital agreements to live separately are void, RCR was denied.
Husband objects to wife working away from matrimonial home. Mirchumal v. Devi Bhai RCR denied as the wife showed a willingness to return whenever possible.
Wife working elsewhere as a reason for separation. Pravinaben v. Suresh Bhai Court ruled that working elsewhere is not a valid reason for RCR.
Husband requests wife to leave her job and join his business. Kamuvimarthi v. Prameshwara Iyer RCR denied as asking the wife to leave her job is not considered a reasonable cause.
Husband could not adjust to pre-marriage agreement conditions. Vuyyuru Pothuraju v. Radha RCR granted as the pre-marriage agreement to stay separately was held void.
Husband’s lack of care during childbirth leads to separation. Ramchandra v. Adarsh RCR denied as the wife’s move to her parent’s home during childbirth was considered a reasonable cause.
Wife leaves home due to dowry harassment. Ashok v. Shabnam RCR denied due to the wife’s reasonable cause—harassment related to dowry demands.
Husbands file RCR as a counter to wives’ maintenance claims. Darshan Ram v. Maya, Gurdeep Singh v. Ranjit Kaur, Charan Singh v. Jaya, Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP In these cases, the husbands’ RCR petitions were often used to counter maintenance petitions by their wives. RCR denied.
Husband transfers properties to relatives to avoid supporting wife. Veena Handa v. Avinash RCR approved, but husband did not comply, leading to a divorce decree. The High Court later reversed the decision. Husband used the RCR as a tool to get divorce after 1 year.
Husband accuses wife of infidelity to avoid maintenance obligations. Bitto v. RamDeo Maintenance granted despite the husband’s claims of adultery against the wife.

Summary
#

  • The table provides an overview of different RCR petitions and the court’s stance on whether RCR was granted or denied based on the reasons for withdrawal.
  • RCR is often contested, and the reasonableness of the cause for withdrawal plays a significant role in the court’s decision.
  • The intent behind RCR petitions, such as whether they are genuine or used as countermeasures, is also considered by the courts.

Law of Torts
#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

Breach of Trust
#

Trust is a legal arrangement under the law of property wherein a person, known as the trustee, holds property in their name for the benefit of another person, referred to as the beneficiary. If a trustee misappropriates or mishandles the property they hold in trust, the beneficiary can seek compensation. However, this compensation is typically limited to the value of the property in question, as it is a predefined amount. As such, the damages claimed are liquidated, meaning the amount can be determined in advance.

Distinction between Torts and Trust
#

While both torts and trusts involve legal actions, they differ in their origins, the nature of damages, and the relevance of motive. Here’s a comparison between the two:

Tort Trust
1. The law of torts has its origin as a part of common law. 1. The law of trust originates from a Court of Chancery or Court of Equity.
2. Damages in torts are unliquidated, meaning the amount is not predetermined and depends on the court’s assessment. 2. Damages in trust are liquidated, meaning the compensation amount can be ascertained beforehand.
3. Motive is irrelevant in torts; liability is based on the wrongful act itself. 3. Motive is relevant in trust law, as it can influence the handling of trust property.

Foundation of Tort Liability
#

Is it a law of tort or law of torts? (Important from Exam Point of View)
This question revolves around the scope of tort liability—whether it covers all wrongful acts or is limited to specific recognized wrongs. Two major theories address this:

  • Winfield’s Theory (Unity or Wider Theory):
    According to Winfield, all injuries inflicted upon another person are considered torts, unless there is a legal justification. This theory is also known as the Unity Theory or Wider Theory. Winfield argues that as the number of injuries increases, so too should the number of legal actions. His view is supported by legal scholar Frederick Pollock. Winfield famously stated, “If I injure my neighbour, he can sue me in tort whether the wrong happens to have a particular name like assault, battery, slander, etc., or even in the absence of such names, I shall be liable if he proves the wrong.”

  • Salmond’s Theory (Pigeon Hole Theory):
    Salmond suggests that the law of torts is like a pigeonhole system where specific wrongs fit into pre-existing categories. Only those acts that fit into a recognized category of torts are actionable. Dr. Jenks expanded this idea, arguing that the pigeonholes are broad enough to accommodate various wrongs, and that critics often misinterpret the theory by assuming it to be overly restrictive.

Constitutional Law - 1
#

Faculty: Dr. M Gangadhar Rao

Articles 5-11: Citizenship in the Indian Constitution
#

The Constitution of India provides detailed provisions regarding citizenship under Articles 5 to 11 in Part II. These articles establish the framework for who qualifies as a citizen of India at the time of commencement of the Constitution and lay out the provisions for future acquisition and termination of citizenship.

Note: Today, Citizenship is dealt with by the Citizenship Act of 1955 and Citizenship Amendment Act 2013. These Articles don’t serve the purpose anymore.

Article 5: Citizenship at the Commencement of the Constitution
#

  • This article deals with citizenship for people who were residents in India at the time of the Constitution’s commencement (26th January 1950).
  • It recognizes three categories of individuals as citizens:
    • Domicile: Individuals who had a domicile in India.
    • Birth: Individuals born in India.
    • Parents: Individuals who have either of their parents born in India.
    • Ordinary Residence: Individuals who have been ordinarily resident in India for at least five years immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.

Article 6: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons who have Migrated from Pakistan
#

  • Article 6 deals with citizenship rights for persons who migrated from Pakistan to India.
  • It distinguishes between two categories:
    • Migrants before 19th July 1948:
      • These individuals are entitled to Indian citizenship if either of their parents or any of their grandparents were born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935.
      • They must have been residing in India since their migration.
    • Migrants after 19th July 1948:
      • These individuals must register as citizens of India with the prescribed authority after residing in India for at least six months before applying.

Article 7: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Migrants to Pakistan
#

  • This article addresses the reverse migration scenario, where individuals migrated from India to Pakistan after 1st March 1947.
  • Such individuals are generally not considered citizens of India.
  • However, those who have returned to India on the basis of permits of resettlement or permanent return are eligible to be registered as Indian citizens after six months of residence in India before registration.

Article 8: Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons of Indian Origin Residing Outside India
#

  • Article 8 grants citizenship rights to persons of Indian origin residing outside India.
  • It applies to individuals whose parents or grandparents were born in India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935.
  • These individuals can register as citizens of India with the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country of their residence.

Article 9: Persons Voluntarily Acquiring Citizenship of a Foreign State
#

  • Article 9 states that any person who voluntarily acquires the citizenship of a foreign country shall cease to be a citizen of India.
  • This provision aims to prevent dual citizenship.
  • It is important in cases where Indian citizens have migrated to other countries and obtained foreign citizenship.

Article 10: Continuance of Rights of Citizenship
#

  • Article 10 guarantees that every person who is considered a citizen of India under the provisions of Articles 5-9 shall continue to be a citizen, subject to any laws made by the Parliament regarding termination of citizenship.
  • This article ensures continuity of citizenship rights until any specific legislation is enacted by the Parliament.

Article 11: Parliament’s Power to Regulate Citizenship
#

  • Article 11 empowers the Parliament to make laws regarding the acquisition, termination, and other matters related to citizenship.
  • This article provides flexibility for the Parliament to enact laws as needed, such as the Citizenship Act, 1955, which lays down detailed provisions regarding the modes of acquiring or losing Indian citizenship.

Summary of Articles 5-11
#

  • Article 5: Citizenship by domicile, birth, or ordinary residence at the commencement of the Constitution.
  • Article 6: Citizenship for migrants from Pakistan, with specific criteria for those who migrated before and after 19th July 1948.
  • Article 7: Excludes those who migrated to Pakistan but provides provisions for their return and re-acquisition of citizenship.
  • Article 8: Citizenship for persons of Indian origin residing outside India, provided they register with Indian diplomatic missions.
  • Article 9: Prevents dual citizenship by stating that those acquiring foreign citizenship lose Indian citizenship.
  • Article 10: Ensures continuance of citizenship unless Parliament legislates otherwise.
  • Article 11: Grants Parliament the authority to regulate all matters concerning citizenship.

Environmental Law - 1
#

Faculty: Dr. Vijaya Kalyani

Common Law in Environment
#

  • Common Law is judge-made law, evolving from judicial decisions over time. It is distinct from a statute, which is a written law passed by a legislative body. While statutes provide clear, codified rules, common law is more flexible, adapting to specific cases through judicial precedents.

Tort Law and Its Role in Environmental Protection
#

  • Tort is a civil wrong that provides a remedy for harm caused to individuals or their property. In the context of environmental protection, tort law plays a significant role in offering legal remedies for environmental damages. The main torts applicable in environmental law include:

  1. Trespass:

    • Involves the unauthorized entry onto another person’s property, leading to physical interference with their land.
    • For example, if pollutants from a factory enter a neighboring property, it may constitute trespass.

  2. Negligence:

    • Occurs when a person fails to take reasonable care to prevent harm to others, resulting in damage or injury.
    • In environmental cases, negligence can occur when an industry or entity fails to adhere to safety standards, causing pollution or accidents.

  3. Nuisance:

    • Refers to an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of another’s property.
    • Public Nuisance: Affects the rights of the community at large, such as air or water pollution affecting a neighborhood.
    • Private Nuisance: Affects an individual’s right to use and enjoy their property, such as noise pollution affecting a single household.

  4. Abatement:

    • A remedy that allows a person to remove or mitigate a nuisance, such as self-help actions to stop a water source contamination.
    • Legal actions may also be pursued to obtain a court order to stop the nuisance-causing activity.

These torts provide a foundation for holding polluters accountable and protecting the environment, especially in the absence of specific environmental statutes. They empower individuals to seek legal redress for environmental harms and promote responsible behavior among those who might otherwise engage in harmful activities.