Class Notes - 25th October, Friday, 2024

#

Today’s notes cover the classes conducted on Friday, 25th October 2024, for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College. The subjects included Contracts - 1, Family Law - 1, Environmental Law - 1, Constitutional Law - 1, and Law of Torts. Notes may contain inaccuracies, discretion is advised.

Notes for Day 23 can be found here

---

Contracts - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Radha Kumari

Communication of Offer, Acceptance, and Revocation - Section 5

#

Communication of an Offer

#

• Face to Face: The communication of an offer is considered complete the moment the offeree hears the words of the offeror. This is immediate and there is no delay between the offer being made and received.

• By Phone: Similar to face-to-face communication, the offer is considered communicated when the offeree hears the offer. It relies on real-time communication and is effective as soon as the message is heard.

• By Post (Letter, Telegram, Telex, Fax, Emails, etc.): The communication of an offer is complete when the letter reaches the offeree. For example:

  • If a letter containing the offer is posted on 20th October 2024 and it reaches the offeree on 25th October 2024, the communication of the offer is considered complete on 25th October 2024 when the offeree receives it.

Communication of Acceptance - Section 4

#

• As Against the Offeror:

  • By Post: The communication of acceptance is complete when the letter is posted, provided it is properly addressed and stamped. The offeror is bound by the acceptance as soon as the letter is sent.
  • Example: A sends an offer to B. B accepts the offer and posts the letter of acceptance on 25th October 2024. The communication of acceptance, as against the offeror, is complete on 25th October 2024, even before the offeror receives it.

• As Against the Offeree:

  • By Post: The communication of acceptance is considered complete when it reaches the offeror and they become aware of it.
  • Example: A sends an offer to B. B accepts the offer and posts the letter of acceptance on 25th October 2024, which reaches A on 30th October 2024. The communication of acceptance, as against the offeree, is complete on 30th October 2024 when A receives the acceptance and becomes aware of its contents.

---

Family Law 1

#

Faculty: Dr Sriveni

Constitutional Validity of Section 9 (Restitution of Conjugal Rights)

#

T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983) - Andhra Pradesh High Court

#

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 9 of HMA was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Key points:

• Sareetha, a well-known film actress, was married to Venkata Subbaiah at age 16.
• They separated immediately after marriage and lived apart for over 5 years.
• Venkata Subbaiah filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA.
• Sareetha challenged the constitutional validity of Section 9.

The court’s reasoning:

1. Forcing cohabitation violates the right to privacy and human dignity under Article 21.
2. The provision disproportionately affects women, violating Article 14.
3. It allows state interference in personal matters without a compelling state interest.
4. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is archaic and out of place in modern society.

The court struck down Section 9 as unconstitutional, marking a significant moment in Indian family law jurisprudence.

Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhry (1984) - Delhi High Court

#

The Delhi High Court disagreed with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision, upholding the constitutionality of Section 9 of HMA.

Key points:

• Harvinder Kaur and Harmander Singh were estranged spouses.
• The constitutional validity of Section 9 was challenged.

The court’s reasoning:

1. Section 9 aims to preserve the marriage and not to enforce sexual cohabitation.
2. The purpose is to provide an opportunity for reconciliation.
3. The remedy is gender-neutral and does not disproportionately affect women.
4. Courts have discretion in granting the decree and can refuse it if it would lead to injustice.
5. The provision does not violate the right to privacy as marriage inherently involves a certain loss of privacy.

The court held that Section 9 does not violate Article 21, emphasizing that its purpose is to provide cohabitation and consortium, not to force sexual relations.

Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) - Supreme Court

#

The Supreme Court settled the controversy, upholding the constitutionality of Section 9 of HMA.

Case background:

• Saroj Rani was driven out of her matrimonial home shortly after marriage.
• She filed for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance.
• Her husband, Sudarshan Kumar, paid maintenance as ordered.
• After one year of the decree of restitution not being complied with, Saroj Rani filed for divorce.
• Sudarshan Kumar challenged the divorce petition, questioning the constitutional validity of Section 9.

The court’s reasoning:

1. Agreed with the Delhi High Court’s view in Harvinder Kaur case.
2. Section 9 serves a social purpose of preserving marriages.
3. The provision is gender-neutral and does not violate Article 14.
4. It does not violate personal liberty under Article 21 as it aims at cohabitation, not forced sexual intercourse.
5. Courts have the discretion to deny the remedy if it would lead to injustice.

The Supreme Court held that Section 9 of HMA does not violate Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, effectively overruling the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in T. Sareetha case.

Sections 11 & 12 - Void and Voidable Marriages

#

Void Marriages (Section 11)

#

Void marriages are considered null and void ab initio (from the beginning). They are based on violations of Section 5(i), (iv), and (v) of HMA:

1. Bigamy (Section 5(i))
2. Prohibited degrees of relationship (Section 5(iv))
3. Sapinda relationship (Section 5(v))

Key cases:

1. Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla v. Manjeet Singh Chawla

   • Manjeet Singh was already married when he married Narinder Pal Kaur.
   • He concealed his first marriage from Narinder Pal Kaur.
   • The court held the second marriage void but awarded maintenance to Narinder Pal Kaur.

2. Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse

   • Similar to the Narinder Pal Kaur case, Badshah concealed his first marriage.
   • The court held the second marriage void but awarded maintenance to Urmila.
   • The court emphasized the need to protect women from deception in such cases.

3. Prabhjot Singh v. Prabhjit Kaur

   • The marriage was between parties in a sapinda relationship.
   • It was also alleged to be a forced marriage.
   • Prabhjot Singh claimed Hindu law didn’t apply to him but failed to prove this.
   • The court held the marriage void ab initio due to the sapinda relationship and the element of force.

These cases demonstrate that even in void marriages, courts may, in some cases, award maintenance to protect the interests of deceived parties, especially women.

Voidable Marriages (Section 12)

#

Voidable marriages are valid unless annulled by a court decree. The grounds for voidable marriages under Section 12 are:

1. Impotence
2. Mental health issues (insanity, unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, epilepsy)
3. Consent obtained by force or fraud
4. Wife’s pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage

Key points:

• These provisions were incorporated from English law, leading to some inconsistencies.
• One such inconsistency is that if a voidable marriage is nullified, it becomes void ab initio, potentially rendering children illegitimate.

Specific conditions for certain grounds:

1. Force or Fraud:

   • Must be repudiated within 1 year of marriage
   • Petitioner must have ceased cohabitation since discovering the fraud or force

2. Wife’s pregnancy by another man:

   • Husband must have been ignorant of the fact at the time of marriage
   • Petition must be filed within 1 year of marriage
   • Cohabitation must have ceased since discovery of the fact

These provisions aim to balance the sanctity of marriage with the rights of individuals to exit marriages entered into under problematic circumstances.

Note: Section adapted from English law verbatim, this has led to several issues in India. E.g. If marriage annulled, considered void from beginning Can result in children being deemed illegitimate

---

Law of Torts

#

Faculty: Dr Pavani

Foundation of Tort Liability

#

There are two main theories regarding the basic principles of tort liability:

The main question they will ask in the exam is Is it law of Tort or law of Torts? Below is the answer.

1. Winfield’s Theory (Law of Torts)

#

Winfield proposed a wider, unity-based theory of tort liability:

• All injuries done to another person are torts, unless there is some justification recognized by law.
• This is known as the “Unity” or “Wider” theory.
• Winfield argued: “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 absence of such names I shall be liable if I fail to prove lawful justification.”
• The law of torts consists not merely of all those torts which have acquired specific names but also includes the principles that all unjustifiable harms are tortious.
• This theory received support from legal scholar Frederick Pollock.

Key Case: Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Ground Ltd v. Taylor (1937)

• Facts: The defendant built a platform on his land overlooking the plaintiff’s racecourse and broadcast race descriptions, affecting the plaintiff’s business.
• Held: The High Court of Australia ruled there was no remedy for the plaintiff.
• Significance: This case challenged Winfield’s theory by demonstrating that not all harms have a legal remedy in tort law.

2. Salmond’s Theory (Law of Tort)

#

Salmond proposed a narrower “Pigeon Hole” theory:

• There are a definite number of torts outside which liability in tort does not arise.
• Liability only arises when the wrong is covered by one of the nominated torts.
• There is no general principle of liability.
• The law of tort consists of a fixed set of “pigeon holes,” each containing a specific tort.
• Salmond compared it to criminal law, stating that just as criminal law consists of specific offenses, tort law consists of specific injuries.

Dr. Jenks expanded on Salmond’s theory, arguing that the “pigeon holes” were wide enough to accommodate various wrongs and that critics misunderstood the theory’s flexibility.

Mental Elements of Tortious Liability

#

1. Fault

#

The state of mind of a person is relevant to ascertain liability:

• One must consider whether the wrongful act was done intentionally or maliciously.
• The defendant’s conduct is compared to that of a reasonable person.
• Liability arises if the conduct falls below the expected standard of a reasonable person.
• When circumstances demand care, failure to perform the duty of care leads to liability for negligence.

Key Cases:

1. National Coal Board v. J.E. Evans & Co. (1951)

   • Facts: A truck driver employed by Evans crashed into a bridge owned by the National Coal Board due to a sudden failure of the truck’s braking system.
   • Held: The court found that the accident was inevitable and unforeseeable, thus not attributing fault to the defendants.
   • Significance: This case illustrates the importance of fault in determining liability.

2. Holmes v. Mather (1875)

   • Facts: The defendant’s horses bolted due to a dog barking, causing injury to the plaintiff who was on the road.
   • Held: The court found no liability as the accident was inevitable and the defendant had exercised reasonable care.
   • Significance: This case further emphasizes the role of fault and reasonable care in tort liability.

2. No Fault Liability

#

In some cases, liability can be imposed without proof of fault, based on the principle of strict liability.

3. Malice

#

Malice can be relevant in determining liability and is categorized into two types:

1. Malice in Law: Intentional wrongdoing without just cause or excuse.
2. Malice in Fact: Actual ill-will or improper motive.

4. Wrongful Intention

#

The intention to commit a wrongful act can be a factor in determining liability.

5. Negligence

#

Failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another, forms the basis of negligence in tort law.

Defenses in Tort Law

#

Necessity

#

The defense of necessity can be pleaded when the defendant’s act is compelled by circumstances.

Key Case: Cope v. Sharpe (1912)

• Facts: The defendant entered the plaintiff’s land to prevent a fire from spreading.
• Held: The court recognized necessity as a valid defense, excusing the trespass.
• Significance: This case established necessity as a legitimate defense in tort law when actions are taken to prevent greater harm.

---

Constitutional Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. M Gangadhar Rao

Article 12 - Definition of State

#

Article 12 of the Indian Constitution defines the term ‘State’ for the purposes of understanding the entities against which fundamental rights can be enforced. This definition is crucial as writs can be issued against the state but not against private individuals. The definition includes various entities that perform governmental functions or are under government control.

Components of the State as per Article 12:

#

• Central Government and Parliament: This includes the Union Government, all ministries, and departments under it, as well as the Parliament of India.
• State Government and State Legislative Assembly: This includes the Governments of individual states in India, their ministries, and state legislatures.
• All Local Bodies:
  • This includes municipalities, panchayats, district boards, and improvement trusts that function under the supervision of the state government.
  • These bodies perform public functions and thus fall under the purview of the state.
• Other Authorities:
  • This term extends to bodies such as statutory corporations, public sector undertakings, and autonomous bodies which might not directly be government bodies but are controlled by the government.
  • This includes nationalized banks, insurance companies, educational institutions, and other bodies that might be funded or controlled by the state.

Determining Whether a Body Is Considered ‘State’:

#

The criteria to determine whether an organization falls within the definition of state were outlined by the Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority. The court laid down guidelines to ascertain whether an entity is part of the state:

• State Provides the Funds:

  • If the majority of the funding or financial assistance comes from the government, the body can be considered part of the state.
  • The extent of financial dependency on the state is a key factor.

• Government Controls Rules and Regulations:

  • If the government has substantial control over the rules, policies, and decision-making processes of the organization, it is considered state.
  • The nature and extent of control are assessed to determine how much influence the state exercises over the body’s functioning.

• For Public Purpose:

  • If the entity is created to serve a public function or is engaged in activities for the public good, it is more likely to be considered part of the state.
  • The nature of activities carried out by the body—whether they are of a sovereign or governmental character—is examined.

• Connected to Any Government Body:

  • If the organization has connections or affiliations with any governmental body, it may be considered a part of the state.
  • This includes contractual relationships or instances where the body functions as an agent of the government.

• Monopoly Status:

  • If the body enjoys a monopoly status that has been granted or conferred by the government, it could be classified as state.
  • The exclusive rights or privileges granted to the entity by the state are considered in determining its status.

Significance of Article 12:

#

• Fundamental Rights Enforcement:

  • Article 12 is significant because it clarifies the entities against which fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution can be enforced.
  • Writ petitions such as mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus can be filed against entities defined as the state.

• Protection of Citizen Rights:

  • By defining what constitutes a state, Article 12 ensures that government bodies are held accountable for actions that might violate the rights of citizens.
  • It establishes the scope of judicial review, allowing courts to ensure that government actions comply with the Constitution.

• Checks and Balances:

  • Article 12 ensures a system of checks and balances by holding entities that have governmental power accountable to the rule of law.
  • It prevents arbitrary actions by organizations that function as extensions of the state.

• Public Accountability:

  • Entities that qualify as state under Article 12 must adhere to constitutional norms, ensuring that their actions do not violate public interest.
  • This provision enforces transparency and public responsibility in the functioning of government-controlled or aided organizations.

Key Case: R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority

#

• Facts: In this case, a tender was floated by the International Airport Authority for certain services. The authority rejected a bid due to eligibility criteria that had not been previously stated. The question arose whether the International Airport Authority qualified as a state and was therefore bound by the principles of equality and fairness under Article 14.
• Held: The Supreme Court held that the International Airport Authority was a part of the state as it satisfied several conditions: it was substantially funded by the government, its activities served a public purpose, and the government exercised control over its operations. This meant that the authority’s actions were subject to judicial review and had to adhere to fair practices.
• Importance: This case laid down the criteria for determining whether an organization is a state, thus extending the reach of fundamental rights to governmental and semi-governmental bodies.

International Airport Authority has been merged with National Airports Authority in 1995 and the resulting entity is what we know today as Airports Authority of India.

Here is why LIC, ONGC and IFCI are ‘State’.

Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)

#

LIC is considered a “State” under Article 12 for the following reasons:

1. Government Control: LIC was established by an Act of Parliament (LIC Act, 1956) and is wholly owned by the Government of India.

2. Public Purpose: It serves the public purpose of providing life insurance coverage to Indian citizens.

3. Financial Resources: The government provides substantial financial support and guarantees to LIC.

4. Monopoly Status: Until recently, LIC enjoyed a monopoly in the life insurance sector, which was conferred and protected by the state.

5. Government Appointment: The top management, including the Chairman and Managing Directors, are appointed by the government.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC)

#

ONGC is considered a “State” for these reasons:

1. Government Ownership: Although partially privatized, the government still holds a majority stake in ONGC.

2. Strategic Importance: ONGC plays a crucial role in India’s energy security, a function closely related to governmental responsibilities.

3. Statutory Creation: It was created by an Act of Parliament (Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959).

4. Government Control: Despite being a publicly listed company, the government exercises significant control over its operations and key appointments.

5. Public Purpose: ONGC’s functions are of public importance, relating to exploration and production of oil and natural gas resources.

Industrial Finance Corporation of India (IFCI)

#

IFCI is considered a “State” based on the following:

1. Statutory Origin: IFCI was established under the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, as the first Development Financial Institution in India.

2. Public Purpose: It was created to provide long-term finance to the industrial sector, a function closely aligned with governmental objectives of economic development.

3. Government Support: Although now a company under the Companies Act, it still receives support from the government and performs functions of public importance.

4. Historical Government Control: For most of its existence, IFCI was under direct government control, and this legacy continues to influence its operations.

5. Financial Resources: A significant portion of its resources have historically come from government sources or government-backed institutions.

---

Environmental Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Vijaya Kalyani

Public Nuisance

#

Public Nuisance is defined as an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. It is a concept within tort law but has significant applications in environmental law due to its role in addressing actions that harm the public health, safety, or environmental quality.

Definition:

#

• Stephen’s Definition: “Anything done to hurt, inconvenience, or damage the public in general, or to impair the health, morals, or comfort of the public.”
• In the context of environmental law, public nuisance is often applied to situations where an activity affects the air quality, water resources, or general environment, impacting the community as a whole.
• A public nuisance affects the rights of the community or public at large, and actions against such nuisance can be brought either by the State or by individuals who suffer special damages.

Examples of Public Nuisance in Environmental Law:

#

• Air Pollution from a factory that affects a large number of people in a residential area.
• Water Pollution that contaminates a local water body, impacting drinking water supply.
• Industrial Waste being discharged into a river, causing environmental degradation.
• Noise Pollution from construction activities that affects the well-being of a neighborhood.

Case Law: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

#

The Rylands v. Fletcher case is a landmark judgment that is foundational to the law of nuisance and is highly relevant to environmental issues. It established the principle of strict liability for harm caused by the escape of hazardous materials from one’s property.

Facts:

#

• Rylands, the defendant, constructed a reservoir on his land to supply water to his mill.
• During construction, unknown shafts beneath the reservoir led to old mine shafts under the neighboring property, Fletcher’s land.
• When the reservoir was filled, the water escaped through these shafts, causing flooding on Fletcher’s land and damaging his property.

Legal Issue:

#

• The issue was whether Rylands was liable for the damage caused to Fletcher’s property due to the escape of water, even though he had no knowledge of the underground shafts.

Judgment:

#

• The House of Lords held Rylands liable under the principle of strict liability.
• The court ruled that a person who for his own purposes brings on his land and keeps anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not, he is liable for the damage that occurs.
• It was irrelevant that Rylands was unaware of the mineshafts his liability arose from the escape of a potentially dangerous substance (water) from his property.

Principle Established - Strict Liability:

#

• The doctrine of strict liability implies that a person can be held liable for harm caused by hazardous activities conducted on their property, regardless of intent or negligence.
• This doctrine has significant environmental applications, particularly for activities that involve hazardous materials, such as:
  • Chemical spills from industrial plants.
  • Oil leaks from storage tanks.
  • Toxic waste disposal.

Application in Environmental Law:

#

• The Rylands v. Fletcher principle serves as a basis for holding entities liable for environmental damage caused by their activities.
• It emphasizes the responsibility of individuals or corporations who conduct potentially hazardous activities to ensure that no harm comes to neighboring lands or communities.
• This principle helps in regulating activities that could lead to ecological damage, pollution, or contamination of natural resources.

Example:

#

• A chemical factory stores large quantities of toxic chemicals on its premises. If due to accidental spillage, the chemicals leak into the soil and pollute a nearby river, causing harm to the ecosystem and the local community relying on the river for water, the factory owner may be held strictly liable for the damage under the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher.

Relevance to Public Nuisance:

#

• Public nuisance is often cited alongside the principle of strict liability in environmental cases, as both deal with unlawful interference affecting a community or public interest.
• While public nuisance focuses on the interference with public rights, Rylands v. Fletcher addresses private rights but holds significant value in environmental litigation.

Conclusion:

#

The concept of public nuisance and the principle of strict liability from the Rylands v. Fletcher case are critical in the realm of environmental law. They provide a framework for accountability and compensation when environmental harm occurs due to the actions of individuals or corporations, even when there is no direct intent to harm. These principles ensure that those engaging in potentially harmful activities bear the responsibility for any unintended damage that might result from their actions, protecting the environment and the rights of affected communities.