Class Notes - Day 27

#

These notes cover the classes conducted on Tuesday, October 29th, 2024 for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College. The subjects included Contracts - 1, Law of Torts, Environmental Law, Constitutional Law - 1, and Family Law - 1.

Notes for Day 25 and 26 can be found here

---

Contracts 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Radha Kumari

Need for Consideration

#

• Law enforces only those promises that are supported by consideration, as gratuitous or voluntary promises are often made hastily and without proper deliberation.
• Legal Principle: The law does not recognize promises that lack something in return. Hence, “something for nothing” is not legally enforceable.

Legal Rules as to Consideration

#

1. Consideration must move at the desire of the promisor: It must be furnished at the promisor’s desire, not due to the voluntary action of the promisee or a third party.

2. Consideration may be an act, abstinence, or forbearance, or a written promise:

   • Examples:
     • Forbearance to sue: Choosing not to pursue legal action as consideration.
     • Compromise of a disputed claim: Settling a disagreement on mutually agreed terms.
     • Composition with creditors: An agreement where creditors accept a partial payment in settlement of a debt.

3. Consideration may be past, present, or future:

   • Under English law, past consideration is not valid.

   • Under Indian law, consideration may be past, present, or future.

   • Types of Consideration:

     • Past Consideration: When the consideration was provided before the promise was made.
       • Example: “A renders some service to B at B’s later desire. After a month, B promises to compensate A for the services rendered.” This constitutes past consideration, and A can recover the promised amount.
     • Present (Executed) Consideration: Consideration that is given at the time of the contract.
       • Example: In a sale, where payment and delivery happen simultaneously.
     • Future (Executory) Consideration: When consideration is to be provided after the contract is made.
       • Example: “D promises to deliver goods to P in a week; P promises to pay after a fortnight (14 days).”

4. Adequacy of Consideration: Consideration need not be adequate. Courts are not concerned with the value of consideration as long as something of value is exchanged.

Important Cases

#

The cases you’ve mentioned are significant in contract law, particularly regarding the concept of consideration. Let’s examine each case and its implications:

Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880)

#

This landmark Indian case is crucial in understanding the principle of consideration in Indian contract law.

Facts of the Case: Durga Prasad, at his own expense, constructed shops at a bazaar at the request of the Collector of Cawnpore. The shopkeepers, including Baldeo, promised to pay Durga Prasad a commission on their sales. However, when Durga Prasad tried to enforce this promise, the court held the agreement void.

Key Principle: The court established that for a valid contract, consideration must move at the desire of the promisor. In this case, although Durga Prasad had incurred expenses, it was not at the desire of the shopkeepers (the promisors) but at the request of the Collector.

Significance: This case clarified that under Indian law, while consideration can come from a third party, it must still be at the promisor’s desire for the contract to be valid.

Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861)

#

This English case is fundamental in understanding the difference between English and Indian contract law regarding consideration.

Key Principle: In English law, consideration must move from the promisee. This means that only the person who provides consideration can enforce the promise.

Significance: This case highlights a key difference between English and Indian contract law. In English law, a third party cannot provide consideration, whereas Indian law allows for more flexibility in this regard.

Chinnayya v. Ramayya (1882)

#

This Indian case further clarifies the Indian position on consideration.

Key Principle: Under Indian law, consideration can move from the promisee or any other person. This is in contrast to English law.

Significance: This case reinforces the flexibility of Indian contract law regarding the source of consideration. It allows for valid contracts even when the consideration is provided by a third party, as long as it’s at the promisor’s desire.

Comparison and Implications

#

1. Source of Consideration:

   • English Law: Consideration must come from the promisee only.
   • Indian Law: Consideration can come from the promisee or any third party.

2. Promisor’s Desire: In Indian law, while the consideration can come from a third party, it must still be at the promisor’s desire, as established in Durga Prasad v. Baldeo.

3. Flexibility: Indian contract law offers more flexibility in forming valid contracts, potentially facilitating more complex commercial arrangements.

4. Third-Party Rights: The Indian position potentially allows for greater recognition of third-party rights in contracts, although this is subject to specific conditions.

---

Family Law 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Sriveni

Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA)

#

• Provision: This section allows a wife to claim an alternate residence (separate house) as well as maintenance if she chooses to lead her life separately from her husband under certain circumstances.

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) & Section 18 of HAMA

#

• Grounds for Claim: These sections provide grounds on which a wife can claim maintenance or separate residence:
  • If the husband has two wives.
  • In cases involving the husband’s actions such as rape, sodomy, or bestiality.
  • If the marriage took place when the wife was under the age of 15.

Case: Manisha Tyagi vs. Captain Deepak Kumar

#

• Facts of the Case:
  • The marriage between Manisha Tyagi and Captain Deepak Kumar took place on 30th December 1992.
  • A petition for divorce was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) on the grounds of cruelty by the husband.
  • The couple had a child born on 2nd June 1993.
  • Court granted judicial separation.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act: Dissolution of Marriage

#

1. Fault Grounds - Applicable to both husband and wife:
   • Grounds for Divorce:
     1. Adultery: Engaging in extramarital affairs.
     2. Cruelty: Inflicting physical or mental harm.
     3. Desertion: Abandonment of spouse.
     4. Religious Conversion: Conversion to another religion.
     5. Insanity: Mental illness or instability.
     6. Venereal Disease: Transmission of a serious communicable disease.
     7. Renunciation: Giving up worldly life (sannyasa).
     8. Presumption of Death: If a spouse has been missing for over seven years and is presumed dead.
2. Irretrievable Breakdown Grounds: Where the marriage cannot be repaired.
3. Mutual Consent: Divorce by mutual agreement of both parties.
4. Customary Divorce and Divorce under Special Enactments: Divorce based on customs recognized by law.

Fault Grounds for Wife Only (Section 13(2))

#

1. Husband having two wives: If the husband has remarried.
2. Rape, Sodomy, and Bestiality: Involvement of the husband in such acts.
3. Order under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 18 of HAMA.
4. Marriage under the age of 15: If the wife was married before she turned 15.

Adultery

#

Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (1985)

#

Facts:

• Sowmithri Vishnu filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (adultery law).
• She had previously sought divorce from her husband J. Vishnu Naidu on grounds of desertion, but the trial court dismissed her petition.
• Her husband then filed for divorce, alleging she had deserted him and was having an extramarital affair with someone named Dharma Ebenezer.

Key Points:

• The petitioner argued Section 497 was discriminatory against women and violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
• She contended the law treated women as property of their husbands and denied them sexual autonomy.
• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 497, stating it was a “special provision” made by the legislature in the socio-economic context of the country.

Subbarama Reddiar v. Saraswathi Ammal (1966)

#

Facts:

• Subbarama Reddiar (husband) alleged adultery against his wife Saraswathi Ammal.
• The trial court found the act of adultery was legally proved and granted judicial separation under Section 10(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
• This was upheld by the District Judge on appeal.

Key Points:

• The High Court noted this was a second appeal, with limited jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.
• The court emphasized the high standard of proof required in adultery cases, given their quasi-criminal nature.
• Ultimately, the High Court did not interfere with the lower courts’ findings that adultery was proved.

Chiruthakutty v. Subramaniam (1987)

#

Facts:

• This case involved a question of legitimacy of a child.
• The husband had undergone a vasectomy operation.
• Despite this, the court held the child to be legitimate.

Key Points:

• The court ruled that vasectomy alone was not sufficient to overturn the presumption of legitimacy of a child born during marriage.
• It emphasized that only strong evidence of non-access could invalidate the presumption of legitimacy.

Revathi v. Union of India (1988)

#

Facts:

• This case also challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 (adultery law).

Key Points:

• The Supreme Court upheld Section 497, ruling it was not discriminatory against women.
• The court observed that the provision actually protected women from prosecution for adultery.

These cases highlight the evolution of legal thinking on adultery in India, from upholding the colonial-era law to eventually striking it down as unconstitutional in 2018 in the Joseph Shine case. They reflect changing societal norms and interpretations of constitutional rights over time.

Cruelty as Grounds for Divorce

#

Cruelty is a significant ground for divorce under Hindu marriage law. It encompasses acts that cause harm to a spouse’s physical or mental well-being, covering both physical and mental forms of cruelty. Here is a detailed explanation of key cases related to cruelty as grounds for divorce, in markdown format:

Key Cases on Matrimonial Cruelty

#

Dastane vs Dastane (1975)

#

Facts:

• Wife suffered from mental illness before marriage
• Husband alleged this fact was concealed, amounting to fraud
• Wife made false allegations of impotency against husband

Ruling:

• False allegations of impotency amount to mental cruelty
• Cruelty need not be physical, mental cruelty is sufficient grounds
• Intent to be cruel is not necessary to prove cruelty

Significance:

• Landmark case that established mental cruelty as valid grounds for divorce
• Broadened the definition of cruelty beyond just physical abuse

Sayal v Sarola (1994)

#

Facts:

• Wife repeatedly made false complaints against husband to his employers
• This jeopardized husband’s job and career prospects
• Wife also threatened suicide to pressurize husband

Ruling:

• Wife’s actions amounted to mental cruelty
• Repeated false complaints to employer constitute cruelty
• Threats of suicide can amount to mental cruelty

Significance:

• Established that harming spouse’s reputation/career can be cruelty
• Recognized suicide threats as a form of emotional blackmail and cruelty

Jai Dayal v Shakuntala Devi (2003)

#

Facts:

• Husband made false allegations of wife’s infidelity
• Filed police complaints accusing wife of immoral conduct
• Allegations were found to be baseless after police inquiry

Ruling:

• False allegations of infidelity amount to mental cruelty
• Baseless police complaints against spouse constitute cruelty
• Such actions cause mental agony and reputation damage

Significance:

• Reinforced that false character allegations are a form of cruelty
• Highlighted reputational harm as an aspect of mental cruelty

Shakuntala Devi v Omprakash (2006)

#

Facts:

• Husband constantly suspicious of wife’s character
• Made repeated allegations of infidelity without proof
• Restricted wife’s movements and social interactions

Ruling:

• Baseless suspicion and character assassination is cruelty
• Restricting spouse’s freedom amounts to mental cruelty
• Constant accusations create an atmosphere of mistrust

Significance:

• Established that controlling behavior can constitute cruelty
• Recognized impact of false accusations on marital trust

Rita v. Brij (1984)

#

Facts:

• Husband addicted to alcohol and frequently drunk
• Subjected wife to physical and verbal abuse when intoxicated
• Wife lived in constant fear of husband’s drunken behavior

Ruling:

• Habitual drunkenness coupled with abuse amounts to cruelty
• Living in constant fear of abuse is mental cruelty
• Alcoholism affecting marital life can be grounds for divorce

Significance:

• Recognized alcoholism’s impact on marital relations
• Established that living in fear constitutes mental cruelty Here are summaries of the other key cases related to cruelty as grounds for divorce:

Saptami vs Jagadish (1968)

#

Facts:

• Saptami and Jagadish were married in 1950 when she was 16 and he was about 26
• They had three children together
• Saptami was more educated (graduated university) while Jagadish was not highly educated
• Jagadish faced unemployment and business failures, while Saptami was employed
• Jagadish allegedly made derogatory comments about Saptami working outside the home
• In one incident, Jagadish allegedly verbally abused Saptami at her father’s house, calling her a “prostitute” and “whore”

Ruling:

• The court found that while Jagadish’s actions were “crude and barbarous”, they did not amount to legal cruelty
• The court noted the couple had cohabited for 6 months after the alleged incidents, suggesting condonation
• It was ruled that Jagadish was not acting out of malice, but rather frustration at his circumstances

Significance:

• Highlighted that crude behavior alone may not constitute legal cruelty
• Emphasized the importance of proving malicious intent in cruelty cases
• Demonstrated that condonation through continued cohabitation can negate prior cruelty claims

Ashok Kumar vs Santosh Sharma (1986)

#

Facts:

• Ashok Kumar filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty by his wife Santosh Sharma
• He alleged she refused to cooperate sexually and in other marital matters
• Santosh made counter-allegations in her written statement, claiming Ashok drank alcohol and associated with “bad characters”
• These allegations by Santosh were found to be baseless and unproven

Ruling:

• The court granted divorce to Ashok on grounds of cruelty
• It held that Santosh’s baseless allegations in the written statement amounted to mental cruelty
• The court noted that false allegations can be especially cruel when made against someone from a “Brahmin family”

Significance:

• Established that false allegations made in legal proceedings can constitute mental cruelty
• Recognized that the impact of false allegations may vary based on social status/background
• Reinforced that courts can consider statements made in legal documents as evidence of cruelty

---

Law of Torts

#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

---

Minors / Infants

#

• Note: A minor can sue for any wrong done to them, but the action must be brought through a “next friend” or guardian due to legal incapacity.
• Case: Walker v. Great Northern Railway (1890)
  • Facts: A child was born with a disability due to alleged negligence by the railway while the mother was pregnant. This case highlights the possibility of seeking redress for injuries sustained before birth due to third-party negligence.

---

Liability of Defendant

#

• A defendant may be not liable if:

  • The defendant has no knowledge of the plaintiff’s existence.
  • Medical claims or the connection to injury are uncertain.

• Case: Montreal Tramways v. Leveille (1933)

  • Facts: A child was born with clubbed feet attributed to an accident while the mother was pregnant. This case set precedents regarding liability for prenatal injuries.

England Position on Liability for Unborn Children

#

• The Civil Liability Act 1976 in England provides protection for unborn children with congenital disabilities.
  • Key Points:
    1. Action is permitted if the child is born alive but suffers from disabilities.
    2. Damages for “loss of expectation of life” can be claimed if the child lives for at least 48 hours post-birth.
    3. Contributory negligence by the parents may serve as a defense.
    4. Liability to the child can be excluded by contract.
    5. The Act allows actions for injuries sustained while in utero.
    6. Action can be brought against parental negligence in cases impacting the unborn child.

---

Indian Law Perspective

#

• Currently, there is no specific legislation in India similar to England’s Civil Liability Act 1976. Implementing such a law could provide additional protection for the interests of unborn and newborn children affected by third-party negligence.

---

Insolvents

#

1. Bankrupt/Insolvent Persons: Under both English and Indian law, an insolvent person is under certain legal disabilities regarding suing for wrongs related to property, as the property rights are transferred to a trustee (in English law) or an official receiver (in Indian law).

   • The insolvent retains the right to sue for personal wrongs, even during insolvency.

2. Foreign State:

   • Under Section 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a foreign state recognized by the Government of India may sue in Indian courts, but only to enforce:
     • (a) Private rights vested in the ruler of the foreign state.
     • (b) Private rights vested in officers of the state acting in their public capacity.

---

Constitutional Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. M Gangadhar Rao

---

Doctrine of Eclipse with Respect to Article 13 and 14

#

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a principle in Indian constitutional law that applies to pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. According to Article 13(1), such laws are not entirely void but become unenforceable or dormant. They remain in this state until the inconsistency is removed, typically through a constitutional amendment, at which point they can become operative again.

Article 13

#

• Article 13(1): States that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency.
• Article 13(2): Prevents the state from making laws that infringe upon fundamental rights, rendering any such post-constitutional law void ab initio.

Article 14

#

• Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within India. The Doctrine of Eclipse ensures that pre-constitutional laws violating this article become dormant until rectified.

Section 309 of IPC and Equivalent in BNS

#

Section 309 of the IPC criminalizes attempts to commit suicide, punishable by imprisonment or fine. This section has been criticized and deemed archaic. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) removes this punishment, reflecting a shift towards treating suicide attempts as a mental health issue rather than a criminal act. However, under BNS Section 224, attempting suicide to compel a public servant remains punishable.

Case Analyses

#

Maruti Sripati Dubal Case

#

This case challenged the constitutionality of Section 309 IPC, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 21. The court initially held Section 309 unconstitutional as it infringed on the right to life, which includes the right not to live.

P. Rathinam v. Union of India

#

In this case, Section 309 was challenged as unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21. The Supreme Court initially ruled it unconstitutional, interpreting Article 21’s right to life as including the right to die. However, this was later overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, where the court upheld Section 309.

Nagabhushan Patnaik Case

#

This case was part of a broader challenge against Section 309 IPC alongside P. Rathinam. It questioned whether individuals have a right to die under Article 21 and argued that punishing failed suicide attempts was unjust.

---

Environmental Law

#

Faculty: Dr. Vijaya Kalyani

---

Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986

#

• The Environmental Protection Act of 1986 is a comprehensive legislation aimed at protecting and improving the environment.
• Key issues addressed include global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

---

Global Warming

#

• Definition: Global warming refers to the rise in the Earth’s average temperature due to an increase in heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.
• This phenomenon is often referred to as the Greenhouse Effect.

Effects of Global Warming

#

1. Increase in Greenhouse Gases:

   • Leads to the rise in global temperatures.
   • Results in rising water levels due to thermal expansion and melting ice.

2. Increase in Global Temperature:

   • Causes glaciers to melt, which in turn leads to rising sea levels.
   • Cities and low-lying areas may become submerged in water, affecting human settlements and biodiversity.

---

Key Terms

#

• Ozone Depletion: The thinning of the Earth’s ozone layer due to pollutants such as CFCs, leading to increased UV radiation.
• Acid Rain: Rainfall made acidic by atmospheric pollution that causes environmental harm, especially to forests and lakes.

Important for Exam

#

• Students should focus on the definitions, causes, and effects of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.
• Understanding the impact of these phenomena on the environment and human life is crucial.

---

Note: I was absent today and I prepared these notes with the aid of inputs from Swapna’s notes.