Class Notes - Day 28

#

These notes cover the classes conducted on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024 for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College. The subjects included Contracts - 1, Law of Torts, Constitutional Law - 1, and Family Law - 1. Errors maybe present. Discretion advised.

Note: I was absent for the Environmental Law class and am therefore unaware of the topics discussed. If any student has notes from this class, please share.

Notes for Day 27 can be found here

---

Contracts 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Radha Kumari

---

Consideration in Contracts

#

Key Principles

#

1. Adequacy of Consideration:

   • Consideration does not need to be equal in value to what is received in return.
   • The law only requires that a contract is supported by some form of consideration; the courts are not generally concerned with its adequacy, as long as it has some value.

2. Exceptions to Adequacy:

   • If a contract is believed to be influenced by undue influence (e.g., relationships like teacher-student, guru-disciple), the adequacy of consideration becomes relevant.
   • In such cases, the courts may scrutinize the fairness of the exchange and may void the transaction.

Instances of Illusory or Unreal Consideration

#

In some cases, the consideration is deemed not real or “illusory,” and therefore not valid:

1. Physical Impossibility:

   • E.g., Promising to revive a deceased person. Such acts are inherently impossible and hence are not considered real consideration.

2. Legal Impossibility:

   • Example: A owes Rs. 100 to B. A promises to pay Rs. 20 to C (B’s servant), who in turn promises to discharge A from the debt to B. This is legally impossible as C cannot discharge a debt owed to his master, B.
   • Case: Harvey v. Gibbons (1675) – Legal impossibility invalidates the promise as consideration.

3. Uncertain Consideration:

   • If the promise is vague or ambiguous, it cannot constitute valid consideration.
   • Example: A engages B for a task and promises to pay a “reasonable” amount. This promise is unenforceable as it lacks certainty.

4. Illusory Consideration:

   • Case: Stilk v. Myrick (1809) – A captain promised extra wages to his crew if they worked harder to cover for two absconded crew members. The court held that the crew was already under an obligation to return the vessel, making the extra payment promise an illusory consideration.

5. Obligation Already Bound by Law:

   • A promise to perform a duty that one is already legally obligated to do is not considered valid consideration.
   • Example: A public servant accepting a bribe to perform their duty, which they are already paid to do, is not a valid contract since it lacks fresh consideration.

6. Illegal, Immoral, or Opposed to Public Policy (S.23):

   • The consideration must not be illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy.

---

Family Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr Sriveni

The following is part of S.13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 pertaining to Divorce.

Cruelty in Marriage Law

#

Cruelty is a ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It can be physical or mental, and the court assesses each case based on its unique circumstances.

Shyamalata v. Suresh

#

• Facts: Husband filed for divorce as wife complained against in-laws and husband
• Outcome: Did not amount to cruelty
• Reasoning: Proceedings were dropped before reaching court
• Legal Principle: Mere filing of a complaint does not constitute cruelty if not pursued. The intent and impact of the action are considered.

Kalpana v. Surendra

#

• Facts: Wife lodged complaint against husband’s family under IPC 498A and they went to jail and came out on bail.
• Outcome: Amounted to cruelty
• Reasoning: Court held filing of complaint constituted cruelty
• Legal Principle: False allegations or complaints that damage reputation can be considered cruel. The court weighs the severity and consequences of such actions.

Sushil v. Usha

#

• Facts: Wife terminated pregnancy without informing husband
• Outcome: Amounted to cruelty
• Reasoning: Court considered lack of communication as cruel act
• Legal Principle: Unilateral decisions on significant matters like childbirth can be cruel if they disregard the spouse’s feelings or rights.

Madanlal v. Sudesh Kumar

#

• Facts: Wife gave birth to illegitimate child 6 months into marriage
• Outcome: Amounted to cruelty
• Reasoning: Court viewed infidelity as cruel to spouse
• Legal Principle: Adultery leading to birth of illegitimate child is often considered cruel due to emotional trauma and social stigma.

Bhagwat v. Bhagwat

#

• Facts: Husband strangulated brother-in-law and youngest son
• Outcome: Amounted to cruelty
• Reasoning: Violent acts considered cruel behavior
• Legal Principle: Extreme violence, especially towards family members, is a clear form of cruelty that endangers the spouse’s mental and physical wellbeing.

Shyam Sunder v. Shantadevi

#

• Facts: Wife ill-treated, not given food, confined to room; joint family members idle
• Outcome: Amounted to cruelty
• Reasoning: Mistreatment and neglect viewed as cruel
• Legal Principle: Persistent neglect, deprivation of basic needs, and confinement can constitute cruelty. Family members’ complicity can aggravate the situation.

Gopal v. Mithilesh

#

• Facts: Husband neutral, did not side with mother or wife
• Outcome: Did not amount to cruelty
• Reasoning: Neutrality not considered cruel behavior
• Legal Principle: Maintaining neutrality in family disputes is not inherently cruel. Spouses are not obligated to always take sides.

Deva Kumar v. Thilagavathy

#

• Facts: Wife treated badly, driven to commit suicide
• Outcome: Amounted to cruelty
• Reasoning: Severe mistreatment leading to suicidal tendencies viewed as cruel
• Legal Principle: Behavior causing severe mental distress to the point of contemplating suicide is considered extreme cruelty.

Desertion in Marriage Law

#

Desertion is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It involves the intentional abandonment of marital obligations without reasonable cause and consent.

Key Elements of Desertion

#

1. Actual Desertion

#

To prove actual desertion, all of the following elements must be established:

• Factum of Separation: Physical or mental break in marital relationship
• Animus Deserdendi: Intention to desert permanently
• Without reasonable cause: No justifiable reason for leaving
• Without consent: Deserted spouse did not agree to separation
• Statutory period: Continuous desertion for at least 2 years before filing divorce petition

Cases on Actual Desertion

#

Bipinchandra v. Prabhavathi

#

• Facts:
  • Married in 1942, lived happily until 1946
  • Bipin’s friend Mahendra lived with them
  • Bipin went abroad, received letter about wife from father
  • Wife denied allegations, left house in May 1947
  • Husband sent legal notice in July for child’s return
  • Wife’s parents willing to send her back in November
  • Husband only wanted child, not wife
• Outcome: Not considered desertion
• Reasoning: Wife had no intention to desert
• Legal Principle: Desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to desert. Temporary separation due to misunderstanding does not constitute desertion.

Rohini v. Narendra Singh

#

• Facts:
  • Wife left matrimonial home after 2 years of marriage
  • Husband remarried day before HMA Act enforcement
  • Bigamy was permitted before the enforcement of HMA 1955
• Outcome: Considered cruelty
• Reasoning: Wife’s leaving viewed as cruel act
• Legal Principle: Abandonment of marital home without just cause can be seen as both desertion and cruelty, depending on circumstances.

Jagannath v. Krishna

#

• Facts: Wife became Bramhakumari
• Outcome: Considered cruelty
• Reasoning: Abandonment of marital duties for religious reasons viewed as cruel
• Legal Principle: Unilateral decision to abandon marital life for personal or religious reasons can constitute cruelty if it deprives the spouse of marital companionship.

Teerath Ram v. Parvathi

#

• Facts: Wife wanted to live in separate house
• Outcome: Not considered desertion
• Reasoning: Desire for separate living not equated to desertion
• Legal Principle: Mere physical separation without the intention to abandon the marriage is not desertion. The context and reasons for separate living are crucial.

Angalla Padmalatha v. A. Sudershan Rao

#

• Facts: Wife left for delivery, never returned
• Outcome: Considered cruelty
• Reasoning: Permanent departure viewed as cruel act
• Legal Principle: Using a legitimate reason (like childbirth) as a pretext for permanent abandonment can be seen as both desertion and cruelty.

Sunil Kumar v. Usha

#

• Facts: Atmosphere of matrimonial home not conducive
• Outcome: Not considered cruelty
• Reasoning: Unconducive atmosphere not equated to cruelty
• Legal Principle: Marital discord or an unhappy atmosphere alone does not amount to cruelty. There must be more severe actions or behavior to constitute cruelty.

2. Constructive Desertion

#

To be discussed in detail in next class.

3. Wilful Neglect

#

To be discussed in detail in next class.

---

Law of Torts

#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

Who Cannot Be Sued in Torts

#

1. Act of State

   • An “act of state” refers to an action taken in the exercise of sovereign power by a government or its representatives concerning another state or foreign subjects. Such acts cannot be questioned by municipal (domestic) courts. This immunity protects the sovereign actions of a state, especially those that may cause injury to foreign nationals or entities.

   Essentials of an Act of State

   #

   1. Authority: The act must be carried out by official representatives of the state.
   2. Impact: The act should be injurious to another state or its citizens.
   3. Sanction or Ratification: The act must be either previously sanctioned or subsequently ratified by the state itself.
   4. Immunity for Officers: Officers of the state cannot be sued in their representative capacity for actions deemed to be acts of state.

   Key Cases

   #

   Buron v. Denman (1848)

   #

   This case established the act of state doctrine as a defense against tort claims. The key facts and ruling were:

   • Commander Denman of the Royal Navy was tasked with freeing British captives held as slaves on the Gallinas islands off Sierra Leone.

   • In carrying out this mission, Denman destroyed slave barracks belonging to Buron, a Spanish slave trader, and freed Buron’s slaves.

   • Buron sued Denman for trespass in English courts.

   • The court held that Denman’s actions were justified as an “act of state” because they had been subsequently ratified by the British government.

   • This ratification was deemed equivalent to prior authorization, shielding Denman from personal liability.

   • The case established that acts done by agents of the Crown in the course of foreign affairs, when ratified by the government, cannot be questioned in domestic courts.

   Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba (1859)

   #

   This case further developed the act of state doctrine:

   • The East India Company had seized property belonging to the late Raja of Tanjore as there was no heir.

   • The Raja’s widow sued for return of the property.

   • The Privy Council ruled that the seizure was a sovereign act done in the right of a conquering state.

   • As an act of state in the exercise of sovereign power, it could not be questioned in municipal courts.

   • The court held it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on such sovereign acts against foreigners.

   Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (1894)

   #

   This case addressed sovereign immunity in the context of the act of state doctrine:

   • The Sultan of Johore was sued in English courts for breach of promise of marriage.

   • He had been traveling incognito in England under an assumed name.

   • The court ruled that as a sovereign ruler, the Sultan was entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of English courts.

   • This immunity applied even though he had been in England in a private capacity.

   • The case confirmed that sovereign immunity is an aspect of the act of state doctrine that prevents domestic courts from judging the acts of foreign sovereigns.

2. Ambassadors

   • Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives are immune from being sued for torts in the courts of both England and India. This immunity is based on principles of international policy, ensuring smooth diplomatic relations by protecting diplomats from local judicial processes.
   • Limits to Immunity: Immunity from local jurisdiction does not equate to legal immunity for wrongful acts. For claims against ambassadors, affected parties must approach their own government, which may then urge the foreign diplomat’s home country to address the issue.

3. Infants or Minors

   • In tort law, age generally does not exempt a person from liability. Minors can be held liable for tortious acts, although certain torts requiring specific mental elements, such as deceit or malicious intent, may not apply if the minor lacks the maturity to form such intent.

   Minor’s Position in Torts and Contracts

   #

   • While a minor can be held liable for torts, contracts with minors are generally void ab initio (invalid from the outset). This distinction creates a complex interaction between tort and contract law when minors are involved.

   Torts vs. Contract

   #

   • If a minor’s actions result in both a tort and a breach of contract, courts may consider the case under tort law rather than contract law due to the minor’s incapacity to enter into valid contracts.

   Jennings v. Rundall (1799)

   #

   This case dealt with a minor’s liability for damage caused while using hired property.

   Key Facts:

   #

   • Rundall, a minor, hired a horse for riding
   • The horse was injured due to excessive and improper riding

   Court’s Decision:

   #

   • The court held that Rundall was not liable for the damage

   Reasoning:

   #

   • The act of riding the horse was directly connected to the contract of hire
   • Allowing a tort action would indirectly enforce a contract against a minor, which the law prohibits

   Significance:

   #

   • Established the principle that a minor cannot be held liable in tort for actions directly connected to a contract
   • Reinforced the legal protection afforded to minors in contractual matters

   Burnard v. Haggis (1863)

   #

   This case further refined the principles established in Jennings v. Rundall, distinguishing between actions within and outside the scope of a contract.

   Key Facts:

   #

   • Burnard, a minor, hired a horse for riding on the road
   • He was explicitly told the horse was not fit for jumping
   • Burnard jumped the horse over a fence, resulting in the horse’s death

   Court’s Decision:

   #

   • The court held Burnard liable for the damage to the horse

   Reasoning:

   #

   • Jumping the horse was outside the scope of the hiring contract
   • The act constituted a separate and independent wrong

   Significance:

   #

   • Distinguished between actions within the scope of a contract (where minors are protected) and those outside it
   • Established that minors can be held liable for torts independent of contractual obligations
   • Demonstrated that the protection afforded to minors is not absolute and has limits

Diplomatic Immunity: Key Points and Examples

#

1. Remedy through diplomatic channels

#

When diplomats abuse their immunity, the host country cannot directly prosecute them. Instead, the remedy is to appeal to one’s own government to take diplomatic action.

Example: If a U.S. diplomat in Hyderabad was accused of a crime, Indian authorities could not arrest or prosecute them directly. Instead, India would have to:

• Declare the diplomat “persona non grata” and expel them from the country
• File a formal diplomatic protest with the U.S. State Department
• Request that the U.S. waive the diplomat’s immunity to allow prosecution
• Ask the U.S. to recall the diplomat and potentially prosecute them under U.S. law

This happened in 2013 when Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade was arrested in New York for visa fraud. India protested her treatment diplomatically and eventually had her transferred to India’s UN mission to obtain full diplomatic immunity.

2. Immunity from jurisdiction, not liability

#

Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from being subject to the host country’s legal system. However, it does not absolve them of legal liability for wrongful acts.

Example: If a foreign diplomat in Hyderabad caused a car accident:

• They could not be arrested, detained or prosecuted in Indian courts
• However, the victims could still file a civil lawsuit against them in their home country
• The diplomat’s government could choose to waive immunity and allow prosecution
• Or the diplomat’s government could recall them and potentially prosecute them at home

A real example occurred in 2001 when a Russian diplomat in Ottawa killed a Canadian woman while driving drunk. Russia refused to waive his immunity, but after he was expelled:

• He was fired from his diplomatic post
• Russia prosecuted and convicted him of involuntary manslaughter

3. Limitations on immunity

#

It’s important to note that diplomatic immunity is not absolute. Lower-ranking embassy staff only have immunity for official acts. And even high-ranking diplomats can have their immunity waived by their home country.

Example: In 2019, the wife of a U.S. diplomat in the UK was involved in a fatal car accident. The U.S. initially asserted her diplomatic immunity, but later waived it to allow her to face charges in British courts.

4. Reciprocal nature

#

Diplomatic immunity is based on reciprocity between countries. If India restricts immunities for foreign diplomats, other countries may do the same for Indian diplomats abroad.

Example: After the Devyani Khobragade incident, India removed security barriers around the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi and revoked certain privileges for U.S. diplomats. In response, the U.S. limited the movement of Indian diplomats in America.

5. Potential for abuse

#

While diplomatic immunity serves an important purpose, it can be abused. In Hyderabad and other Indian cities, there have been cases of diplomats:

• Evading taxes and customs duties
• Violating traffic laws without consequences
• Using diplomatic pouches to smuggle contraband
• Employing domestic workers in exploitative conditions

Indian authorities have limited recourse in such cases beyond expelling the diplomat or appealing to their home country.

---

Constitutional Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr M Gangadhar Rao

Doctrine of Waiver

#

It refers to the possibility of waiver of Fundamental Rights by the citizens.

India

#

• Fundamental rights cannot be waived in India
• This was a deliberate decision by the framers of the Constitution
• Rationale: To prevent exploitation of the poor through coercion to waive their rights
• Example: Preventing bonded labor by prohibiting waiver of fundamental rights

United States

#

• Fundamental rights can be waived
• Allows more flexibility but also potential for abuse

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution

#

Right to Equality

#

1. Equality before Law

   • No person is above the law
   • Law applies equally to all citizens

2. Equal Protection of Law

   • State has duty to treat all citizens equally
   • Reasonable classification allowed but not arbitrary discrimination

---

Note: October 31st 2024 is a holiday on ocassion of Diwali.

Happy Diwali!

#