↓Skip to main content

Day 30 at Padala Rama Reddi Law College 3Y LLB

·2721 words·13 mins
PRRLC Law School Contracts Family Law Constitutional Law Law of Torts LLB 3YDC Semester 1
Prithvi Raj Kunapareddi
Author
Prithvi Raj Kunapareddi
Solving problems for things I care about.

Class Notes - Day 30
#

These notes cover the classes conducted on Saturday, November 2nd, 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. Notes may contain errors, discretion is advised.

Note: I was absent for Day 29, hence, no notes are there for that day.

Note: Internals have been announced. Details about the internals are provided here.

Absence: I did not attend the class for Environmental Law, so no notes are available for that subject.

Contracts 1
#

Faculty: Dr. Radha Kumari

Doctrine of Privity of Contract
#

The Doctrine of Privity of Contract states that only the parties involved in a contract can sue or be sued under that contract. This doctrine excludes third parties from enforcing or being held liable under a contract they are not part of. However, there are some notable exceptions to this rule where third parties can have rights or obligations.

Exceptions to the Privity of Contract
#

  1. Beneficiary of a Trust

    • In the case of a trust, the beneficiary, although not a direct party to the contract, has the right to enforce the trust. This is because the trust is created specifically for their benefit, allowing the beneficiary to seek enforcement despite the lack of direct contractual relationship.

  2. Family Settlements

    • In cases of family arrangements or settlements, certain third parties (usually family members) may enforce the contract even if they are not direct parties. This helps in ensuring harmony within the family and respects the intent of the arrangement.

  3. Third Parties in Specific Contracts (e.g., Insurance)

    • In some cases, such as life insurance contracts, a third-party beneficiary can enforce the contract. For instance, the nominee in a life insurance policy may have rights to the insurance proceeds even if they are not a party to the contract between the insured and the insurance company.

  4. Assignee of Rights and Benefits

    • The assignee of rights and benefits under a contract, provided it does not involve personal skills, can enforce the contract. This applies to cases like negotiable instruments (e.g., promissory notes, checks), where the holder in due course of the instrument has the right to realize the amount from the person liable to pay, even if there is no direct contract between them. This includes liens.
    • For example, insurance policies that are kept as security, property documents, fixed deposits etc. They can be assigned to a creditor but must often be cleared by the issuing authority.

Types of Contracts
#

  1. Contracts Depending on Skill

    • These are contracts that rely on personal skill, volition, or a personal connection. Examples include:
      • Contracts to sing, dance, or perform a personal service.
      • Contracts to marry, where personal choice and skill are fundamental.
    • Rights in these contracts cannot be transferred to another person, as the contract is dependent on the personal qualities or skills of the contracting party.
    • E.g. If you contract with Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao, Akkineni Nageshwar Rao cannot perform the same contract.

  2. Contracts Not Depending on Skill

    • These contracts do not rely on personal skill or a personal relationship. An example is a creditor-debtor relationship, where the rights and obligations are purely financial and can be assigned to a third party.
    • E.g. A bank decides to sell off it’s housing loan portfolio, it can do so to sell it off to another bank and the debtor would still be liable to pay. The debtor cannot claim lack of privity of contract with the new bank.

Other Exceptions
#

  1. Contract of Agency

    • In an agency contract, the agent acts on behalf of the principal. Although the agent may be directly involved in the contract with a third party, the principal is held liable for the actions of the agent, as the agent is considered to be representing the principal. This creates a privity-like relationship through agency.

  2. Covenants Running with the Land

    • When land is sold with a notice of existing covenants (restrictions or obligations) that affect the land, the buyer of the land is bound by these covenants, even if they were not a party to the original agreement. This principle ensures that certain conditions imposed on land continue to bind successors of the property.
    • Case: Tulk v. Moxhay
      • Facts: In this case, Tulk sold land in Leicester Square to a purchaser with the condition that the land would remain as an open space and would not be built upon. Moxhay, a subsequent purchaser of the land, was aware of this covenant but intended to build on the land.
      • Held: The court held that since Moxhay had purchased the land with notice of the covenant, he was bound by it, even though he was not a party to the original agreement. This established the principle that covenants running with the land are enforceable against subsequent purchasers.

Family Law - 1
#

Faculty: Dr Sriveni

Grounds for Divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA)
#

This is part of a longer list, only the things which were covered today have been noted here.

Presumption of Death (Civil Death)
#

  • Not heard of in 7 years (vii): If a spouse has not been heard of for seven years, they are presumed dead. This presumption allows the other spouse to file for divorce on the grounds of “civil death.”

Other Grounds for Divorce
#

Renunciation (vi)
#

  • Sanyasa Ashrama:
    • When a person renounces worldly life and enters a religious order, it is considered a form of “civil death.”
    • The individual’s funeral rites are performed, and their name may be changed.
    • This renunciation provides grounds for divorce as it signifies desertion.

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (Section 13A)
#

  • Conditions:
    • After the passing of a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR), the couple must reunite within one year.
    • If they fail to reunite, the petitioner can file for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
    • In cases of judicial separation, divorce can be sought if the separation continues for over a year.

Mutual Consent Divorce (Section 13B) #

  • Conditions:

    • The couple must be living separately for over one year.
    • They should not be able to live together and must mutually agree to separate.
    • Both parties file a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent.
    • After filing, there is a mandatory “cooling off” period of 6 months. The couple has an additional 18 months (after the intial 6m) to move a motion to finalize the divorce.
    • There are cases where the court has waived the cooling off period.

  • Notable Cases:

    • Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur:

      • The parties had been living separately since 2008 but filed for divorce in 2017, requesting the waiver of the 6-month cooling-off period.
      • The court laid down conditions for waiving the cooling-off period:
        • All reconciliation attempts under Family Court Act Sec 9 and S23(2) of HMA must be exhausted.
        • Issues of custody, maintenance, alimony, etc., must be settled.
        • There must be an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
        • In this particular case, Court allowed divorce after 7 days of the original petition.

    • Vaibhav Pancholi v. Priya (2022):

      • Marriage performed in 2020, couple lived separately for 14 months.
      • The court waived the cooling-off period as the husband was a software engineer who had to travel abroad for work.

    • Vandana Goyal v. Prashant Goyal (MP 2022):

      • The couple lived together for only 12 days; reconciliation attempts failed.
      • The husband paid a permanent alimony of Rs 1 crore.
      • The court waived the remaining 9 days of the 6-month period.

    • Anil Kumar v. Maya Jain and Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar:

      • In both cases, the court waived the 6-month cooling-off period.

    • Nikhil Kumar v. Rupali Kumar:

      • Married in 2011, filed for divorce in 2016.
      • Family court denied waiver of the cooling-off period. Wife had to relocate to the UK and requested the waiver. The Supreme Court granted the relief and waived the cooling off period.

Grounds for Divorce Available Only to the Wife (Section 13(2))
#

  1. Husband having two wives:

    • Polygamy was permitted before the enactment of the HMA in 1955.
    • Although rare today, this provision remains in the law for historical context. It maybe considered obsolete.

  2. Rape, Sodomy, and Bestiality:

    • These acts are categorized as unnatural offenses and are grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically available as grounds for the wife under Section 13(2).
    • Definition of Terms:
      • Rape: Rape is a non-consensual sexual act where a person forces sexual intercourse upon another person without consent. Within the context of marriage, marital rape is not recognized as a crime under Indian law for adult, non-separated couples, but it is still considered a severe violation and grounds for divorce under Hindu law.
      • Sodomy: Sodomy refers to non-traditional sexual activities, especially anal intercourse, typically between a man and another man or a man and a woman. In the context of marriage, forced sodomy without consent is viewed as an unnatural offense and a valid ground for divorce.
      • Bestiality: Bestiality is a sexual act involving an animal, which is considered illegal and unnatural.

  3. Order Under Section 144 of BNSS / Section 125 of CrPC or Section 18 of HA&M Act:

    • If a maintenance order is issued, cohabitation must resume within one year.
    • If cohabitation does not resume, the wife can file for divorce after one year.

  4. Marriage under 15 years of age:

    • If the wife was married under the age of 15, she must repudiate the marriage before she turns 18.
    • She must file for divorce between the ages of 18 and 19; after reaching 19, she loses this specific ground for divorce.

Law of Torts
#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

Quasi-Judicial
#

  • Definition: Quasi-judicial powers are those powers exercised without a formal court or judicial intervention. It involves administrative or regulatory authorities making decisions that resemble judicial actions.
  • Principles of Natural Justice:
    • Audi alterum partem - “Hear the other side”: This principle mandates that both parties must be given a fair hearing before a decision is made.
    • Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa - “No man ought to be a judge in his own case”: This principle ensures impartiality in decision-making by preventing conflicts of interest.

The core purpose of natural justice principles is to prevent miscarriages of justice and ensure that public interest is served. These principles are fundamental to the process of decision-making, ensuring liberty and fairness.

If a statute is silent, the principles of justice are compelled to imply the principles of natural justice.

Unit II: Defenses and Liability in Torts
#

  1. General Defenses to an Action in Torts

    These defenses provide immunity, limiting liability in specific situations where an act that would otherwise be considered wrongful can be excused or justified. Such justifications are primarily based on public policy grounds and serve to prevent civil liability in cases where liability would be inappropriate or excessive. Here are some of the main defenses:

    1. Plaintiff the Wrongdoer
    #

    • Principle: A plaintiff who has acted unlawfully cannot generally recover damages for a harm connected to their own wrongful act. This concept is encapsulated in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio, meaning “from an immoral cause, no action arises.”
    • Explanation: If the harm suffered by the plaintiff is a consequence of their own unlawful or immoral act, the plaintiff is barred from recovery.
    • Case Law:
      • Bird v. Holbrook (1828) - In this case, Bird, the plaintiff, was injured by a spring gun (automated device to shoot) set up by Holbrook to protect his garden. The court held that even though Bird was technically trespassing, he could recover damages since Holbrook’s response was excessively dangerous. This case demonstrates that the principle of “plaintiff the wrongdoer” does not always bar recovery; it applies only if the plaintiff’s wrongdoing is directly connected to the harm suffered.

This is a landmark case as we observe signs that say “Danger” or “Beware of Dog” today likely because of this judgment.

Constitutional Law
#

Faculty: Dr. M Gangadhar Rao

I must admit that there is a enchanting feeling when one sits in the class and listens to this class, I’m afraid the notes can’t do it justice but I try my best.

Article 14 - Right to Equality
#

  • Provision: Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the Right to Equality to all individuals. It states that “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
  • Principle of Reasonable Classification:
    • Article 14 allows reasonable classification for legislative or governmental purposes, as long as the classification is not arbitrary.
    • Reasonable Classification: This means that the state can classify or categorize individuals for valid reasons but the classification must be:
      • Intelligible: There must be a clear and logical basis for grouping people or things differently.
      • Related to the Objective: The classification must have a rational connection to the objective sought to be achieved by the law.
    • Unreasonable Classification: Any classification without a valid basis, or which is arbitrary or unjust, is prohibited under Article 14. Such unreasonable acts or classifications by the state are considered unconstitutional.

Key Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
#

  • Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the Indian government in the interest of public safety without giving her a hearing.
  • Issue: Whether this action was a violation of her right to equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21.
  • Judgment:
    • The Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 14 by linking it with Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
    • The court held that any law affecting personal liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable” and cannot be arbitrary.
    • This case introduced the concept of procedural due process in Indian law, emphasizing that laws affecting individuals must be reasonable, fair, and follow established procedures.

This case was immediately after the Emergency and under the Janata Party government. This was a coalition government and the court has traditionally delivered strong judgments during the times when governments were weak. It is said that the court has attempted to ingratiate itself with the people after the judgment in the habeas corpus case (ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkanth Shukla) which was widely criticised by the people of India.

Article 14 and Recent Developments
#

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) - Adultery and Section 497 IPC
#

  • Background: Section 497 of the IPC criminalized adultery, punishing only men for the act and treating women involved as victims. This was challenged as unconstitutional under Article 14.

  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Section 497 was unconstitutional as it was discriminatory and violated the Right to Equality.

    • The court stated that the provision treated women as property and lacked equal treatment.
    • As a result, adultery was decriminalized.

  • Unintended Consequences:

    • Increase in Adultery Cases: With adultery no longer a criminal offense, there has been an observed increase in extramarital affairs without legal consequence.
    • Impact on Society: Instances like Madhuri and Duvvada Srinivas show that adultery is becoming prevalent, potentially affecting family stability and societal values.
    • Concerns: Critics argue that decriminalization may indirectly encourage infidelity, affecting marital relationships and the sanctity of marriage.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) - Decriminalization of Homosexuality (Section 377 IPC)
#

  • Background: Section 377 of the IPC criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which was used to penalize homosexual acts.

  • Judgment: The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual intercourse, holding that Section 377 violated Article 14 and the Right to Privacy.

    • The court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation was unconstitutional.
    • This decision was celebrated as a significant step towards inclusivity and the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

  • Criticisms and Flaws in the Judgment:

    • Lack of Provisions for Non-Consensual Acts: While decriminalizing consensual homosexual intercourse, the judgment did not establish specific provisions to protect individuals from non-consensual homosexual acts. This creates a gap in the law where there is no clear protection against forced same-sex intercourse. This means that if a strong man/woman forces another person of the same sex to have intercourse, they have no legal recourse. The existing rape provisions in IPC and BNS do not cover this as they are only for women who have been raped by a man.
    • Interpretation Challenges: The judgment’s broad decriminalization may lead to interpretative challenges, as there is a lack of clear guidance for situations involving coercion or lack of consent.