↓Skip to main content

Day 34 at Padala Rama Reddi Law College 3Y LLB

·3136 words·15 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 34
#

These notes cover the classes conducted on Thursday, November 7th, 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 for Day 33 can be found here.

Contracts 1
#

Faculty: Dr Radha Kumari

All of the following are elements in free consent. This is not the exhaustive list, you must refer to previous and future days to get the complete context.

Coercion and Duress
#

  • In Indian law, coercion is defined under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Coercion includes the committing or threatening to commit any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or the unlawful detaining or threatening to detain property to compel someone to enter into a contract.

  • English Law: In English law, coercion is referred to as duress. However, for it to qualify as duress, it must be proven that there was actual injury to the body.

    • Case Law: In Chikkam Ammiraju v. Chikkam Seshamma 1917, the father allegedly forced his wife and son to execute a release deed in favor of his brother by threatening suicide. The court held this as coercion, as the threat caused undue influence on the parties to act against their will.

  • Under Section 72, if any money is paid or any goods are delivered by mistake, the party receiving them is obliged to return them.

Undue Influence (Section 16)
#

  • A contract is considered to be influenced by undue influence when the relationship between the parties allows one party to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to gain an unfair advantage.

Scenarios Indicating a Position to Dominate
#

  1. Real or Apparent Authority:

    • Examples:
      • Master-servant relationship
      • Teacher-student
      • Doctor-patient
      • Guru-disciple

  2. Fiduciary Relationships:

    • Examples:
      • Father-son
      • Solicitor-client
      • Trustee-beneficiary
      • Promoter-company

  3. Affected Mental Capacity:

    • When a contract is made with a person whose mental capacity is affected by age, illness, or distress.
    • Example: A contract between a medical attendant and an elderly or ill patient.

Presumed Relationships for Undue Influence
#

  • In the following relationships, undue influence is often presumed, placing the burden of proof on the dominant party:
    • Guru and disciple (if the guru unduly influences the disciple to transfer property)
    • Father and son
    • Parent and child
    • Guardian and ward
    • Trustee and beneficiary
    • Doctor and patient
    • Solicitor and client
    • Fiance and fiancée

Relationships Without Presumption of Undue Influence
#

  • Certain relationships do not carry an inherent presumption of undue influence:
    • Landlord and tenant
    • Creditor and debtor
    • Husband and wife

Effect of Undue Influence (Section 19A)
#

  • If a contract is formed by undue influence, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the aggrieved party.

Misrepresentation (Section 18)
#

  • Definition: Misrepresentation is a false representation of facts made innocently or unintentionally.
  • Key Points:
    • It must involve a material fact (mere opinion does not constitute misrepresentation).
    • It should be made to induce the other party into the contract.
    • The misrepresentation should be intended to be acted upon by the other party.
    • The person making the representation must genuinely believe it to be true.
  • Types of Misrepresentation:
    • Innocent Misrepresentation: A false statement made without intent to deceive.
    • Negligent Misrepresentation: False information provided carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.

Family Law - 1
#

Faculty: Dr Sriveni

Sections 19-25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
#

Section 19 - Jurisdiction of Matrimonial Disputes
#

Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides guidelines on where matrimonial petitions (such as divorce, annulment, restitution of conjugal rights) can be filed, giving jurisdiction to specific courts based on the residence and location of the spouses.

Jurisdiction Rules:
#

  • For the Husband:

    • Place where the marriage was solemnized.
    • Place where the respondent (spouse being filed against) resides.
    • Place where the parties last resided together.

  • For the Wife:

    • Place where the petitioner (wife) resides.
    • Place where the respondent is residing.

Additional Clauses:
#

  • If the other spouse is residing outside the country, the petition can be filed in any court where the petitioner resides.
  • If the whereabouts of the respondent are unknown or if the respondent has not been heard from for seven years or more, the petitioner has more flexibility in choosing the jurisdiction.

Section 20 - Contents of the Petition
#

  • Section 20 mandates that all petitions filed under the Hindu Marriage Act must be verified in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
  • The petition must contain the facts constituting the grounds for seeking the matrimonial relief and any supporting documentation.

Section 21 - Application of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
#

  • Section 21 states that the procedures to be followed in matrimonial cases under the Hindu Marriage Act are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
  • This includes processes such as filing, hearing, service of summons, submission of evidence, and judgments.

Section 22 - In-Camera Proceedings
#

  • To protect the privacy and dignity of the parties involved, Section 22 allows for in-camera proceedings in matrimonial cases.
  • This means that the court can order that proceedings be held privately, with only the parties and essential personnel allowed to attend.
  • In-camera proceedings are often used in cases involving sensitive issues, such as those concerning private family matters or allegations of abuse.

Section 23 - Bars to Matrimonial Reliefs
#

Section 23 establishes certain grounds on which a court can refuse to grant matrimonial relief, even if the grounds for divorce or other relief have been established.

Key Clauses under Section 23
#

  1. Doctrine of Strict Proof (Section 23(1)):

    • The burden of proof falls on the petitioner, who must provide clear evidence of the grounds for relief.
    • The respondent has the right to contest the petition.

  2. Bars to Relief:

    • Taking Advantage of One’s Own Wrong: The petitioner cannot seek relief if they have committed a fault or wrongdoing related to the marriage.
    • Accessory, Connivance, and Condonation:
      • Condonation refers to the act of forgiving a spouse’s wrongful act. Once a wrongful act, such as adultery, is forgiven, it cannot be used as grounds for divorce.
      • Case Law on Condonation:
        • Topan Kumar v. Jyotsna: The wife filed multiple criminal cases against her husband. Subsequently, she withdrew them, and they resumed cohabitation after the withdrawal of cases and continued for 1.5 years. When the husband later filed for divorce, the court ruled that the period of cohabitation amounted to condonation and the cases could not be considered cruelty.
        • Chandra v. Avinash: The couple continued to live together despite knowledge of adultery of the wife. This was treated as condonation.
    • Collusion: If the spouses have colluded or acted together to fabricate grounds for divorce, the court may refuse relief.
    • Delay: Excessive delay in filing a petition may affect the court’s decision to grant relief.
      • Case Law on Delay:
        • Kuppa v. Rama: The husband filed for divorce after seven years of separation, explaining the delay by citing attempts at reconciliation. The court said it was excess delay.
        • Teja Singh v. Surjeet Singh: The wife filed for restitution of conjugal rights after seven years of separation. The court held the delay as improper.

  3. Mandatory Reconciliation (Section 23(2)):

    • The court must make attempts to reconcile the parties before proceeding with a divorce or other final relief. This is a mandatory process, except in cases involving grounds like insanity, venereal disease, or a spouse not heard from for seven years or more.

Sections 24 & 25 - Ancillary Reliefs (Maintenance and Alimony)
#

  • Section 24 - Maintenance Pendente Lite:

    • Provides for interim maintenance (pendente lite), which means maintenance granted during the proceedings.
    • Both the husband and wife have an equal right to claim interim maintenance under Indian law, unlike English law where only the wife can claim.
    • The right to claim maintenance is an independent right, meaning it is separate from the final decision in the matrimonial case.

  • Section 25 - Permanent Alimony:

    • Allows the court to order permanent alimony and maintenance to be paid to the spouse upon the final decree of divorce or separation.
    • Alimony is a one time settlement.
    • The amount and terms are decided based on factors such as the income and property of both parties, their conduct, and the duration of the marriage.

Law of Torts
#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

Volenti Non Fit Injuria
#

Definition: The Latin maxim Volenti non fit injuria translates to “to a willing person, no injury is done.” In tort law, this principle asserts that if an individual knowingly and voluntarily consents to a risk, they cannot later claim compensation for any harm resulting from that risk. Essentially, harm suffered with the plaintiff’s consent does not constitute a legal injury and is not actionable.

Key Elements:

  1. Knowledge of the Risk: The plaintiff must have full awareness of the nature and extent of the risk involved.
  2. Free Will: The consent must be given voluntarily, without any form of coercion, fraud, or undue influence.
  3. Consent: The plaintiff must have agreed, either expressly or impliedly, to undertake the risk.

Application:

  • This maxim is founded on principles of good sense and justice. One who has invited or assented to an act being done towards them cannot, when they suffer from it, complain of it as a wrong. It applies to intentional acts which would otherwise be tortious.

Examples:

  1. Sports Participation: Individuals engaging in contact sports, such as football or boxing, are considered to have consented to the inherent risks associated with the sport. In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, a spectator was injured during a car race. The court held that by attending the event, the spectator had consented to the risks inherent in such activities.

  2. Medical Procedures: A patient who consents to a surgical operation, after being informed of the potential risks, cannot claim for injuries resulting from those known risks. However, if the injury results from negligence beyond the known risks, the defense does not apply.

  3. Voluntary Participation in Risky Activities: An individual who chooses to ride in a vehicle knowing that the driver is inexperienced or the vehicle is in poor condition may be considered to have accepted the associated risks. In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the plaintiffs accepted a ride in the defendant’s jeep, which later met with an accident due to a loose wheel. The court applied the defense of Volenti non fit injuria, stating that the plaintiffs had assumed the risk by choosing to ride in the jeep.

Exceptions: While Volenti non fit injuria serves as a robust defense in tort law, there are notable exceptions where the defense may not apply:

  1. Rescue Cases: If the plaintiff voluntarily places themselves in harm’s way to rescue someone from imminent danger, the defense of Volenti non fit injuria may not be applicable. The law recognizes the societal value of rescue efforts and does not penalize rescuers for their bravery.

    Case Reference: In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant left a horse unattended in a crowded area. The horse bolted, and the plaintiff, a police officer, was injured while trying to restrain it. The court held that the defense of Volenti non fit injuria did not apply, as the plaintiff acted under a compelling duty to protect the public.

  2. Consent Obtained by Fraud or Coercion: If the consent was obtained through deceit, misrepresentation, or under duress, it is not considered valid. The plaintiff can claim for injuries suffered, as the consent was not given freely.

  3. Illegal Acts: Consent to an illegal act does not absolve the defendant of liability. Engaging in unlawful activities cannot be legitimized by mutual consent.

  4. Negligence of the Defendant: If the defendant has been negligent, and the plaintiff’s consent was to a different risk, the defense may not hold. The plaintiff must have consented to the specific risk that caused the harm.

This is to be discussed in detail tomorrow. Therefore notes for tomorrow will have more info on these.

Constitutional Law - 1
#

Faculty: Dr. M Gangadhar Rao

Article 15 - Prohibition of Discrimination
#

Overview: Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. It provides a basis for equality by ensuring that public spaces and services are available to all, irrespective of these factors.

Continued from previous days.

Key Case Laws
#

  1. State of MP v. Nivedita Jain:

    • Facts: In this case, the state government reduced the qualifying marks for Scheduled Tribes (STs) to zero in medical entrance examinations, as there were no applicants meeting the minimum criteria.
    • Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that reducing the qualifying marks for STs was constitutionally valid under Article 15(4), which allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Significance: This case emphasizes the state’s power to relax qualifications to promote inclusivity and representation of backward classes in professional courses.

  2. Sunil Jaitley v. State of Haryana:

    • Facts: The State of Haryana had reserved seats for students who had studied up to the 8th grade in rural areas, claiming it would promote equal opportunity for rural students.
    • Judgment: The court struck down the reservation, stating that the syllabus was the same for rural and urban students and that such a reservation would violate the principle of equality.
    • Significance: This case clarifies that reservations must be based on objective differences and valid grounds; mere location of study does not constitute a ground for reservation in education.

  3. Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India):

    • Background: The Mandal Commission was established to identify the socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) in India and recommend measures, including reservations, for their advancement.
    • Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs but set a limit that reservations should not exceed 50% in total. The court also ruled that reservations in promotions are not constitutionally mandated except for SCs and STs.
    • Significance: The case emphasized that reservations should not compromise the merit principle and should be capped at 50% to maintain a balance between social justice and merit.

Article 16 - Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment
#

Overview: Article 16 of the Indian Constitution ensures equal opportunity for all citizens in matters related to public employment and appointments to public office. It prohibits discrimination on specific grounds while allowing for certain provisions to promote social justice and adequate representation of underrepresented groups.

Clauses of Article 16:

  1. Article 16(1): Guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

  2. Article 16(2): Prohibits discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.

  3. Article 16(3): Empowers Parliament to make laws prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.

  4. Article 16(4): Allows the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.

  5. Article 16(4A): Enables the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favor of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

  6. Article 16(4B): Allows the State to consider any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years, and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty percent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.

  7. Article 16(5): Specifies that nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

  8. Article 16(6): Introduced by the 103rd Amendment Act, 2019, this clause allows the State to make any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten percent of the posts in each category.

Key Interpretations and Case Laws
#

  1. Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination:

    • Article 16(1) and (2): Ensure equal access to public employment and prohibit discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, and residence.

  2. Residence as Qualification:

    • Article 16(3): Parliament has the authority to set residence as a qualification for certain public employment posts. This clause addresses the need for local employment in certain regions or positions. Even in combined AP, certain posts in Telangana required Telangana residence.

  3. Reservations for Backward Classes (Article 16(4)):

    • Special Provisions for SCs, STs, and OBCs: The state can reserve posts for socially and educationally backward classes if their representation is inadequate. This includes reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
    • Devadasan v. Union of India: The Supreme Court upheld the carry-forward rule, allowing reserved seats to be carried over to subsequent years if unfilled.

This sometimes led to 100% reservation in future notifications violating the Mandal Commission judgment that said 50% is the limit on reservations. The court later said that this is not permitted and asked them to fill these posts through special drives.

  1. Religious Appointments:
    • Exceptions for Religious Posts: For religious institutions, certain roles (like priests or purohits) may require individuals of specific religious backgrounds. However, administrative roles in religious institutions can be filled without such requirements.

TTD has several non-Hindu staff. The newly appointed chairman B.R. Naidu is contemplating displacing them and moving them to other parts of the government.

  1. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) Reservation:

    • 10% Reservation for EWS: Introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, this provides for reservation in educational institutions and public employment for EWS in the general category.

  2. Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India):

    • The court ruled that reservations should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances. Certain states have placed reservations beyond 50% in the 9th Schedule, making them immune from judicial review.
    • Promotions: The Supreme Court allowed reservations in promotions for SCs and STs, but not for OBCs, as they were considered adequately represented in higher positions.