A diabolical Medical college management played a cunning cat and mouse game with MCI, Government and the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to cheat and get permission to do admissions for medical courses in their college and paid the hefty price.
Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 51]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194049971/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c7164069eff4312dfbb5f69
Index of all Perjury case laws is here.
A cunning advocate obtained blank cheques from his client as surety for this professional fees and misappropriate them. Law caught upto him and shown his place.
This is a case of an advocate filing false information during the enrollment with Bar Council. After debarring him from enrollment, then he went of a petition/appeal filing spree at all level of courts. All the time getting dismissed.
Supreme Court held that the offence of 498A was not made out in this case. It has a checkered history. See the tantrums of knife.
Now the hubby dear responds to the complaint filed against him
Calcutta High Court held in this judgment that “CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 is applicable even if evidence is not recorded in a case”.
Q1: A person was working with a hatchet. Suddenly the head of the hatchet flew and hit B. B dies. Explain
Facts of the case:
Issues/Questions Involved in the case:
Decision/Judgement arrived at in the case:
Reasons/Principles Applied to arrive at the Decision:
Definitions:
According to Section 80 from Chapter 4 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), “Accident in doing a lawful act: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.”
Object:
Section 80 IPC provides exemption from criminal liability to an act done by accident of misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and attention.
Meaning of accident or misfortune:
“Accident”, a word which is used in everyday life to indicate a course of events over which a person had no control over and which could not be avoided despite reasonable due diligence and care. Section 80 talks about accident as a general exception and which can lead to avoidance of criminal punishment and liability if established fully before a court of law. Law does not intend to punish a man of the things over which he could possibly have no control over.
Accident comes from the word “accidere” which means to happen or befall upon, whenever we use this term in daily life it usually reflects a course of events out of our control. As they say “Accidents happen”, this indicates the core of this general exception that there was no fault of a party which led to the unwanted consequence. The second term used i.e. “Misfortune” is synonymous with bad luck or an event which was undesirable. Misfortunes are similar to accidents but with the only difference that accidents result in harm to others but misfortune may also result in harm to the doer.
Without any criminal intention or knowledge:
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” (Mens rea: Guilty Mind) only works as a reminder that criminal law in order to punish seeks some kind of guilty mental element to punish a person. This implies that a person when does not intend and cannot even contemplate occurrence of a certain course of events, cannot be held responsible for the happening of that event.
Lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means:
It is important that the act which was being done was lawful, in a lawful manner and by lawful means. A woman who in order to discipline her child, hits him with an iron rod but the rod hits another child and causes injury will not be entitled to the defence of accident as the act itself lacks lawfulness and cannot be said to be in a lawful manner and by lawful means.
Supporting Case laws/precedents/references:
A Heyna, wild animal was moving in the villages and causing injuries and deaths to small children. The people frightened with it. They complained to the authorities. The Government deputed certain officers. While they were wandering in the forests in search of Heyna, they saw a moving animal behind the bushes. It was a rainy day and the vision was not clear. The officers thought that it was the Heyna. It was common that no people would be moving in that area and in particularly in that rainy time. The accused, one of the officers, fired at the moving object. The result was that the death of a human being. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the accused was protected under Sec. 80.
The accused and the deceased were friends who were wrestling fans and were engaged in a wrestling bout. While wrestling, the deceased’s head accidentally came in contact with a concrete platform resulting in injuries to the skull and eventual death. The accused was tried under section 304 but later on convicted under section 304A. He preferred an appeal to the Allahabad High Court, which held that when the accused and deceased agree to wrestle with each other, there was an implied consent on each part to suffer any accidental injuries. The injury was accidental and there was no foul play on part of the accused and hence is to be given the benefit under section 80 and section 87
The accused and the deceased were police constable and head-constable. They were posted to protect a dam site. The accused killed his colleague in the night by firing at a close range without knowing the identity of his target. The accused pleaded the defence of Sec. 80. The trial Court convicted him under Section 302.
On appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302, and held that the accused acted without proper care and caution, and that the act of accused could not come under an accident or misfortune or it was not a lawful act.
Conclusion to the Problem:
In view of the above discussion, A cannot be prosecuted for the death of B.
Go to the Index Page for other Subjects material.
Q1: An independent contractor constructed a reservoir and because of heavy rains it collapsed and damaged the coal fields beside it. The owner of coal fields which got damaged wants to approach the court. Explain the liability.
Facts of the case:
Issues/Questions Involved in the case:
Decision/Judgement arrived at in the case:
Reasons/Principles Applied to arrive at the Decision:
Meaning of Strict Liability:
‘Rule of Strict Liability’ in Torts mean liability without fault, that is to say, without intention or negligence on the part of defendant. This liability is also famously called as liability under Rylands v. Fletcher of 1868 [1868 LR 3 HL 330]. This rule applies to ‘anything likely to do mischief if it escapes’ such as gas, electricity, vibration, explosives, engines, noxious fumes and water in large quantity.
Essential for application of ‘rule of Strict liability’:
There should be a dangerous thing brought on land which is likely to escape and cause damage
The power escape of the dangerous thing must be inherent. The term escape means ‘escape from a place which is under defendant’s occupation or control’.
Collection of dangerous things in a big quantity, which causes damage to the other if it escapes from that place, is considered to be non-natural us of land.
This liability arises when there is a non-natural use of land happening. In such a case, the defendant is held liable even for accidental harm and the plaintiff need not prove negligence or absence of care on the part of defendant.
Acts done by an independent contractor:
Generally, an employer us not liable for the wrongful acts done by an independent contractor. But it is no defence to the application of this rule that the act causing damage had been done by an independent contractor. It is the employer’s duty to keep such dangerous substances in a proper and safe way so that is does not cause injury to others.
Exceptions:
Supporting Case laws/precedents/references:
The plaintiff was the occupier of certain coal mines. The defendant were the owners and occupiers of a mill adjoining the plaintiff’s land. The defendants wished to construct a reservoir. They employed a competent engineer and contractor to do so. There were some old passages of disuse in the mines of the defendant’s land. The contractors failed to observe and they didn’t block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, the water broke through the shaft and filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage to the plaintiff’s mines. The defendants didn’t know because it was constructed by an independent contractor. In this case, the Court held the defendants liable, though there was no negligence on their part. It was held that for liability to arise under the ‘rule of Strict Liability’, no need of proving any negligence on the part of defendant.
The defendant diverted a natural stream on his land to create ornamental lakes. Exceptionally heavy rain caused the artificial lakes and waterways to be flooded and damaged adjoining land. The defendant was held not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the cause of the flood was an act of God.
The defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. Plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water due to burst of a main pipe belonging to the company. In this case, it was held that the company was not liability as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty and there is no negligence on the part of plaintiff too.
Position in India:
The rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher of strict liability is also applied in India with slight variations. Liability without fault has been recognized in case of Motor Vehicle accidents. However, the motor vehicle’s owners get their vehicles insured to protect themselves from the situation after accidents. It is called as Third-Party Insurance and is mandated by the law.
Conclusion to the Problem:
In view of the above discussion, the owner of the coal fields can approach Court to recover the losses he incurred due to the strict liability arising on the independent contractor and the owner of the land on which the reservoir was constructed.
Go to the Index Page for other Subjects material.
Q1: A acts as a surety for a contract between B and C, on behalf of B. When there was a breach of contract by B, C instead of proceeding against B files a case against A. Discuss
Facts of the case:
Issues/Questions Involved in the case:
Decision/Judgement arrived at in the case:
Reasons/Principles Applied to arrive at the Decision:
Definitions:
According to Section 126 of Indian Contract Act, “Contract of guarantee”, “surety”, “principal debtor” and “creditor”. — A “contract of guarantee” is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the “surety”; the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the “principal debtor”, and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the “creditor”. A guarantee may be either oral or written.
According to Section 128 of Indian Contract Act, “Surety’s liability”. — The liability of the surety is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.
According to Section 142 of Indian Contract Act, “Guarantee obtained by misrepresentation invalid.” — Any guarantee which has been obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the creditor, or with his knowledge and assent, concerning a material part of the transaction, is invalid.
According to Section 143 of Indian Contract Act, “Guarantee obtained by concealment invalid.”—Any guarantee which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence as to material circumstances, is invalid.
Meaning:
There are 3 parties to a contract of guarantee.
And between these parties, there exists 3 contracts
Essential features of a Contract of Guarantee or Surety:
Explanation:
From the above points, it is vividly understood that the quantum of obligation of a Surety is the same as that of a Principle Debtor, unless there is a contract on the contrary. The liability of the Surety cannot be more than that of the Principle Debtor. Surety’s liability also depends upon the construction of the Contract of Guarantee. A Creditor is not bound to proceed first against the Principle Debtor before suing the Surety, unless otherwise agreed beforehand in the contract. Therefore, it is amply evident that the Creditor can sue the Surety without suing the Principle Debtor.
Liability of Guarantor or Surety:
Supporting Case laws/precedents/references:
In this case, the Court held that it is the duty of the Surety to see that the Principle Debtor fulfils his obligation. As soon as the time for payment is due, the Surety becomes liable directly, if the Principle Debtor does not or is unable to pay or perform his obligation.
In this case, it was held that the Principle Debtor has got discharged of the obligation by operation of law.
In this case, it was held that if the liability of the Principle Debtor is scaled down under Debt Relief Act, the Surety’s liability also gets reduced. Hence it is to be noted that the Surety will be held liable to the extent of the Principle Debtor’s liability only.
Conclusion to the Problem:
In view of the above discussion, the liability of C towards A, arises immediately after the breach of contract by B. A can very well sue C, without proceeding against B.
Go to the Index Page for other Subjects material.
Bad Behavior has blocked 325 access attempts in the last 7 days.
