Torts. Cases

1
LAW TORTS
Semester I
Name of the Course Teacher: ANEESH V. PILLAI
Introduction:
Where there is a right there is a remedy, it was expressed in the ancient

maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium. If a person’s right is infringed, then the law allows him
remedy by restoring his right. If anybody suffers damages due to the act of another,
whatever is the name of the act, the former can claim compensation for damages under
the law. The right in this maxim doesn’t mean to include each and every right like moral
and political rights, but it includes only the legal rights. If there is an infringement of a
legal right, there is a remedy available in the law which confers that right. According to
the Hoffeildien analysis every legal right creates a corresponding duty in others; if there is
a violation of this duty the injured party can have the right to vindicate his damages.
On the basis of this maxim Law of Torts was developed as a distinct
branch of civil law. The entire corpus of this branch of law was created by the judges in
various courts at various times. Some of the tortious principles owe it origin in very
ancient decision such as Tort of Deceit in Pristely vs. Flower (1837) and some of them
are in modern decisions such as Principle of Absolute Liability in MC Mehta Case
(1987). Though this is an old branch of law, it does have considerable value and it has
survived for many centuries to protect interest s of many kinds from unlawful
infringements. Property rights and personal freedoms are among the many interests
protected by the law of tort and more general duties in the law of negligence protect from
a wide variety of wrongs. Over the centuries, tort has proved to be infinitely flexible and
even the ancient rules are capable of being adapted to meet modern problems. The
prominent feature of this branch of law is that, the judges are free to establish new
principles of liability to cater the needs of the society.
When compared to other countries in our country law of tort is not much
developed. It is mainly because of the lack of awareness and the inability of a person to
2
approach a civil court. The number of cases that go to the High Court and Supreme Court
are very few, so they are prevented from the task of contributing to the development of
this law. Even in this stringent condition our apex courts find space for establishing new
tortious principles.
The unprecedented growth and development in the society has led to
the creation of various forms of new threat to the legal rights of individuals. For e.g.
sexual harassment at working place and cyber defamation etc. The law of tort by adding
new Pigeon holes extends its hands to protect the innocent victims and thereby reduced
its further development to a large extent. Thus law of tort, an old branch of law has a
significant role to play in this modern context. Most of the modern legislations such as
Insurance act, Motor Vehicle act, Consumer Protection act, etc were originated from the
Law of Torts. Being the mother of all these modern legislations it is necessary that a law
student must have a good knowledge in this branch of law. Consumer Protection law is a
fast developing area, is also originated from the tort law, so this branch is included as a
special module in this syllabus.
Total number of Lectures Required: 60-80

Evaluation
Attendance : 05
Snap Test : 10
Research Projects : 20+5 [Submission + Viva]
Mid Semester Examination : 20
End Semester Examination : 25+15 [Torts + Consumer Protection Law]
Total : 100
3
SYLLABUS
LAW OF TORTS
Module I: INTRODUCTION [No. of Lectures Required 5-6]
Unit 1. Introduction – Definition, Nature and Scope of Law of Torts – Torts and Crime
– Torts and Contract – Essential Elements of Law of Torts.
Unit 2. Pigeon Hole Theory - Relevancy of Motive in Law of Torts.
Suggested References:
1. W V H Rogers, Winfield & Jolowicz Tort, 17th Edn-2006, Sweet & Maxwell,
London. [ Chapter’s 1,3]
2. RFV. Heuston & RA Buckly, Salmond and Heuston on Law of Torts, 20th Edn-
1992, Universal Law Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter 2]
3. SP Singh & Indrajith Singh, Law of Torts, 4th Edn – 2006, Universal Law
Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter’s 1-4]
4. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter’s 1,2]
5. R K Bangia, Law of Torts, 8th Edn- 2005, Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana.
[Chapter 1]
6. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 24th Edn-2004, Wadhwa, Nagpur.
[Chapter 1, 2]
Cases:
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750

2. Ashby vs. White, (1703) 2 Lord Rayam 933
3. Bhim Singh vs. State of J&K, AIR 1968 SC 494
4. Constantine vs. Imperial Hotel Ltd., (1944) KB 693
5. Gloucester Grammar School Case 1410 YB 11
6. Mogul Steamship Co. vs. Mc Gregor Grow and Co., 1892 AC 25
7. Mayor of Bradford Copn. vs. Pickles, (1895) AC 587
8. Glasgow Copn. Vs. Taylor (1922) 1 AC 44
4
Module II: PARTIES [No. of Lectures Required 6-7]
Unit 1. Capacity and Parties in Torts –Joint and Several Tort-feasors – Malfeasance,
Misfeasance, Nonfeasance.
Unit 2.Vicarious Liability – Introduction – Master and Servant – Doctrine of Common

Employment.
London. [ Chapter 21]
1992, Universal Law Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter’s 20,21]
3. Paula Giliker & Silas Beckwith, Tort, 2ndEdn- 2004, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
[Chapter 2]
4. DG Cracknell, Obligations: The Law of Torts, 4th Edn- 2003, Old Baily Press,
London. [ Chapter’s 3,4]
Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter’s 8,17]
[Chapter’s 3,4]
[Chapter 3]
Cases:
1. P&O Steam Navigation Co. vs. Secretary of State (1861) 5 Bom. HC

2. State of Rajasthan vs. Vidyavathi, AIR 1962 SC 933
3. Kasturilal vs. State of UP, AIR 1965 SC 1039
4. Rooplal vs. Union of India, AIR 1972 J&K 22
5. Ramngulu vs. Mullackal Devasam, AIR 1975 Kerala 25
6. Brook vs. Bool (1928) 2 KB 578
7. KSRTC vs. Krishnan, AIR 1981 Kant.11
8. T.Pillai vs. Municipal Council, Shericottah, AIR 1961 Mad. 230
9. VM Vadi vs. Vijayawada Municipality, AIR 1963 AP 435
10. Bernard vs. Haggis, (1863) 14 CBNS
5
11. Priestley vs. Flower, (1837) M&I

12. Cassidy vs. Ministry of Health, (1951)1 All. ER 574
Module III: DEFENCES [No. of Lectures Required 6]
Specific Defences – Volenti non fit injuria – Act of God (Vis major)– Inevitable Accident
– Necessity – Private Defense – Novus actus interveniens – Contributory Negligence –
Statutory Authority – Judicial and Quasi-judicial Authority – Parental and Quasi-parental
Authority.
3. Vivienne Harpwood, Principles of Tort Law, 4th Edn- 2000, Cavendish Publishing
Limited, London. [ Chapter 20]
Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter 5]
5. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter 5]
[Chapter’s 2,12]
[Chapter 5]
Cases:
1. Hall vs. Brook Lands Auto Racing Club, (1933) 1 KB 205

2. Padmawathi vs. Dugganaika, (1975)1 Kan.LJ 93
3. Brown vs. Kendall, (1850) 6 Cush.
4. Nichols vs. Marshland (1876) 2 Ex.D 1
5. Kallulal vs. Hemachand, AIR 1958 MP 48
6. Herbert Richard vs. Muniswami, ILR (1950) Mad. 365
7. Cope vs. Shape (1891) KB 496
8. Vaughan vs. Taff Valde Rail Co. (1860) 5 H and N 679
9. Singleton Abbey vs. Paludina, 1927 AC 16
10. Rural Transport Service vs. Bezlum Bibi, AIR 1980 Cal. 165
6
11. Davis vs. Mann (1882) 10 M&W 546

12. Subhakar vs. Mysore State Road Transport Corpn. AIR 1975 Ker. 73
Statutes
1. Indian Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850
Module IV: TRESPASS [No. of Lectures Required 6-8]
Unit 1. Trespass to Person – Assault – Battery – Mayhem – False Imprisonment.
Unit 2. Trespass to Land – Definition – Methods – Trespass abinitio – Remedies –

Defences
Unit 3. Trespass to Goods – Definition – Essential Elements - Remedies.
Limited, London. [ Chapter’s 11,13,17]
[Chapter 11]
Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter’s 9-11]
6. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter’s 9,13,14]
[Chapter’s 7,17, 18]
[Chapter’s 11, 15, 16]
Cases:
1. R vs. St. George (1846) 9 C &P 483

2. Blake vs. Barnard, (1840) 9 CP 626
3. Stephen vs. Mayers (1840) 4 CP 349
4. Timothy vs. Simpson (1835) 1 Cr M &R 757
7
5. Bird vs. Jones (1845) 7 QB 742

6. Herring vs. Boyle (1834) 1 Cr M & R 377
7. Meering vs. Grahame (1914)122 LT 44
9. Rudhul Shah vs. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
10. Ellis vs. Loftus Iron Co. 1874 LR 10 CP 19
11. Six Carpenters Case (1610) 8 Co. Ref.146
12. Municipal Board of Kanuj vs. Manoharlal, 1952 ILR 2 All 1362
13. Armory vs. Delamirie (1721) 1 Stir 505
Module V: NUISANCE and NEGLIGENCE [No. of Lectures Required 6-8]
Unit 1. Nuisance – Definition – Types of Nuisance: Private, Public and Statutory

Nuisance – Essentials of Private Nuisance – Remedies – Defences.
Unit 2. Negligence – Definition – Elements of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitor –

Contributory Negligence – Defences.
[Chapter’s 9,11,12]
[Chapter 20]
Cases:
1. Dr. Ram Raj Singh vs. Babulal, AIR 1982 All 285
2. Radhey Shyam vs. Guru Prasad, AIR 1978 All 86
3. St.Helens Smelting Co. vs. Tipping, (1865) 11 HL Cas.642
4. Starys vs. Bridgman, (1979) 11 Ch. D 852
5. Donoughue vs. Stevenson, 1932 AC 562
6. Ishwar Devi vs. Union of India, AIR 1869 Delhi 183
8
7. Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi vs. Trimbak Bapu, AIR 1989 P&H 183
8. KSEB vs. Suresh Kumar, 1986 ACJ 998
9. Glasgow Corpn vs. Taylor, (1992)1 AC 44
10. Alka vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 Delhi 267
11. Nihal Kaur vs. Director, PGI, III (1996) CPJ 441.
Module VI: DEFAMATION and MALICIUOS PROSECUTION [No. of Lectures

Required 5-6]
Unit 1. Defamation – Introduction – Definition – Libel and Slander – Its Differences –

Essentials of Defamation – Innuendo – Defences.
Unit 2. Malicious Prosecution – Essential Conditions – Distinction between Malicious

Prosecution and False Imprisonment.
[Chapter 12]
4. DG Cracknell, Obligations: The Law of Torts, 4th Edn- 2003, Old Baily Press,
[Chapter’s 8,10]
[Chapter’s 12, 13]
Cases:
1. Youssoupoff vs. MGM Pictures Ltd., (1934) 50 TLR 58

2. DP Choudhary vs. Manju Latha, AIR 1997 Raj. 170
3. Cassidy vs. Daily Mirror, (1929) 2 KB 331
4. Arumugha Mudhaliar vs. Annamalai Mudgaliar, (1996) 2 MLJ 223
9
5. TJ Ponnen vs. MC Varhgese, AIR 1970 SC 1876

6. Knapffer vs. London Express Newspaper ltd, 1944 AC 116
7. DN Sen vs. RK Bhadre, AIR 1970 Cal.216
8. AIADMK, Madras vs. K.Govindankutty, (1996) 2 ALD 139(AP)
9. Vimal Kumar vs. Deshdiwaker, AIR 2005 MP 37
10. Abrath vs, North Eastern Rly Co., (1886) II AC 247
Module VII: LIABILITY [No. of Lectures Required 5-6]
Unit 1. Strict Liability – Introduction – Rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher- Dangerous thing –

Escape of thing - Non-natural use of land – Exceptions - Its criticisms.
Unit 2. Absolute Liability – Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case.
Unit 3. Nervous Shock – Its Meaning and Principles – Conclusion.
4. SK Desai & Kumud Desai, The Law of Torts, 8th Edn- 1987, NM Tripathi Pvt.
Ltd., Bombay.[ Chapter 17]
[Chapter 15]
Cases:
1. Rylands vs. Flecther, 1868 LR 3 HC 330

2. Crowhurst vs. Amersham Burial Board, (1878) 4 Ex. DS
3. Bolton vs. Stone, 1951 AC 850
4. TC Balakrishna Menon vs. TR Subramanian, AIR 1968 Ker. 151
5. MC Mehta vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446
10
7. Harbrook vs. Strokes Bros (19250 1 KB 141

8. Bourhil vs. Young 1948 AC 92
9. Wilkinson vs. Downton, (1897) LR 2 QB 57
Module VIII: ECONOMIC TORTS [No. of Lectures Required 5-6]
Malicious Falsehood – Tort of Passing off – Intimidation – Conspiracy – Inducing breach

of Contract – Detinue – Tort of Conversion (Trover) – Tort of Deciet – Slander of Title –
Slander of Goods.
London.[Chapter’s 17, 18]
1992, Universal Law Publishers, Delhi. [Chapter’s 6,16, 18]
Limited, London. [Chapter’s 17, 18]
4. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [Chapter’s 15,21]
Publishers, Delhi. [Chapter 11]
[Chapter’s 18,19,20]
7. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 25th Edn- 2006, Wadhwa, Nagpur.
[Chapter 21]
Cases:
1. Banshi vs. Goveradhan, AIR 1976 MP 125

2. Richardson vs. Atkinson, (1723) 1 Stra. 576
3. Lumely vs. Gye (1853) 2 E & B 216
4. Rookjers vs. Braivard (1954)AC 1129
5. Rateliff vs, Evans (1892) 2 QB
6. Ellora Industries vs. Banarasi Dass AIR 1980 Delhi 254
7. Derry vs. Peek (1889) 14 AC 337
8. Nemichand vs. Wallace ILR (1907) 34 Cal.495
11
Module IX: REMEDIES [No. of Lectures Required 4-5]
Unit 1. Judicial Remedies – Damages – Types of Damages – Remoteness of Damages –

Injunction – Specific Restitution – Constitutional Remedies.
Unit 2. Extra-judicial Remedies – Self-help – Expulsion of trespasser – Re-entry on Land

– Recatpion of Goods – Distress damage feasant – Abatement.
1992, Universal Law Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter26]
[Chapter 6]
Publishers, Delhi. [ Chapter 6]
[Chapter’s 6,23]
[Chapter 9]
Cases:
1. Ashby vs. White, (1703) 2 Lord Rayam 933

3. YS Kumar vs. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1972 P&H 326
4. Smith vs. London and South Western Rly Co., (1870) LR 6 CP 14
5. Re Polemis and Furness Withy & Co. Ltd Case, (1921) 3 KB 560
6. Overseas Tankship Ltd. vs. Morts Dock and Engg.Co.Ltd. (Wagon Mound Case)
(1961) AC 388
7. Livingstone vs. Raywards Coal Co. (1880) 5 App. Cas.25
Statues
1. Specific Relief Act, 1963
12
Module X: NEW and EMERGENT TORTS [No. of Lectures Required 4-5]
Unit 1. Cyber Torts- Cyber Stalking – Cyber Breach of Privacy – Cyber Obscenity –
Cyber Defamation.
Unit 2. Tort of Sexual Harassment – Tort of Domestic Violence – Environmental Torts –

Constitutional Torts - Tort of Breach of Confidence – Abuse of Governmental Powers –
Infringement of a status – Innominate (Prima facie) Torts – Euro Torts.
1. A Laxminath & M. Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyer: The Law of Torts, 19th Edn- 2007,
Lexis Nexis, New Delhi. [Chapter’s 2,3,4]
Cases:
1. Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (6) SCC 241
2. Nilabathi Behra vs. State of Orissa, 1992 (2) SCC 373
3. DK Basu vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC416
4. APCLC vs. SHO, Saifabad Police Station, 2001 (1) Andh. LT 201
5. Marriappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2000 Cri LJ 1305
6. (2000) 1 Bhi LJ 20
7. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra", Delhi HC Suit No.
1279/2001.
8. Indian Council for Eniro-Legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446
Statutes:
1. Indian Domestic Violence Act, 2005

2. Information Technology Act,2000
3. National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995
Articles
1. Dr. Usha Ramanathan, Tort Law in India, Annual Survey of Indian Law, 2001,
Pp.615-28(2002)
13
Module XI: EXTINCTION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY [No. of Lectures

Required 4-5]
Extinction of Tortious Liability – Waiver – Release – Acquiescence – Accord and

Satisfaction – Judgment –Limitation – Effect of Death in Torts Law
[Chapter 14]
[Chapter 7]
5. PS Achuthan Pillai, Law of Tort, 9th Edn.-2004, EBC, Lucknow [Chapter 37]
Cases:
1. Balbir Singh Makol vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, I (2001) CPJ 45 (NC)
2. Narasingha Charan vs. Ratikanta, AIR 1978 Ori. 217
3. Zargham Abbas vs. Harichand, Air 1980 All 259
4. Govind Chargulu vs. Shaeshagri Rao, AIR 1941 Mad. 860.
Statutes
1. Indian Limitation Act,1963
2. Limitation Act, 1980(UK)
Module XII: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [No. of Lectures Required

5-6]
Unit 1. History and Development of Consumer Protection Laws in India – Object and
Reasons of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Unit 2. Definitions- Consumer Protection Councils - Consumer Disputes Redressal

Agencies – Suggestions for Improvement.
1. G B Reddy, Law of Consumer Protection, 2nd Edn- 2004, Gogia Law Agency,
Hyderabad.
14
2. Avtar Singh, Law of Consumer Protection, 4th Edn- 2005, EBC, Lucknow.
3. SK Verma, A. Wani, SS Jaswal, A Treatise on Consumer Protection Laws, Indian

Law Institute, New Delhi, 2004.
4. V. Balakrishna Eradi, Consumer Protection Jurisprudence, Lexis Nexis, New

Delhi, 2005.
Cases:
1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation v. Ummer Koya Haji, 2006(3)KLT897

2. Parel Roadways Ltd. vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1461
3. Isha Marbles vs. Bihar SEB, 1995(2) SCC 648.
4. RPF Commr. Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000(1) SCC 98
5. Spring Meadows Hospital vs. Harjol Ahulwalia, AIR 1998 SC 1801
6. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. vs. Dr. BN Raman, 2006(5) SCC 727
7. State of Karnataka vs. Vidyabarati House Building Co-Operative Society, AIR
2003 SC 1043
8. Fon-Ess India (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Consumer D.R. Commission, 2006 (3)KLT
500
9. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiva Kumar Joshi, AIR 2000 SC
331
10. Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute, AIR 1995 SC 1428
11. India Photographic Co. vs. HD Shourie, 1999(6) SCC 428
12. Srimathi and other vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 Mad. 427
13. IMA vs. VP Santha, 1995(6) SCC 651
14. Cosmopolitan Hospital vs. Vasantha P Nair, 1992 (1) CPR 20 (NC)
Statutes
1. The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
2. Indian Contract Act,1872
3. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
4. Indian Penal Code
Articles:
1. Willaim C. Whitford, Structuring Consumer Protection Legislations to Maximise

Effectiveness, 1981 Wiscousin Law Review 1018-43
2. AK Agarwal, Some Legal Aspects of Consumer Under the Consumer Protection,
AIR 2007 SCC(J) 124
3. J Ashwin Kumar, Consumer Protection through Legislation, AIR 2004 SCC(J) 94
4. B Panigrahi, Consumer Protection and Law, AIR 1992 SCC(J) 33
15
5. Dr. Rjendra Prasad, Historical Evolution of Consumer Protection and Law in

India, Journal of Texas Consumer Law, p.132
Further Readings:
1. Vivienne Harpwood, Lecture Notes on Law of Torts, Cavendish Publishing

Limited, London, 1993.
2. Vivienne Harpwood, Modern Tort Law, 5th Edn - 2003, Cavendish Publishing
Limited, London.
3. Carol Harlow, Understanding Tort Law, 3rd Edn-2005, Sweet & Maxwell,
London.
4. Victor E. Schwartz, Kathryn Kelly, David F. Partlett, Torts: Cases and Materials,
10th Edn- 2000, Foundation Press, New York.
5. Tony Weir, A Case book on Tort, 10th Edn– 2004, Sweet & Maxwell, London.
6. Richard Kidner, A Case book on Tort, 9th Edn-2006, Oxford University Press.
7. Micheal A. Jones, Text book on Torts, 8th Edn- 2002, Oxford University Press.
8. PS Achuthan Pillai, Law of Tort, 9th Edn.-2004, EBC, Lucknow
9. J N Barowalia, Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 2nd Edn-

2000, Universal Law Publishers, Delhi.
10. VR Choudhari, Law of Consumer Protection, Premier Publishing Co., Bangalore,

2005.
11. Y Venkateshwara Rao, Commentary on Consumer protection Act, 1986, Asia

Law House, Hyderabad, 2005.
Articles:
1. The Concept of Commercial Purpose under the Consumer Protection Act, 1994
CPJ 1
2. Gurjeet Singh, Consumer rights under Consumer Protection Act: A critique1996
CPJ 16
3. David, Medical Profession and the Consumer Protection Act, 41 JILI 1999 P.460
4. Chandrasekhar, Medical Profession and the Consumer Protection, 1994 CULR

327
16
5. Jaswal, Medical negligence: An analysis of recent judicial trends, 32 IBR 2005

P.99
6. Ellison, L., & Akdeniz, Y., “Cyber-stalking: the Regulation of Harassment on
the Internet,” [1998] Criminal Law Review, December Special Edition: Crime,
Criminal Justice and the Internet, pp 29-48.
7. Basu, S. and Jones, R.P., "Regulating Cyber stalking", Journal of Information,

Law and Technology 2007(2) Available at
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2007_2/basu_jones/
8. Judge David Harvey, Cyber Stalking and Internet Harassment: What the
Law can do - www.netsafe.org
9. Gregory C Mosier and Tara I Fitzgerald, Cyber Torts: Common Law and
Statutory Restraints in US, Journal of International Commercial Law and
Technology, Vol.2 (2007)
10. Fridman, Malice in the Law of Torts, 1958 (21) MLR 484
11. John C. Jeffries, Disaggregating Constitutional Torts , 110 YLJ 259(2000)
Webliography
1. www.articlesarchives.com/law-legal-system/torts. [For articles relating to law of

torts]
2. www.wcl.american.edu/ - Constitutional Torts in Modern Era

Torts. Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Torts. Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Name of the Course Teacher: ANEESH V. PILLAI

Where there is a right there is a remedy, it was expressed in the ancient

Total number of Lectures Required: 60-80

Module I: INTRODUCTION [No. of Lectures Required 5-6]

Unit 2. Pigeon Hole Theory - Relevancy of Motive in Law of Torts.

4. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter’s 1,2]

1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750

Module II: PARTIES [No. of Lectures Required 6-7]

Unit 2.Vicarious Liability – Introduction – Master and Servant – Doctrine of Common

6. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter’s 4,6]

1. P&O Steam Navigation Co. vs. Secretary of State (1861) 5 Bom. HC

11. Priestley vs. Flower, (1837) M&I

Module III: DEFENCES [No. of Lectures Required 6]

5. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter 5]

1. Hall vs. Brook Lands Auto Racing Club, (1933) 1 KB 205

11. Davis vs. Mann (1882) 10 M&W 546

Module IV: TRESPASS [No. of Lectures Required 6-8]

Unit 1. Trespass to Person – Assault – Battery – Mayhem – False Imprisonment.

Unit 2. Trespass to Land – Definition – Methods – Trespass abinitio – Remedies –

Unit 3. Trespass to Goods – Definition – Essential Elements - Remedies.

6. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter’s 9,13,14]

1. R vs. St. George (1846) 9 C &P 483

5. Bird vs. Jones (1845) 7 QB 742

Module V: NUISANCE and NEGLIGENCE [No. of Lectures Required 6-8]

Unit 1. Nuisance – Definition – Types of Nuisance: Private, Public and Statutory

Unit 2. Negligence – Definition – Elements of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitor –

4. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter’s 16,17]

Module VI: DEFAMATION and MALICIUOS PROSECUTION [No. of Lectures

Unit 1. Defamation – Introduction – Definition – Libel and Slander – Its Differences –

Unit 2. Malicious Prosecution – Essential Conditions – Distinction between Malicious

6. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter 10]

1. Youssoupoff vs. MGM Pictures Ltd., (1934) 50 TLR 58

5. TJ Ponnen vs. MC Varhgese, AIR 1970 SC 1876

Module VII: LIABILITY [No. of Lectures Required 5-6]

Unit 1. Strict Liability – Introduction – Rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher- Dangerous thing –

Unit 2. Absolute Liability – Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case.

Unit 3. Nervous Shock – Its Meaning and Principles – Conclusion.

6. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter 18]

1. Rylands vs. Flecther, 1868 LR 3 HC 330

7. Harbrook vs. Strokes Bros (19250 1 KB 141

Module VIII: ECONOMIC TORTS [No. of Lectures Required 5-6]

Malicious Falsehood – Tort of Passing off – Intimidation – Conspiracy – Inducing breach

4. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [Chapter’s 15,21]

1. Banshi vs. Goveradhan, AIR 1976 MP 125

Module IX: REMEDIES [No. of Lectures Required 4-5]

Unit 1. Judicial Remedies – Damages – Types of Damages – Remoteness of Damages –

Unit 2. Extra-judicial Remedies – Self-help – Expulsion of trespasser – Re-entry on Land

5. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter 8]

1. Ashby vs. White, (1703) 2 Lord Rayam 933

Module X: NEW and EMERGENT TORTS [No. of Lectures Required 4-5]

Unit 2. Tort of Sexual Harassment – Tort of Domestic Violence – Environmental Torts –

1. Indian Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Module XI: EXTINCTION OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY [No. of Lectures

Extinction of Tortious Liability – Waiver – Release – Acquiescence – Accord and

3. B M Gandhi, Law of Torts, EBC, Lucknow, 2002. [ Chapter 7]

Module XII: CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [No. of Lectures Required

Unit 2. Definitions- Consumer Protection Councils - Consumer Disputes Redressal

3. SK Verma, A. Wani, SS Jaswal, A Treatise on Consumer Protection Laws, Indian

4. V. Balakrishna Eradi, Consumer Protection Jurisprudence, Lexis Nexis, New

1. Thrissur Municipal Corporation v. Ummer Koya Haji, 2006(3)KLT897

1. Willaim C. Whitford, Structuring Consumer Protection Legislations to Maximise

5. Dr. Rjendra Prasad, Historical Evolution of Consumer Protection and Law in