LAW OF TORTS (THA)

“TORTS CONSPIRACY”

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Mr. Subir Kumar Rupali Goyal
Semester 1
Section B
Roll no. : 709

0|Page
EVOLUTION OF TORTS:

LAW OF TORT:

This is branch of law governing actions for damages for injuries to certain kinds of rights,
like rights to personal security, property and reputation. The award of pecuniary reparation
for such injuries was the subject to regulation by laws of all communities ancient and
modern.

ORGIN OF THE TERM „TORT‟:

The word „tort‟in law means a wrong or injury which has certain charactersticcs, the most
important of which is that it is redressable in an action of damages at the instance of the
person wrong or injured, eg: assault, libel, trespass, nuisance. It is a French word which
means, in its etymological sense, a „twisting out‟ and in popular sense, a crooked act, a
transgression from straight or right conduct, a wrong.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TORT CONCEPT:

Instead of attempting to define a „tort‟ we may state its main charactorstics as follows:

A tort is a violation of a right of a person or a breach of duty of another towards him. The
right and duty arise under the general law as between a person or persons in a particular
situation. It is redressable in a civil action for damages, with a alternative remedy in some
cases of injuction and recovery of posseseion and differs, fro wrong which are wholly
criminal.

LAW OF TORT IN INDIA:

During British rule, courts in india were enjoined by acts of parliament in the U.K and by the
indian enactments to act according to justice, equity and good conscience if there was no
specific rule of enacted law applicable to the dispute in the suit. These statues however,
directed that dispute relating to marriage, inheritance, succession, caste or religion usuage
among Hindus should be decided according to their personal law and among Muslims,
according to theirs. In regard to to the suit of damages for torts, courts followed the English
common law inofar as it is a consonant with justice equity and good conscience.

1|Page
Recently, the National Commiion for Review of Working of Constitution (NCRWC) also
recommended a law to give liability of state for torts of its employs in the report of
commission headed by MN Venkatachaliah CJ (2002)

CHANGES IN TORT LAW:

In India, the principle of social justice is one of the basic objectives of her Constitution and
influences law and political thought to a far greater extent than it does in some of the western
countries like the USA.

Tort law is said to be a development of the old maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (Every right
needs a remedy). The law of torts as administered I, India in modern times is the English law
as found suitable to Indian conditions and as modified by Acts of the Indian Legislature. The
law of torts or civil wrongs in India is thus almost wholly the English law, which is
administered as rules of justice, equity and good conscience. In English law, a tort is a civil
wrong, as distinguished from a criminal wrong. The term tort comes from the Latin tortus,
meaning crooked. Some wrongs are the concern of the state, and so the police can enforce the
law on the wrongdoers in court – in a criminal case. The police does not enforce a tort. It is a
civil action taken by one citizen against another, and tried in a court in front of a judge (only
rarely, in certain cases of defamation, with a jury). Certainly, some of the features of the law
of torts are which were developed in England are absent in India. The Indian courts
therefore, apply those principles to match the situations in India.

A CONSPIRACY: A TORT/OR A CRIME:

 Conspiracy is both a tort and a crime.1 Criminal conspiracy is different from
conspiracy as tort. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with it. Under criminal
law, merely an agreement between the parties to do an illegal act or a legal act
by illegal means is actionable. It is not necessary that the conspirators must
have acted in pursuance of their agreement, that is, fulfilment of the act
conspired is not necessary.

1
Section 120 A, I.P.C. defines conspiracy as follows: “when two or more persons agreed to do or cause to be
done:
a) An illegal act or,
b) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated with criminal conspiracy.”

2|Page
RELEVANCE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER CRIMINAL LAW:

According to S 120A2 of Indian Penal Code, the offence to do, of criminal conspiracy
consists in an agreement of two or more person to do, or to cause to be done, an illegal act, or
an act which is not legal, by illegal means. However, no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offense is a criminal conspiracy unless some overt act, i.e: an act beside the
agreement, is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. It is
immaterial whether the illegal act is ultimate object of the agreement or is it merely incidental
to that object. The code under S.43 defines „illegal‟ as applicable to everything which is an
offence or is prohibited by law or furnishes ground for civil action. Therefore, in an action for
the tort conspiracy on the ground of it being a crime the action for the tort of conspiracy on
the ground of it being a crime the plaintiff should prove: (a) an agreement between the
defendents or between the defendents and others to do an illegal act or to do an act which is
not illegal by illegal means. (b) damage resulting from the agreement.

For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus i.e. the wrongful act is a continuing one and
parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where
the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced.

The main thing on which criminality lies under this section is the “agreement”, which
requires at least two persons. Here „Agreement‟ is not merely the stage of intention which is
not culpable, but is much more than that.It is a plan or a design to bring in action. The plot is
an act in itself. It is not necessary that all the members of the conspiracy must be aware of
each detail of the conspiracy, but it is essential and required that there has to be a common
design among them and every conspirator from his end of the design must carry out into
effect or execute the plan.However, every conspirator will be aware of the major and
important details of the conspiracy if not the minutest details.

2
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done –

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offense shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance of thereof.

3|Page
RELEVANCE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER COMMON LAW :

At common law, the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to
accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society
was sufficiently great. The Courts were therefore acting in the role of the legislature
to create new offences and, following the law commission Report No. 76 on
Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform, the Criminal Law Act, 1977 produced the
statutory offence and abolished all the common law varieties of conspiracy, except
two: that of conspiracy to defraud, and that of conspiracy to corrupt public morals or
to outrage public decency.

ESSENTIALS OF CONSPIRACY:

Since there are two different types of tortious conspiracy, the ingredients of them differ.

The essentials of lawful means conspiracy are-

1. Combination-There must be concerted action between two or more persons, which

includes husband and wife. It seems that there can be no conspiracy between an
employer and his employees, at least where they merely go about their employer‟s
business and it is submitted that directors who resolve to cause their company to break
its contract do not commit conspiracy by unlawful means against the other contracting
party, for they are identified with the company for this purpose; if that were not so
there would be an easy way to outflank the denial of liability for including breach of
contract in such circumstances.
2. Preponderantly illegitimate purpose – The object or purpose of the combination must
be to cause damage to the claimant. The test is not what the defendants contemplated
as a likely or even an inevitable consequence of their conduct, it is, “what is in truth
the object in the mind of the combiners when they acted as they did?”3 Malice in the
same sense of malevolence, spite or ill will is not essential for liability, 4 nor is it
sufficient if merely superadded to a legitimate purpose5; what is required is that the
combiners should have acted in order that (not with the result that, even the forcibly

3
[1942] A.C. 435 at 445 per Viscount Simon L.C.
4
[1942] A.C. 435 at 450,463,469-471
5
“I cannot see how the pursuit of a legitimate practical object can be vitiated by glee at the adversary‟s expected
discomfiture”: per Lord Wright.

4|Page
 inevitable result) the claimant should suffer damage. If they didn‟t act in order that the
claimant should sugffer damage but to pursue their own advantage, they are not liable,
however selfish their attitude and however inevitable the claimant‟s damage may have
been.
In Scala Ballroom (Wolverhampton) v.Ratcliffe the claimant refused to admit black
people to their ballroom but they did allow black musicians to play in their orchestra.
The defendants were members of the Musicians‟ Union, they gave notice to the
claimants that members of the union would not be allowed to play at the ballroom so
as long as the color bar was in operation. An injunction to restrain them from
persuading their members not to play there was refused although malevolence is not
necessary, where that state of mind is what motivates the defendants they may be
liable even though the same acts would be lawful in pursuit of their interest.

The essentials of unlawful means conspiracy are-

1. Combination – just like it is with lawful conspiracy, this tort demands that there
be combination between the conspirators. However, whereas conspirators in the
lawful means version of the tort need not share the same purpose, the conspirators
in unlawful means conspiracy must pursue a „common design‟6 A mere
association with the primary tort-feasor will not suffice for these purpose.7
2. Intension – After a period of uncertainty caused by Lonrho Ltd. v. Shell Petrolium
Ltd (no. 2)8the House of Lords in the case of Lonrho Plc v. Fayed9 reaffirmed that
this form of the tort unlike the Croftier variety does not require a predominant
purpose to injure the claimant and Revenue and Customs Commissionersv. Total
Network SL10also proceeded on this basis. However, the tort still requires an
intention to injure: it is still not enough that the defendants combine to do an
unlawful act which has the effect of causing damage to the claimant. The concept
remains the same as it does in the tort of intentional infliction of harm by unlawful
means.

6
Rookesv. Barnard [1964] AC 1129, at 1211
7
Sandman v. Panasonic UK Ltd. [1998] FSR 651
8
[1982] AC 173
9
[1992] 1 AC 448
10
[2008] UKHL 19, [2008] 1 AC 1174

5|Page
 3. Unlawful means –If „unlawful means‟ is a mere synonym for some or other tort,
then unlawful means conspiracy amounts to no more than an instance of joint
tortfeasance. If, however, unlawful means is a term that is to be construed more
broadly, the tort does possess free-standing significance.

CONSPIRACY UNDER TORT LAW:

Tort is the area of law where in response to a private or civil wrong or injury the courts
provide the remedy of allowing a lawsuit for (usually monetary) damages. Thus, the goal is to
restore the victim to his or her former condition. It has been suggested that the law of torts is
developed in India in a scattered manner, but yet it provides for very effective remedies. Most
of Indian tort law was developed after the British colonization. The continued
underdevelopment of Indian tort law is surprising given the impressive commitment to both
compassion and comprehensiveness embodied in the Indian constitution ratified in 1950
(three years after independence from Britain).

A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third
party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. A conspiracy may
also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each
member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or
agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages
of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one
conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy.
A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal
means used to accomplish something legal. "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action
for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged." Civil conspiracy also
plays a large part in economic injury law. For instance, two or more corporations that agree
to engage in antitrust behavior like price-fixing may be sued for conspiracy as well as for
violating the antitrust laws. Likewise, if two or more individuals or companies agree to act to
prevent a third person or company from making a business deal with someone else, they may
be sued for conspiracy as well as for the underlying tort of tortious inteference with
a contract or a business relationship. A civil conspiracy can also be based on an intentional
tort such as assault.
Usually, however, civil conspiracy claims are not based on negligence claims, since people
rarely agree ahead of time to act negligently, carelessly, or recklessly. Instead, if two or more
defendants are involved in a negligent act that injures a plaintiff, they are each sued for

6|Page
negligence in the same case or in separate court cases. An additional negligent defendant
may also be added to a case after a defendant points that party out in a third-party liability
defense.

In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially
the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or
more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by
unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step
to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law,
whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not
be required.

COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF TORT LAW IN USA, UK AND INDIA:

In legally advanced countries like UK people visit courts if they think that there is
infringement of their legal right however trivial the matter is but in our country India people
ignore simple cases because everyone of them don‟t have access to law, they don‟t have
knowledge of law, they don‟t want to invest their time in cases. Moreover the judiciary is
quite slow in India and its not as active as it is in legally advanced countries. The cost of
litigation is also quite expensive. The civil tort of conspiracy to injure the plaintiff‟s
commercial interests when that is the predominant purpose of the agreement and of the acts
done in execution of it which caused damage to the plaintiff, however anomalous it may seem
today, is too well established in English law. How far this tort can be transplanted in the
Indian law is yet unsettled.

KRISHNA IYER, J., speaking for the court in this context observed, ”Whatever the merits of
this norm, violation of which constituted „conspiracy‟ in English Law, it is a problem for
creative Indian jurisprudence to consider, detached from Anglophonic inclination, how far a
mere combination of men working for furthering certain objectives can be prohibited as a
tort, according to the Indian value system.”

COMPARISION BETWEEN TORT CONSPIRACY AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

 In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy
are substantially same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an
agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time
in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means.

7|Page
  The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to
accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break
the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the
wrongful goal may not be required.
 Moreover, in a criminal conspiracy, the actors are intending to commit an act
that is punishable under criminal laws. A civil conspiracy can occur when two
or more people conspire to commit an act that is not criminal, but still
unlawful, and another person is injured by the act.
 Furthermore, under the criminal law of conspiracy, mere combination would
make the conspirators liable but, under the civil law of conspiracy, actual
commission of the act agreed to by them is essential to make them liable. An
overact and requirement of damage distinguish civil conspiracy from criminal
conspiracy.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:

 Pepsi foods ltd. And others v. Bharat Coca cola Holdings Pvt.11:-

The plaintiffs are engaged in manufacturing marketing and sale of soft drink or beverages,
under the trademark “pepsi” all over the world including India.

It is alleged that main competitor of Pepsi in the soft drink beverage business is Coke. In
India also, the main business rivals of the plaintiffs are the defendants, Coke. It is
incorporated in the plaint that the soft drink business worldwide is extremely competitive and
the business rivalry between Pepsi and Coke is fairly intense all over. Both the group of
companies spend a large amount of money time and efforts to protect and develop their
respective business interests. In India also, both Pepsi and Coke have spent a considerable
amount of money on advertising and marketing of their products.

It is further mentioned in the plaint that the defendants have entered into a conspiracy to
undertake concerted action against the plaintiffs to damage the plaintiffs' business interests in
an unethical or illegal manner. It is alleged that the defendants are guilty of the tort of
conspiracy too.

 Rohtas Industries Ltd. & Anr v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union And....12:-

11
1999 VAD Delhi 93, 81 (1999) DLT 122, 1999 (50) DRJ 656 ILR 1999 Delhi,193,( 1999) IILLJ Del.

8|Page
During the year 1948, the respondent, workmen working with both the appellants went on
illegal strike on account of Trade Union rivalry. The workmen were not paid wages for the
strike period and the appellants lost their profit during the period. The employers and the
workmen entered into an agreement during the pendency of the conciliation Rohtas Industries
Ltd. & Anr v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union And ... on 18 December, 1975 . The High Court
however, quashed the part of the award which directed payment of compensation by the
workers to the management. In appeal by Special Leave under Article 136, the appellants
contended that:- 1. The award under section 10-A of the Act savours of a private arbitration
and is not amenable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The award of
compensation by the arbitrators suffers from novice which can be regarded as recognised
grounds for the High Court interference.

Judgment:-

The Supreme Court held that illegal strike is a creation of the act and prosecution under
section 26 of the act is the only remedy which can be availed of and no relief of
13
compensation can be claimed. It was further held that as the object of the was not the
infliction of damage or destruction on the management, but to bring the employer to terms
with the employees or to bully the rival trade union into submission it was not actionable as a
conspiracy even though it was illegal.

 The Andhra University, A ... vs Korada Durga Lakshmi Manoharam14:-

The plaintiff was a clerk in the service of the deft. the Andhra University, down to 3-1-1940,
the date of his dismissal by its Vice-Chancellor, Sir C. R. Reddy, after his inquiry into the
offence of theft of a B. Ed., diploma from the records of the University of which he found the
plaintiff guilty. On appeal taken by the plaintiff to the Syndicate, the Syndicate finding no
power of dismissal vested in the Vice-Chancellor treated his order as a recommendation
which it accepted by its order dated 25-6-1940 after constituting a Committee to go into the
matter & obtaining a report from it without any independent inquiry by the committee. The
plaintiff there upon sued for a declaration that the orders were unjust & illegal. The defendant
resisted the suit by pleading that the orders were just & legal, as also that the suit for a bare
declaration was not maintainable without a consequential prayer as for damages.

12
1976 AIR 425, 1976 SCR (3) 12
13
(1976) 2 SCC 82 : AIR 1976 SC 425.
14
AIR 1951 Mad. 870, (1951) IMLJ 518.

9|Page
Judgment:-

The Court held it incumbent on the defendant to satisfy the Condition about the propriety of
its dismissal of the plaintiff. The issue framed by him has been correctly raised, & the order
of remand must accordingly stand, subject to the next contention of the petitioner already
indicated & to be immediately dealt with. The learned Judges held that there were no such
exceptional circumstances.

 G. Gopalaswamy v. N. Raghavulu Naidu15

In the case of G. Gopalaswamyv. N. Raghavulu Naidu, the Judge held that, "It is true that
there is no wrong done if what is published is true provided that it is not published in
pursuance of a combination and, even if it is, there is still no wrong unless the sole or
dominant purpose of the combination and publication is to injure the plaintiff. If, however,
there is both combination and purpose of dominant purpose to injure there is wrong done.
When a plaintiff sues in conspiracy there is, therefore, a potential wrong even if it is
admitted, as it is in the present case, that the publication is true and thus, that there is no
question of a cause of action in defamation. In such a case, the Court can, and in any view
should proceed on the same principles as it would in the case of any other tort."

DEVLOPEMENT OF TORT CONSPIRACY:

The wrong of conspiracy was applied to abuse of legal procedure especially when the
combination of people was to intimidate the witnesses, jurors and judges. In the course of
time, the writ of conspiracy came to be recognised as a civil remedy against persons who
combined and executed an agreement to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful
means. Under the criminal law of conspiracy mere combination would make the conspirators
liable but, under the civil law, actual commission of the act agreed to by them is essential to
make them liable. In England, especially during the tudor period, people resorted more and
more to the action of malicious prosecution for abuse of legal procedure. But towards the
close of the eighteenth and during the nineteenth century, when England passed through a
great industrial and commercial revolution, the writ of conspiracy came to be applied more
and more for infringement of trade and business rights. With the rapid growth of trade and
large-scale industries, concerted action became a more and large potent weapon for on

15
(2014)8MLJ322

10 | P a g e
commercial and class rivals. The principles relating to the law of conspiracy largely came to
be established in cases arising out of trade disputes between capital and labour.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The law of torts in India is definitely not unnecessary but merely requires enactments to make
it more ascertainable. Failure of aggrieved persons to assert their legal rights is perhaps to be
ascribed not merely to insufficient appreciation of such rights but to other causes as well, e.g.,
difficulties in proving claims and obtaining trustworthy testimony, high court fees, delay of
courts. The elimination of difficulties which obstruct aggrieved parties in seeking or
obtaining remedies which the law provides for them is a matter which is worthy of
consideration. If these lacunae are removed, India could also witness a growth in tort
litigation.

CONCLUSION:

After analyzing the scope and nature of conspiracy. It can be concluded that the scope of
conspiracy in torts is quite limited and narrow. It mainly concerns with trade and business
related matters, which makes it easy for the defendant to escape from their liability. In India
the scope of conspiracy in tort is very narrow. In most of the cases the defendants use to
escape from the liability by saying that they have acted so to promote their business interest.

In India we generally follow British laws. But The nature of people and the process of justice
is different in both the states. A new law needs to be made to deal with problems rather than
giving judgements based on judicial precedence. In India people accept injury rather than
going to court. The better formulation and enforcement of new laws will improve the
condition of law of torts on India.

11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e