Legal Maxims: Mission Vision Core Values

LEGAL MAXIMS
MISSION VISION CORE VALUES

CHRIST is a nurturing ground for an individual’s Excellence and Service Faith in God | Moral Uprightness
holistic development to make effective contribution Love of Fellow Beings
to the society in a dynamic environment Social Responsibility | Pursuit of Excellence
CHRIST
Deemed to be University
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

• The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with
guilty intent.
• For any act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a
guilty mind
• Mere commission of a criminal act or breach of law is
not sufficient to constitute a crime. It should be
combined with the presence of wrongful intent.
• To be guilty of A crime under criminal law requires 2
elements: i) Actus reus (A guilty act) ii) Mens rea (A
guilty state of mind)
Excellence and Service

CHRIST
• Where one engaged in doing a lawful act, without any

wrongful intention, unfortunately and inadvertently kills
another person, the homicide is excusable.
• Palani Goundan V Emperor (1919)
The appellant struck his wife on the head knocking her
senseless. Believing her dead, he hung her from a beam
by means of a rope to fake suicide. She died by hanging.
It was held in convicting the accused of grievous hurt:
‘the intention of the accused must be judged not in the
light of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what
he supposed to be the circumstances. It follows that a
man is not guilty of culpable homicide if his intention is
directed only to what he believes to be a lifeless body.’

CHRIST
ACTUS REUS
• Latin for the guilty action or deed
• The action must be VOLUNTARY
• Voluntary Action: i.e. if you argue with someone and
then punch them in the face, you have committed the
criminal act of assault (punching them in the face
was an action you chose, or voluntarily, committed).
• The action can also be an OMISSION or a STATE OF
BEING.
• Omission: failing to do something, i.e. leaving the
scene of an accident, or failing to provide the
necessities of life, are both considered to be crimes.
• State of Being: i.e. being in the possession of
something illegal or being somewhere illegal, such as
a betting house or a bawdy house.

CHRIST
MENS REA
• “a guilty mind”
• Includes: KNOWLEDGE, INTENT, RECKLESSNESS,
and WILLFUL BLINDNESS - the act was intentional
and the accused knew it was wrong, was negligent,
reckless, or willfully blind.
• Can be established by showing that the accused had the
intent to commit the offence or knowledge that what
he/she did was wrong.

CHRIST
MENS REA – INTENT

• The true purpose of an act; a state of mind in which
someone desires to carry out a wrongful action, knows
what the results will be, is reckless regarding the
consequences, or should have foreseen the results of the
wrongful act.
• For example:
George punches Mark in the face and ends up killing
him. George would be guilty of manslaughter because he
intended to cause Mark harm (it doesn’t matter that he
only intended to harm him, the result of his action was
that he killed him).
• Some people, i.e. people with mental disorders, minors,
infants, and those under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, by law are considered incapable of forming the
intent necessary to commit an offence.

CHRIST
• INTENT IS NOT THE SAME AS MOTIVE!

• MOTIVE is the reason for committing an offence, but
does NOT establish the guilt of the accused and is NOT
the same as intent.
• INTENT refers to that person's state of mind and
willingness to break the law.

CHRIST
Actio personalis moritur cum persona
• A personal right of action dies with the person.

• At common law, if an injury were done either to the
person or property of another, for which damages only
cold be recovered in satisfaction, the action died with the
person to whom, or by whom the wrong was done.
• It is neither based upon justice nor common sense.
• If there is an interval between the wrongful act and the
death, damages may only be recovered for loss of society
or services upto to the time of death.

CHRIST
• Some legal causes of action can survive the death of

the claimant or plaintiff, for example actions founded
in contract law. However, some actions are personal to
the plaintiff, defamation of character being one notable
example.
• Such an action, where it relates to the private character
of the plaintiff, comes to an end on his death, whereas an
action for the publication of a false and malicious
statement which causes damage to the plaintiff's
personal estate will survive to the benefit of his or
her personal representatives.

CHRIST
• Eg: If A commits battery on B and either party dies , the right

of action which accrued to B by the reason of the battery is
taken away. But if A commits a battery upon B , or do other
injury to him , any right of action which accrues to third
person will not be affected by the death of B , so far as the
application of the maxim in question is concerned.
• Nurani Jamal And Others vs Naram Srinivasa Rao And
Others [AIR 1996 AP 6]
The learned Judge, therefore, has agreed with the maxim
"actio personalis moritur cum persona", has application
in respect of all personal wrongs, but he recognized an
exception 'where a tort-feasor is benefited by the wrong
done, an action would lie against the representatives of a
wrong-doer'. Therefore, this decision also does not help
the third respondent.

CHRIST
Audi Alteram Partem

• No man shall be condemned unheard.
• One of the core principle of natural justice
• It is most often used to refer to the principle that no
person should be judged without a fair hearing in which
each party is given the opportunity to respond to the
evidence against them.
• A person cannot be declared guilty without giving him a
chance to defend himself and argue for himself.
• Under this doctrine, both the parties have the right to
speak. No decision can be declared without hearing both
the parties. The aim of this principle is to give an
opportunity to both the parties to defend themselves.

CHRIST
• Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Notice;

and (ii) Hearing.
i) Notice: Before any action is taken, the affected party
must be given a notice to show cause against the
proposed action and seek his explanation.
• It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing.
• Any order passed without giving notice is against
the principles of natural justice and is void ab
initio.
• A notice must contain the time, place and date of
hearing, jurisdiction under with the case is filed,
the charges, and proposed action against the
person.

CHRIST
• Non-issue of the notice or any defective service of the

notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but
violates the principle of natural justice.
• Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees
Federation
The notice contained certain charges but the penalty was
imposed on the charges other than those mentioned in
the notice. Thus, the charges on which the penalty was
imposed were not contained in the notice served on the
person concerned. The notice was not proper and,
therefore, imposition of penalty was invalid.

CHRIST
• Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. V. Union of India

The notice is required to be clear and unambiguous. If it
is ambiguous or vague, it will not be treated as
reasonable and proper notice.
ii) Hearing: - If the order is passed by the authority
without providing the reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the person affected by it adversely will be
invalid and must be set aside.
• The reasonable opportunity of hearing which is also well
known as 'fair hearing' is an important ingredient of the
audi alteram partem rule.

CHRIST
• This condition may be complied by the authority by

providing written or oral hearing which is the discretion
of the authority, unless the statue under which the action
being taken by the authority provides otherwise.
iii) Evidence: Evidence is an important part which is to be
brought properly before the Court in the presence of both
the parties and a judicial or quasi judicial authority must
have to act on the evidence produced and not merely on
any information which the authority may receive
otherwise.
• Ordinarily, no evidence personal or oral should be
received at the back of other party and if any such
evidence is recorded, it is duty of the authority that such
evidence must be made available to the other party

CHRIST
iv) Cross Examination: The adjudicating authority in a

fair hearing is not required only to disclose the person
concerned the evidence or material to be taken against
him, but he should be provided an opportunity to rebut
the evidence or material.

CHRIST
Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

1) Statutory Exclusion: A statute can exclude natural
justice either expressly or by necessary implication.
But such a statute may be challenged under Art.14 so it
should be justifiable.
2) Legislative Function: Legislative action, plenary or
subordinate, is not subject to the rules of natural justice
because these rules lay down a policy without
reference to a particular individual. Nevertheless, if the
legislative exclusion is arbitrary, unreasonable and
unfair, courts may quash such a provision under Art.14
and 21 of the Constitution.

CHRIST
3) Impractibility: Natural justice can be followed and

applied when it is practicable to do so but in a situation
when it is impracticable to apply the principle of natural
justice then it can be excluded.
Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash Chandra:
The Board conducted final tenth standard examination.
At a particular centre, where there were more than
thousand students, it was alleged to have mass copying.
Even in evaluation, it was prima-facie found that there
was mass copying as most of the answers were same and
they received same marks. For this reason, the Board
cancelled the exam without giving any opportunity of
hearing and ordered for fresh examination, whereby all
students were directed to appear for the same.

CHRIST
Many of the students approached the Patna HC

challenging it on the ground that before cancellation of
exam, no opportunity of hearing was been given to the
students. The HC struck down the decision of the Board
in violation of Audi Alteram Partem. The Board
unsatisfied with the decision of the Court approached the
SC. The SC rejected the HC judgment and held that in
this situation, conducting hearing is impossible as
thousand notices have to be issued and everyone must be
given an opportunity of hearing, cross-examination,
rebuttal, presenting evidences etc. which is not
practicable at all. So, the SC held that on the ground of
impracticability, hearing can be excluded.

CHRIST
4) Academic Evaluation: Where nature of authority is

purely administrative no right of hearing can be claimed.
Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal:
B.S Narwal, a student of JNU was removed from the
rolls for unsatisfactory academic performances without
being given any pre decisional hearing. The Supreme
Court held that the very nature of academic adjudication
appears to negative any right of an opportunity to be
heard. Therefore, if the competent academic authorities
examine and asses the work of a student over a period of
time and declare his work unsatisfactory, the rules of
natural justice may be excluded.

CHRIST
Communis error facit jus

• Common error sometimes poses current as law.
• In ancient Rome, the phrase expressed the notion that a
generally accepted opinion or belief about a legal issue
makes that opinion or belief the law.
• Judges have pointed out that universal opinion may also
be universal error.
• Until the error is discovered, however, the belief
continues to be the law.

CHRIST
Delegatus non potest delegare
• “No delegated powers can be further delegated.“

• It does not lay down a rule of law. It merely states a rule
of construction of a statute.
• Generally, sub-delegation of legislative power is
impermissible, yet it can be permitted either when such
power is expressly conferred under the statute or can be
inferred by necessary implication.

CHRIST
• Express Power: There is no difficulty as regards the

validity of sub-delegation where the statute itself
authorises the administrative agency to sub-delegate its
powers because such a sub-delegation is within the terms
of the statute itself.
• Central Talkies v. Dwarka Prasad:
Under the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947,
it was provided that no suit shall be filed for the eviction
of a tenant without the permission of either a District
Magistrate or any Officer authorized by him to perform
any of his functions under the Act. The Additional
Magistrate to whom the powers were delegated made an
order granting permission. The Supreme Court held the
order valid.

CHRIST
• Allingham v. Minister of Agriculture
Under the Defence Regulations, 1939, the Committee

was authorized by the Minister of Agriculture “to give
such directions with respect to the cultivation,
management or use of land for agricultural purposes as
he thinks necessary.”
The committee sub-delegated its power to its
Subordinate Officer, who issued a direction, which was
challenged. Holding the direction ultra vires, the Court
ruled that the sub-delegation of power by the committee
was not permissible.

CHRIST
• Implied Power:
According to Griffith, “If the statute is so wisely phrased
that two or more ‘tiers’ of sub-delegation are necessary
to reduce it to specialized rules on which action can be
based, then it may be that the Courts will imply the
power to make the necessary sub-delegated legislation.”
States v. Bareno
The enabling Act empowered the President to make
regulations concerning exports and provided that unless
otherwise directed the functions of President should be
performed by the Board of Economic Welfare.

CHRIST
• The Board sub-delegated the power to its Executive

Director who further sub-delegated to his assistant, who
in turn delegated it to some officials. All the
sub-delegations were held valid by the Court.
• But in State v. Amir Chand, the Punjab High Court held

that the power of sub-delegation cannot be inferred.
• Thus, sub-delegation of power is not permissible unless

that power is conferred either expressly or impliedly.

CHRIST
Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio

• No cause of action arises from a bare promise.
• No action arises on a contract without a consideration.
• To render any contract as binding, consideration is a
necessary element.
• The words nudo pacto in the maxim ‘Ex nudo acto actio
no oritur’ comes from the latin term ‘nudam pactum’.
The latin term ‘Nudam Pactum’ in its literal sense means
‘A naked Promise’.
• This maxim highlights the importance of ‘Consideration’
in any contract. Consideration is based on ‘Quid Pro
Quo’, which in its literal sense means ‘something for
something’.

CHRIST
• Consideration can be anything which holds some value

in the eyes of law. The examples of different kinds of
consideration can be – goods, money, services, or
promise.
• Section 2(d): three ingredients of the definition:
i) Act or abstinence, which is to be a consideration
for the promise, should be done at the desire of the
promisor
ii) It should be done by promisee or any other person
iii) Act or abstinence may have been already executed
or is in the process of being done or may still be
executory i.e. promised to be done.

CHRIST
• Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 –

“Agreement without consideration, void, unless it is in
writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for
something done or is a promise to pay a debt barred by
limitation law”.
i) Natural love & affection:
• Written and registered agreement based on natural
love and affection between near relatives is
enforceable without consideration.
• Near relative includes parties related by blood or
marriage.
• Rajlucky Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee:
Defendant promised to pay his wife a fixed sum of
money every month for her separate residence and
maintenance. Agreement mentioned certain
quarrels and diagreements. Court found no trace of
love & affection thus void agreement.
CHRIST
ii) Past Voluntary Service:

• Eg. - A finds B’s purse and give it to him and B
promises to give A Rs. 50, this is a contract.
• Promise must be to compensate a person who has
himself done something for the promisor and not to a
person who has nothing for the promisor.
• Eg. – A and B are friends. B treats A during illness
and does not accept payment from A for the
treatment and A promises B’s son C to pay him Rs.
1000. Here C to whom the promise was made did
nothing for A thus A’s promise is not enforceable
iii) Time Barred Debt

CHRIST
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
• No action arises on an immoral contract.

• If a person is involved in illegal activity then he/she
cannot sue another for damages that arises out of that
illegal activity.
• This maxim applies not only to tort law but also to
contract, restitution, property and trusts.
• The rationale behind this principle is that it would be
wrong to allow a criminal to profit from a crime
committed by him/her.

CHRIST
• It is one of the defences which exempts the defendant

from his liability because the plaintiff has also
committed an illegal act. Therefore, this is also known as
the “plaintiff a wrongdoer” defence.
• Eg: A and B have decided to commit theft in C’s house
but during this act, A gets injured because of B’s
negligence. Here even though B is guilty of negligence
A cannot claim any damages because he suffered this
injury as a result of being involved in an unlawful act of
theft and thus it falls in the category of ex turpi causa
non oritur actio.

CHRIST
• There are 2 essential elements in the defence of ex turpi

causa:
i) The suit is brought by the plaintiff for the damage
caused by the defendant and the defendant is fully
responsible for such damage.
ii) The actions of the plaintiff have to be in a specific
course of action which is illegal.
Thus whenever these 2 conditions are fulfilled in a case
the defendant has the right of claiming the defence of ex
turpi causa and the suit brought by the plaintiff will fail.

CHRIST
Tests of ex turpi causa

1. Test of Reliance: As per this act, whenever the
plaintiff has to rely on his illegal act as the basis for his
case then this defence is applied. It simply means that
to prove that he has suffered damage because of the
defendant, he has to show the fact that he had
committed an illegal act.
2. The Principle of no benefit: As per this principle, a
criminal should not be allowed to take any benefit
from his criminal act and therefore the Courts should
ensure that such a suit by a person should fail.

CHRIST
• Eg: If A enters into B’s house for theft and B on finding

A shoots him with a gun causing his death. Here even
though B has used more than reasonable force but it does
not mean that A’s widow can claim any damages from
him because A was also involved in an illegal act.
3. Public Conscience Test: As per this test, while deciding
the case the Court sees whether allowing the plaintiff to
recover damages is in accordance with the public
conscience or not. It also considers the question of
whether the awarding of the damages will lead to the
encouragement of the crime or not.

CHRIST
• Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is one of the defences

available to the defendant. This defence is very
complicated as a result of which the Courts had to come
up with many different tests in determining the
applicability of this defence.
• In this defence due to the illegal act of the plaintiff, he is
not allowed to claim any compensation from the
defendant. This defence is provided in pursuance of the
principle of public policy, that no person should be
allowed to benefit from his illegal act.

CHRIST
Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

• "false in one thing, false in everything.“
• It is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely
about one matter is not credible to testify about any
matter.
• The maxium 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has no
application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded
as liars.
• The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' has not
received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to
occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of
caution.

CHRIST
• In such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that

it must be discarded.
• The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of
evidence which a court may apply in a given set of
circumstances, but it is not what may be called 'a
mandatory rule of evidence‘.

CHRIST
• Ugar Ahir & Ors. v. State of Bihar:

" The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one
thing, false in every thing) is neither a sound rule of law
nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness
whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at
any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments.
It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the
evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous
metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it
cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the
prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence
and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest."

CHRIST
Generalia specialibus non derogant

• General things do not derogate from special things.
• If two provisions are in conflict, the more specific one
will prevail of the more general one.
• Hutch v. the Governor of Wheatfield Prison:
The case posed the question whether a young person
between the ages of fifteen and seventeen years who had
been convicted of an indictable offence tried summarily,
could be sentenced for the period of detention applicable
to an adult (under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 ), or
whether the sentence was limited to three months
imprisonment under the terms of the Summary
Jurisdiction Over Children (Ireland) Act, 1884 .

CHRIST
The Court held that since the 1951 Act was a general
Act, and the 1884 Act had a special application, the
maxim generalia specialibus non derogant applied.
Therefore, the 1884 Act was not impliedly amended or
repealed by the 1951 Act, and the possible sentence was
limited to three months imprisonment.
• Corporation of Madras v. Electric Tramways Ltd.:
It was observed that if the legislature makes a special act
dealing with a particular case and later makes a general
act, which by its terms would include the subject of the
special act and is in conflict with the special act,
nevertheless unless it is clear that in making the general
act, the legislature had the special act in mind and has

CHRIST
intended to abrogate it, the provisions of the general act

do not override the special act. If the special act is made
after the general act, the position is even simpler. Having
made the general act if the legislature afterwards makes
a special act in conflict with it, we must assume that the
legislature had in mind its own general act when it made
the special act which is in conflict with the general act,
as an exception to general act.

CHRIST
Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorant juris non

excusat
• Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not
excuse.
• It is a legal principle holding that a person who is
unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating
that law merely because one was unaware of its content.
• The law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons
within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently.
• Even though it would be impossible, even for someone
with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law
in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is
the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot
become the basis of exculpation.

CHRIST
• It is well settled that persons engaged in any

undertakings outside what is common for a normal
person will make themselves aware of the laws
necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not,
they cannot complain if they incur liability.
• Mistake under Law of Contracts.
• Mistake of law is divided into two categories
(a) mistake of Indian law: ignorantia non excusat i.e.
ignorance of law is no excuse.
(b) mistake of foreign law: treated as mistake of fact

CHRIST
FACT:
George was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a
Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the airport at
Bombay on 28th November, 1962 it was found on search
that George carried 34kgs of gold bars in person and that
he had not declared it in the 'Manifest for transit'. On
26th November, 1962 Government of India issued a
notification and modified its earlier exemption and now
it is necessary that, the gold must be declared in the
'Manifest' of the aircraft.

CHRIST
DECISION:
A. George cannot be prosecuted because he had actually
no knowledge about the notification issued only 2
days ago.
B. George cannot be prosecuted because it was a mistake
of fact
C. George will be prosecuted because mistake of law is
no excuse
D. Liability of George will depend upon discretion of
court

CHRIST
In jure non remote causa, sed proxima spectatur

• In law, the immediate, not the remote cause, of any event
is regarded.
• It is a maxim which simply means that in law not the
remote but the proximate cause is looked at.
• The maxim is usually applied to cases of marine
insurance where any loss caused by perils of the sea is
within the policy though it would not have happened but
for the concurrent action of some cause, as
unseaworthi-ness, which is not within it.

CHRIST
• The maxim is also frequently applied to measure of

damages where only such damages are recoverable for
breach of contract as (1) arose naturally from the breach
itself, or (2) might reasonably be supposed to have been
in the contemplation of both contracting parties at the
time of the contract as resulting from breach.
• Doctrine of forseeability
• Bourhill v. Young

CHRIST
• "The Case of the Pregnant Fishwife“: Mrs Euphemia

Bourhill (Ms Hay before she married) was not in the
proximity of the bad driving of Mr John Young a
motorcyclist who crashed before Mrs Bourhill came on
the scene. Young owed a duty of care to the car driver he
collided with, as he could reasonably foresee that if he
rode his motorcycle too fast he is likely to crash into a
vehicle on the road. Mrs Bourhill getting out of a tram
she heard the noise of the collision but was in no danger.
She went to the accident spot and saw the blood on the
road and suffered nervous shock (she was pregnant at the
time). She was not in proximity to Mr Young, so he
could not reasonably foresee that his action of riding the
motorcycle negligently would affect her.

CHRIST
Omina praesumuntur contra spoliatorem
• All things are presumed against a wrong doer.

• This maxim refers that all things are presumed against
the spoliator so that he or she suffers the consequences
of this destruction at trial and is not allowed to profit
from their actions to defeat the proper conservation of
evidence pending justice.

CHRIST
Irudayam Ammal v. Salayath Mary, AIR 1973 Madras

421
A Division Bench of this Court in this case quoted well
known maxim Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem,
“If a man by his tortious act, withholds the evidence by
which the truth of his case would be manifested, every
presumption to his disadvantage will be adopted” and the
Court had drawn an adverse inference against the
persons those who were in possession of the original
Will for its non-production.

CHRIST
Qui facit per alium facit per se
• He who does an act through another is deemed in Law to

do it himself.
• It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of
employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious
liability.
• According to this maxim, if in the nature of things, the
master is obliged to perform the duties by employing
servants, he is responsible for their act in the same way
that he is responsible for his own acts.

CHRIST
• The common examples of such a liability are:

(1) Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent;
(2) Liability of partners of each other’s tort;
(3) Liability of the master for the tort of his servant.
• In a case of vicarious liability both the person at whose

behest the act is done as well as the person who does the
act are liable. Thus, Employers are vicariously liable for
the torts of their employees that are committed during
the course of employment.

CHRIST
• Constituents Of Vicarious Liability

So the constituents of vicarious liability are:
(1) There must be a relationship of a certain kind.
(2) The wrongful act must be related to the
relationship in a certain way.
(3) The wrong has been done within the course of
employment.
• The main exceptions to the principle fall into the
following categories:
(1) Cases where the employer is under some
statutory duty which he cannot delegate.
(2) Cases involving the withdrawal of support from
neighboring land.
(3) Cases involving the escape of fire.

CHRIST
(4) Cases involving the escape of substances, such as

explosives, which have been brought on the land and
which are likely to do damage if they escape; liability
will attach under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
(5) Cases involving operations on the highways which

may cause danger to persons using the highway.
(6) Cases involving non-delegable duties of an employer

for safety of his employees.
(7) Cases involving extra-hazardous acts

CHRIST
• FACT:
Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to

take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car
was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on
account of Saurabh's negligent driving and injured him
seriously. Now Srikant files a suit for damages against
Nisha.

CHRIST
• DECIDE:
a) Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of

Saurabh.
b) Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the
car.
c) Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under his
authority and for her purpose.
d) Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the
principle of inevitable accident.

CHRIST
Respondeat superior
• Let the principal be held responsible.
• Doctrine of Respondeat Superior based on the concept
of vicarious liability.
• When this doctrine applies, an employer and the master
will be liable for an employee’s and the servant’s
negligent commissions or omissions that occur during
employment.
• But there should be the establishment of a relationship
between the superior and the subordinate for the liability
to fall on the superiors.

CHRIST
• There are two requirements of the doctrine:

• A true master-servant and employer-employee
relationship must be there so that a master and an
employer may be properly charged with the servant’s
and the employee’s act as his own.
• The tortious act of a servant and an employee must
be one within the scope of his employment.
• Vicarious liability falls under tort law, and as India does
not have codified tort law, there is no particular
legislation which provides for the vicarious liability.
• Section 182 to Section 238 of the Indian Contract Act
deals provides provision regarding nature of principal –
agent relationship as well as extends the liabilities of
both principal and agent.

CHRIST
• Smt. Savita Garg vs. The Director, National Heart

Institute:
The Supreme Court held that in the contract of
employment, the hospital is the principal who is
responsible for the act of the agent, i.e., one of its
doctors if it is unable to justify the court and the
complainant that there was no negligence or recklessness
on their part and that they acted with due care and
caution. As the hospital is in a better position to render
such information when demanded as to what medicine
was administered, failure to disclose such information
would render them culpable.

CHRIST
Res ipsa loquitur

• The thing itself speaks.
• Res ipsa loquitur is a legal theory wherein the facts and
circumstances surrounding an injury allow the court to
presume that negligence has occurred.
• In an ordinary negligence case, the plaintiff must prove
that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and that his
conduct failed to measure up to that duty. However,
under res ipsa loquitur, the defendant’s negligence may
be presumed and thus does need not be proven.

CHRIST
• The elements of res ipsa loquitur are:

1) the defendant was in exclusive control of the situation
or instrument that caused the injury;
2) the injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for
the defendant’s negligence; and
3) the plaintiff’s injury was not due to his own action or
contribution
• If these elements are met, the burden shifts to the
defendant to show that he was not negligent.

CHRIST
• Byrne v. Boadle:
A man was walking on a sidewalk outside of a flour
warehouse when a barrel of flour fell from a warehouse
window. The man did not see the flour fall out of the
window, nor could he produce any evidence to indicate
how or why the barrel fell from the window of the
warehouse.
The plaintiff could not acquire direct evidence against
defendant to allege negligence on his part. But the court
held the judgment for the plaintiff and opined that the
circumstances were different in this case, and there could
be a presumption of negligence.

CHRIST
• Essentials of Res Ipsa Loquitor:

a) Inference of negligence:
The accident should be such as which could not
have happened if ordinary course of things had
happened without negligence.
For instance, a barrel of flour cannot randomly fall
on someone’s head if the party is reasonably
careful. And also, a Clock tower in the heart of the
city will need extra care and if it falls and causes
injury to several people, the defendants will but
obviously be held liable for the same under this
principle. In such cases, direct evidence of proving
negligence is not important, but the plaintiff has to
establish a prima facie case, either by direct or
circumstantial evidence of defendant’s negligence.

CHRIST
b) Exclusive control by defendant:

The thing that has caused the damage must be under the
direct control of the defendant or his representative.
For instance, if a surgeon at the time of the operation
leaves a mop inside the patient’s abdomen, here the
doctor had exclusive control over the patient’s health and
so, therefore, he would be liable under the principle of
Res Ipsa Loquitor.

CHRIST
c) Freedom from Contributory Negligence:

The third essential for the principle is that the plaintiff or
any third party did not cause or contribute to the injuries
suffered by him. If it is found that the plaintiff or third
party contributed to the act that caused damage to the
plaintiff, then the principle shall not apply.

CHRIST
• M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

More popularly known as the Olium gas leak case, this is
a Public Interest Litigation regarding the establishment
of enterprises involved in hazardous works in thickly
populated areas in the light of the Olium gas leak. The
Olium gas leak had occurred in the work premises of
Shriram Mills. Olium is a hazardous gas and this nature
of the gas had caused the death of many people and
causing serious injuries to the health of others stying in
the close vicinity. It was not possible to establish
negligence of the mill owners and Res Ipsa Loquitur was
applied to shift the burden of proof on the mill owners to
show that they were not negligent.

CHRIST
In the PIL it was pleaded that any industry involved in

cases of injuries/damage due to the hazardous activities
it undertakes then the onus must be on them prima facie
to establish that they were not negligent. In this case the
maxim was made use of to establish negligence and they
were held liable for the damage and injury caused. It was
further held that any company involved in hazardous
activities will be held negligent prima facie and it is upto
them to lead the evidence and prove how they are not
negligent failing which they will be held liable.

CHRIST
Sic uteretu utalienum non laedas

• Enjoy your property in such a manner as not to injure
that of another person.
• It means only that one must use his property so as not to
injure the lawful rights of another.
• Under this maxim, it is well settled that a property owner
may put his own property to any reasonable and lawful
use, so long as he does not thereby deprive the adjoining
landowner of any right of enjoyment of his property
which is recognized and protected by law, and so long as
his use is not such as the law will pronounce a nuisance.

CHRIST
Ubi jus ibi remedium
• Every right has a remedy.

• The maxim can be phrased as that any person will not
suffer a wrong without a remedy, it means that once it is
proved that the right was breached then equity will
provide a suitable remedy.
• This principle also underlines the fact that no wrong
should be allowed to go without any compensation if it
can be redressed by a court of law.

CHRIST
Essentials:
• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium can be applied only

where the right exists and that right should be recognized
by the court of law.
• A wrongful act must have been done which violates
the legal rights of a person clearly.
• This maxim can be used only when sufficient relief
has not been provided by the court to the person
who sustained the injury.

CHRIST
Limitations:
• This maxim is not applied to those cases in which proper

remedy is given in case of breach of right under common
law.
• If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any
person then this maxim will not be applicable.
• This maxim is not applicable where the plaintiff is
negligent or there is negligence on the part of the
plaintiff.

CHRIST
• Ashby v. White
The plaintiff was a qualified voter and he was detained
from giving a vote in a parliamentary election by the
defendant who was a police officer. The party to whom
he wanted to vote had won the election and the plaintiff
filed a suit against the defendant stating that he was
detained from giving a vote and his right to vote was
infringed and also claimed a certain amount of
compensation for the damage caused to him. The
defendant in his defence said that the party to whom he
wanted to vote had won the election and therefore no
damage and injury was caused to him.

CHRIST
The court held that no damage or injury was caused as

the candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted to vote had
won the election but his right to vote was violated. To
restrain a person from giving vote is a civil wrong and
therefore the plaintiff had the right to seek remedy from
the court of law. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was
applied in this case and the plaintiff was awarded some
amount of compensation.

CHRIST
Volenti non fit injuria
• Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action.

• In the law of torts, there is a duty on every person do acts
with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which
may occur due to their failure of taking such care.
• This is the general rule in torts but there are certain
exceptions which are allowed in these cases and these
called as defences to tort.
• Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability
and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which
is available for the defendant.

CHRIST
• In case a person gives his consent to doing of an act

which leads to him getting injured, then even if an injury
is caused by the other person, he cannot claim any
damages from that person because the act was one for
which he voluntarily consented.
• Illustration: If A has a bike whose brakes do not work
and B knowing about the conditions of the bike still
chooses to sit on it with A driving it and due to the
failure of such brakes they both sustain injuries in an
accident, B cannot claim relief from A because he had
voluntarily consented to sit on the bike.

CHRIST
Elements:
• The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk
• The plaintiff with the knowledge of risk has voluntarily
agreed to suffer the harm.
Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of

harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he
still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer
the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.

CHRIST
• Smith v. Baker & sons
The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant and the

site where he used to work had a crane which carried
rocks over their heads. The plaintiff had also complained
to the defendant about it. One day the plaintiff was
injured because of these rocks falling on him and thus he
sued the defendant for damages. It was held that the
defendant was liable and had to pay damages to the
plaintiff because the plaintiff had consented to the
danger of the job but not to the lack of care.

CHRIST
Limitations:
• Rescue Cases: When the plaintiff suffers an injury as a
result of him doing an act which he knows is likely to
cause harm to him but it is an act to rescue someone,
then this defence will not apply and the defendant will be
held liable.
Haynes v. Harwood
The servant of the defendant brought two horses in the
town near a police station and left them to do some other
work. The horses were upset by the children and they
broke free, seeing them in rage the plaintiff who was a
police officer went to stop the horses and in doing so he
got injured and brought a case against the owner for
damages. The court held the defendant liable because the
defence of volenti non-fit injuria did not apply in a
rescue case.

CHRIST
• Illegal Acts:
Eg: If A and B decide to do a fight with sharp swords,
when such an act is prohibited by law, and A suffers a
big cut due to which he suffers serious injuries, then in
such case B cannot take the defence of having A’s
consent in doing this act because it was prohibited by
law and thus B will be liable.

CHRIST
• Negligence of the defendant:

Eg: If A goes undergoes a heart operation and he gives
his consent for it even though he knows that there is a
risk of the operation failing which can cause his death,
the surgeon will not be liable if A dies as a result of the
surgery if he had taken all due care. But if the operation
had failed because of the negligence in carrying out the
surgery then in such a case, the surgeon cannot claim the
defence of having received the consent of A and he will
be liable because there was negligence on his part in
conducting the surgery.

CHRIST
Cessante ratione cessat lex ipsa
• If the reason of law ceases, the law itself will cease.

• A rule of law becomes ineffective when the reason for its
application has ceased to exist or does not correspond to
the reality anymore.

CHRIST
Salus populi est suprema lex

• Regard for the public welfare is the highest law.
• Hira Tikkoo v.Union Territory, Chandigarh
The sovereign power of every State has authority to
appropriate for purpose of public utility lands situated
within the limits of its jurisdiction. The principle
underlying acquisition by State of private property rests
upon the famous maxim salus populi est suprema lex,
that is , the welfare of the people or of the public, is the
paramount law.

CHRIST
Novus actus intervenius

• A new act intervening.
• A Latin term for an intervening unforeseeable event that
occurs after the defendant’s negligent act and operates to
precipitate or worsen the plaintiff’s loss. The defendant
is not liable for the loss precipitated or aggravated by
such an event.
• Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted
negligently, there will be no liability if some new
intervening act breaks the chain of causation between
that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by
the claimant.

CHRIST
Carslogie Steamship Co v. Royal Norwegian Government

The Carslogie collided with the Heimgar and admitted
liability. Temporary repairs were effected with
permanent repairs to be carried out later in the United
States. After the collision but before crossing the
Atlantic, the Heimgar was given a certificate of
seaworthiness, authorising her to be continued in her
present class without fresh record of survey, subject to
permanent repairs at the owner's convenience. She was
held fit to carry dry and perishable cargoes. While
crossing the Atlantic, the Heimgar encountered heavy
weather and sustained such serious damage as to become
unseaworthy and to require immediate dry docking.
Thus, prior to encountering the rough weather,
the Heimgar was a seaworthy vessel, capable of earning
profits for her owners.

CHRIST
Repairs due to the collision and to the heavy

weather, as well as the owner's repairs were all
carried out at the same time. Ten of the fifty days in
dry dock were allocated to the repair of the collision
damage and the question for the House of Lords was
whether the owners of the Carslogie were liable for
that ten-day loss of earning capacity. The claim was
for damages because a working ship is "a
profit-earning machine". If she ceases to earn a
profit, it is essential to consider what caused the
detention in dry dock at that time. In this case,
the Heimgar was a profit-earning vessel before
suffering the heavy weather damage. Thus, the loss
of earnings at that time was not caused by the
collision.

CHRIST
Rex non-potest peccare

• The king can do no wrong.
• It is an ancient and fundamental principle of the English
Law which meant that if a tort was committed by the
King or the King’s servants in the course of
employment, the injured has no right to sue the king
under the vicarious liability.
• The British Parliament passed ‘The Crown Proceeding
Act, 1947’ by abolishing the maxim ‘king can do no
wrong’. Now, the crown can also be sued for his
servants’ tortuous acts committed in their course of
employment under the principle of ‘Respondent
superior’.

CHRIST
• In India, the crown assumed sovereignty of India in 1858

and took over the administration of India from the hands
of the company. The Act declared that the Secretary of
State in Council to be a body corporate for the purpose
of suing, and being sued.
• This concept was reproduced in Government of India
Act, 1915.

CHRIST
• This very provision has been incorporated in Article

300(i) of the Constitution of India: “The Government of
India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of
India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued
by the name of the State and may, subject to any
provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or
of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of
powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in
relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the
Domination of India and the corresponding Provinces or
the corresponding Indian states might have sued or been
sued if the Constitution had not been enacted.”

CHRIST
• The present position is that the State would be liable for

damages, if such suit could be filed against the
corresponding province.
• State of Orissa v. Padmalochan
A mob emerged on the scene of the office of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Orissa to protest. Military Police
and some police personnel manhandled some persons of
the mob resulting in injury to plaintiff. The Court
observed that although police personnel manhandled the
plaintiff without permission of the Magistrate but it
occurred while the sovereign power.

CHRIST
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati

It was held in this case that the State should be as much
liable for tort in respect of tortuous acts committed by its
servant within the scope of his employment and
functioning as such, like any other employer.
In that case, the claim for damages was made by the
dependants of a person who died in an accident caused
by the negligence of the driver of a jeep maintained by
the Government for official use of the Collector of
Udaipur while it was being brought back from the
workshop after repairs. The Rajasthan High Court took
the view-that the State was liable, for the State is in no
better position in so far as it supplies cars and keeps
drivers for its Civil Service.

CHRIST
Vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subeniunt

• The laws give help to those who are vigilant and not to
those who sleep over their rights.
• In order to claim one’s right, she/he must be watchful of
his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and
careful of using his/her rights, are entitled to the benefits
of law.
• Law prescribes statutory limitations for enforcing one’s
relief against another. One cannot institute a suit after the
prescribed statutory period. A person who has kept mum
during the statutory period cannot claim for the
enforcement of right after the statutory limitation.

CHRIST
• Eg: If X lent Rs.1,00,000/- to Y on 01.01.2000, if X

want to file a suit against Y for the recovery of the same,
he/she need to file the suit within three years, i.e.,
31.12.2002. If the suit is filed after 31.12.2002, the Court
will dismiss the same on the ground that the claim is
barred by limitation.

CHRIST
Ut res magis valeat quam pereat

• It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made
void.
• It is a rule of construction which literally means that the
construction must give effect to rule rather than
destroying it.
• Rule of harmonious construction
• It generally starts with the presumption in favour of
constitutionality and prefer a construction which
embarks the statute within the competency of legislature.

Legal Maxims: Mission Vision Core Values

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

Legal Maxims: Mission Vision Core Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL MAXIMS

MISSION VISION CORE VALUES

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Excellence and Service

• Where one engaged in doing a lawful act, without any

Excellence and Service

Excellence and Service

Excellence and Service

MENS REA – INTENT

Excellence and Service

• INTENT IS NOT THE SAME AS MOTIVE!

Excellence and Service

Actio personalis moritur cum persona

• A personal right of action dies with the person.

Excellence and Service

• Some legal causes of action can survive the death of

Excellence and Service

• Eg: If A commits battery on B and either party dies , the right

Excellence and Service

Audi Alteram Partem

Excellence and Service

• Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Notice;

Excellence and Service

• Non-issue of the notice or any defective service of the

Excellence and Service

• Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. V. Union of India

Excellence and Service

• This condition may be complied by the authority by

Excellence and Service

iv) Cross Examination: The adjudicating authority in a

Excellence and Service

Exceptions To Audi Alteram Partem

Excellence and Service

3) Impractibility: Natural justice can be followed and

Excellence and Service

Many of the students approached the Patna HC

Excellence and Service

4) Academic Evaluation: Where nature of authority is

Excellence and Service

Communis error facit jus

Excellence and Service

Delegatus non potest delegare

• “No delegated powers can be further delegated.“

Excellence and Service

• Express Power: There is no difficulty as regards the

Excellence and Service

• Allingham v. Minister of Agriculture

Under the Defence Regulations, 1939, the Committee

Excellence and Service

Excellence and Service

• The Board sub-delegated the power to its Executive

• But in State v. Amir Chand, the Punjab High Court held

• Thus, sub-delegation of power is not permissible unless

Excellence and Service

Ex nudo pacto non oritur actio

Excellence and Service

• Consideration can be anything which holds some value

Excellence and Service

• Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 –

ii) Past Voluntary Service:

Excellence and Service

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

• No action arises on an immoral contract.