Skip to main content

Govt not above law. Must pay for officers' negligence

The government must pay for the negligence of its officers and it cannot claim "sovereign immunity" like in the old days, the Supreme Court has stated while imposing compensation on the authorities who failed to register three fishing vessels, causing loss to owners. The vessels were bought by Sancheta Food Products in an auction. They had to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act for taking them to the high seas for fishing. However, the officers were taking contrary stands regarding the rules applicable to the vessels, causing heavy loss to the firm. It sued the government in the Calcutta high court. It imposed compensation on the government for its "contradictory and dilatory" stands. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the high court judgment. It elaborated on the "vicarious liability" of the state for the actions of its officers and diluted the immunity of the government in negligence cases. Citing earlier decisions rejecting the claim of immunity of the government, the present judgment reiterated that "no legal or political system today can place the state above law as it is unjust and unfair for a citizen to be deprived of his property illegally by negligent act of officers without any remedy…The modern social thinking of progressive societies and the judicial approach is to do away with archaic state protection and place the government on a par with any other juristic legal entity." The court also rejected the government's plea that it has taken action against the officer concerned. The liability of the government did not end with action against its officers, the judgment emphasised.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/govt-must-pay-for-officers-negligence-115090600684_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more