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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more