Judgments High Courts & Apex Court

AIR 2002 SC 551 Para 8:   Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as "strict liability". It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e. the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is...

AIR 2000 SC 855 Para 11:   In the case of   Vasudeva Mudaliar   (ibid) a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court said: "(4) A contract of motor insurance, like marine or accident insurance, is, in essence, one of indemnity. The underwriter, for consideration, guarantees the assured compensation against loss or risks, the limits of the guarantee against accident or loss or damage suffered, totally or partially, being subject to the maximum stipulated in the contract of insurance. Conversely, the rights of the assured are not to profit out of the bargain. It is implied in the very nature of the contract of indemnity that the indemnifier is entitled to re-coupe or minimise the damages he is obliged to pay the assured, by ways and means the assured himself could resort to, in order to reimburse himself against loss caused to him by third party negligence. Such a right of the insurer is, of course, conditional upon his having already indemnified the assured...

AIR 1999 SC 1359 Para 40:  The object of serving a "true copy" of an Election Petition and the affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice on the respondent in Election Petition is to enable the respondent to understand the charge against him so that he can effectively meet the same in the written statement and prepare his defence. The requirement is, thus, of substance and not of form. Para 41:  The expression "copy" in Sec. 81(3) of the Act, in our opinion, means a copy which is substantially so and which does not contain any material or substantial variation of a vital nature as could possibly mislead a reasonable person to understand and meet the charges / allegations made against him in the election petition. Indeed a copy which differs in material particulars from the original cannot be treated as a true copy of the original within the meaning of Sec. 81(3) of the Act and the vital defect cannot be permitted to be cured afte...

AIR 2007 SC 2967 Para 7:  A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 29.6.1988, copy of which is Annexure-P2 to this appeal, shows that it has been recorded therein that Chacko was not having sound mind when he executed Ext. A3, which is established from Ext.A4 which is the medical certificate. He was treated from 11.8.1983 to 14.8.1983 in Mental Hospital, Trichur for Alcoholic Psychosis. This is a finding of fact which could not have been interfered with by the High Court in Second Appeal. Moreover, it is established from the facts that one cent of land was sold for Rs. 18000.00 on 4.9.1982 vide Ext.A2, while 10 months thereafter three cents of land was sold for only Rs. 1000.00. This corroborates the finding of the First Appellate Court that Chacko was not of sound mind at least at the time when he executed the sale deed dated 11.7.1983. If one cent of land costs Rs. 18000.00 then three cents of land should ordinarily cost Rs. 54000.00. No one in his s...

AIR 2005 SC 1897 Para 30:   Stated simply, 'unjust enrichment' means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. 'Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone else. Para 31 : The doctrine of 'unjust enrichment', therefore, is that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. Para 32:   The juristic basis of the obligation is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or the doctrine of restitution. Para 33:   In the leading case of Fibrosa V/s. Fairbairn., 1942 2 AllER 122 Lord Wright stated the principle thus : "...Any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what ha...

2012 (4) SCC 307 Para 26:  In view of the above, as the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC itself was not maintainable all subsequent proceedings remained inconsequential. Legal maxim "sublatofundamentocadit opus" which means foundation being removed structure falls is attracted. Sandeep Jalan Advocate https://vakeelkanumber.com/

AIR 2004 SC 1330 Para 32:   Even correspondences marked as without prejudice may have to be interpreted differently in different situations. Para 33:  What would be the effect of without prejudice offer has been considered in Cutts V/s. Head and Another wherein Oliver L.J. speaking for the court of appeals held: "In the end, I think that the question of what meaning is given to the words "without prejudice" is a matter of interpretation which is capable of variation according to usage in the profession. It seems to be that, no issue of public policy being involved, it would be wrong to say that the words were given a meaning in 1889 which is immutable ever after, bearing in mind that the precise question with which we are concerned in this case did not arise in Walker V/s. Wilsher, 23 Q.B.D. 335, and the court did not deal with it. I think that the wide body of practice which undoubtedly exists must be treated as indicating that the meaning to be given...