TagTort

Calcutta High Court Allows Trial Against Directors of a Mutual Fund Trustee Company

It is well-known that directors of a mutual fund trustee company carry onerous responsibilities, both under the Companies Act, 2013 as well as the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996. The trustee company of a mutual fund and its directors are responsible for ensuring that transactions carried out by the fund are in accordance with the relevant regulations. This is despite the fact that the day...

The Liability of the Registrar of Companies for Negligent Entries

It was widely reported last week that Companies House in the UK had been ordered to pay damages of £8.8 million for making a spelling mistake. The case, of course rather more complex than that, is Sebry v Companies House and raised an important question of law: is the Registrar of Companies liable for loss caused by negligent entries made in the course of discharging his statutory obligations...

The Indian Supreme Court on Lifting the Corporate Veil

In its recent judgment in Balwant Rai Saluja, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has considered a number of important questions relating to when, if ever, it is appropriate to lift the corporate veil. Readers may recall that we had previously discussed Lord Sumption’s magisterial judgment on this point in Petrodel v Prest: Although the Supreme Court has not endorsed precisely the same...

Close Connection and The Test of Vicarious Liability in Indian Law

Every first-year law student in Indian and English law schools is taught the famous ‘Salmond’ test of ‘course of employment’ for the purposes of vicarious liability in tort: was the employee’s wrongful act either actually authorised by the master or an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act? This test survived for many years and works well in the vast majority of cases. But like other...

The Date of Accrual of the Cause of Action in Negligence Claims

Under article 113 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act, 1963 (the residuary provision), a suit must be filed within three years of the date of the accrual of the “right to sue”. It is well-known that a court has no power to condone delay in the institution of a suit (as opposed to an appeal or application) and it is therefore important to be able to ascertain precisely when the cause of action...

Licensee’s rights and remedies against third parties

Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal revisited the very interesting issue of the rights of a licensee and the remedies available against third parties. Leaving aside the tax-context of the case, the two issues before the Court were (i) whether a licensee can enter into a contract with a third party in relation to a right not conferred on the licensee by the license; and (ii) whether a licensee...

Strict Liability and the Nature of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

It is perhaps not surprising that counsel could not find a reported case since the second world war in which anyone had succeeded in a claim under the rule.  It is hard to escape the conclusion that the intellectual effort devoted to the rule by judges and writers over many years has brought forth a mouse This was Lord Hoffmann’s description in Transco v Stockport MBC of the rule in Rylands...

Parent’s Duty to Employees of its Subsidiary: Chandler v. Cape affirmed

In an earlier post, we had discussed the judgment of the England & Wales High Court in Chandler v. Cape plc, [2011] EWHC 951. In that case, the Court had held that in certain circumstances, a parent company would owe a duty of care to the employees of the subsidiary even in situations where the tests for lifting the corporate veil are not satisfied. This judgment has been affirmed today by...

Illegitimate pressure in economic duress

Traditionally, duress rendered a contract voidable only if it was physical duress (which involved a threat to the person or belongings of an individual), but following the decision of the Privy Council in Pao On v Lau Yiu Long, the concept of economic duress was also recognised. It is now fairly settled law that there are two essential ingredients for voiding a contract on grounds of economic...

The Court of Appeal on the illegality defence

The role of illegality as a defence to a claim for damages has always been the subject of much debate. There are two principal rationales that can be proposed for illegality being a defence: (a) that the claimant cannot be allowed to rely on his illegal conduct (reliance-based rationale); and (b) that allowing the claim will result in stultifying the law which rendered the claimant’s conduct...

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

Topics

Recent Comments

Archives

web analytics