Capacity to sue

Illustration based
Case 1:
• Principle: Convicts are not, by mere reason of conviction, shed of all
their fundamental rights.
• Illustration: ‘Studd’ has been convicted for an offence and is
imprisoned under the authority of law.
• Studd complains that living in a prison house is deprivation of his right
to move freely throughout the territory of India.
• If conditions of detention are intolerable that his health suffers, can
he use for negligence?
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration.
Case 2:
• A station master is an employee of a railway company ‘London and
S.W. Ry. Co’. The station master arrested one Mr. Poulton for refusing
to pay freight for a horse that has been carried on the companies
Railway.
• The Railway company had authority under the act of the Parliament
to arrest persons for non payment of his fare only- None to arrest a
person for non-payment for the goods.
• Has the person been illegal arrested?
• Will the Railway company be liable?
Case 3:
• Á father sent out his son on some business with his cart and horse,
son caused injury by negligence in driving.
Case 4:
• Principle: In the course of what the minor is entitled to do under the
contract, even if he is found guilty of negligence, the minor cannot be
made liable under tort.
• An action which arises from a contract (consensus ad idem) cannot be
converted into a tort for minors.
• A minor entered into a contract for driving a motor car and damaged
it by unskillful driving. Whether liable under Tort?
Case 5:
• A minor entered into a contract for hiring amplifiers and a
microphone. He then parted with it to a friend and did not return it.
• (Committed Detinue-Wrongful taking of personal property)?
Case 6:
• ‘X’ filed a police report against Á for theft. The Police commenced an
investigation and closed it since no evidence was found.
• Can ‘A’ sue ‘X’ for malicious prosecution?
Case 7:
• Facts of the case:
• The plaintiff was the sarpanch of the village Shirputi in the year 1980 and the defendant no. 1
was in the service as a Gram sewak under the Zila Parishad and the defendant no.2 was a
teacher in a school run by the Zila Parishad.
• The plaintiff made several reports against the defendants for their misconduct. The report
was made against defendant no.1 for his misbehavior and forgery of accounts and also against
defendant no.2 for his absence from duties and other irregularities.
• The defendant no.1 lodged an F.I.R. with the police that he was assaulted by the plaintiff
while he was discharging his duties.
• On the basis of the F.I.R and investigation done by the police, criminal proceedings were
launched against the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff was acquitted of the charges against him.
Vishweshwar Shankarrao Deshmukh and Anr
v. Narayan Vithoba Patil
• It is contended that both the defendants then hatched a conspiracy to
involve the plaintiff in a criminal conspiracy and such that
• Plaintiff was arrested but the police and the criminal proceeding
against him was with malicious intention on the part of the
defendants.
• The prosecution was launched without any reasonable cause and due
to the false prosecution, there was a loss to his prestige and
reputation and his status was lowered down in the society being a
sarpanch and a politician.