Remember | Register | Forgot Password?
Bookmark This Page   RSS Feeds  Follow On Twitter

 

Search for Lawyers          
    

Home > Experts > Civil Law > public nuisance



Please Wait ..

public nuisance (Civil Law)

Report Abuse
This query is : Resolved


Author : Sarika

Posted On 05 March 2011 at 10:50

Hi, I am a III LLB student and i am preparing for moot court cases. i am facing many problems pls. help me out. The case is as follows: Premier Co. Ltd company put up the air conditioning plant on the terrace of one bulding jsut above SMS provider Co.Ltd office premises. Now SMS provide co. moved to court containing plant is causing nuisance because of vibration and noise emanating from it. The have also contended the vibration had caused cracks in the wall and ceilings of their office. Hence provide me arguments in favour of defendant/respondent and in which court. It is urgent.




Expert : PS Dhingra, dcgroup1962@gmail.

Posted On 05 March 2011 at 12:15

Hi Sarika,

Of course, it is a very good matter of discussion and argument.

If we take the word 'nuisance', as per the Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law, it denotes, "something (an act, object, or practice) that invades or interferes with another's rights or interests (as the use or enjoyment of property) by being offensive, annoying, dangerous, obstructive, or unhealthful."

But, where the point of "Public Nuisance" comes to fore, as per the Legal Glossary", as issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Company Affairs, "Public Nuisance" is a "nuisance (i.e., obstructing a highway) that causes harm or annoyance to persons of particular locality in violation of their rights as members of the community."

So, there is a marking difference between the term "nuisance" and the "public nuisance."

On the other hand Section 268 of the IPC provides--

"A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does not act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right."

"A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage."

SO, in this case, a question arises here, whether the "Premier Co. Ltd" or the "SMS provider company" are the owners of the buildings enjoying full rights of the properties, or are any one of them or both are the tenants, enjoying limited rights.

Still further question arises, if the Premier Co. Ltd. is the owner of is property and the SMS provider company is only the tenant of some one, the rights of the later cannot override the rights of the former party (Premier Co.) unless the building owner of the SMS provider company or the other neighbors or the people living in the vicinity don't feel any type of nuisance or have no complaint on operation of he AC plant. In that case only the SMS provider company feels the individual nuisance, not the public of the locality.

But, if the Premier Co. Ltd., is of the status of a tenant and the SMS provider company has the status of an owner of his office building, naturally the right of the later (SMS provider company) is being violated by the Premier Co. Ltd., and can be retrained from doing that, may that the SMS provider be the sole neighbor that is being disturbed or being harmed,.

But in both the cases they have to prove their ownership and rights prior to arriving at some judgment.

So, on these clues you can base your argument in the moot court.

PS Dhingra
Chief Executive Officer
Dhingra Group of Management & Vigilance Consultants
New Delhi-110089
Mobile: 09968076381
[dcgroup1962@gmail.com]



Expert : Advocate. Arunagiri

Posted On 05 March 2011 at 12:16

You are a student, you have to prepare the project. Then only you can learn.



Author : Sarika

Posted On 05 March 2011 at 12:32

Thanks Mr. Dhingra Sir. but i have query that if both are the tenants in what will the arguments in favour of Premier Brand Co. Ltd. because there is not much points to defend in favour of Premier Brand Co.



Expert : PS Dhingra, dcgroup1962@gmail.

Posted On 05 March 2011 at 23:30

Dear Sarika,

In my opinion, in the name of public nuisance, unless it is really proved to be a nuisance to the general public, or other neighbors, or the involvement of the owners of the property is not made, a single party's claim, being merely a tenant should not sustain. It could have been a case of nuisance to the SMS provider company individually, but not others are feeling the pinch of the so called public nuisance, not even the owner of the building, where SMS provider company is located. However, being a tenant, the SMS provider company can shift its office to a suitable place, where it cannot feel any nuisance.

PS Dhingra



Expert : PS Dhingra, dcgroup1962@gmail.

Posted On 05 March 2011 at 23:30

Dear Sarika,

In my opinion, in the name of public nuisance, unless it is really proved to be a nuisance to the general public, or other neighbors, or the involvement of the owners of the property is not made, a single party's claim, being merely a tenant should not sustain. It could have been a case of nuisance to the SMS provider company individually, but not others are feeling the pinch of the so called public nuisance, not even the owner of the building, where SMS provider company is located. However, being a tenant, the SMS provider company can shift its office to a suitable place, where it cannot feel any nuisance.

PS Dhingra


Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved Lawyersclubindia expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login ( Members Login ) now







Similar Queries :










Quick Links



Browse By Category



Subscribe to Experts Feed
Enter your email to receive Experts Updates: