art. 300-tortious claim against state

While reading the famous Kasturi lal v. state of U.P case (Art.300) I was struck by a query.

If I was the  respondent's advocate( State advocate) then how will I argue before the honourable Supreme court that the case is not maintainable? How will I support this arguement ?

My try towards this question-

I could point out several precedents such as P.O Steam Navigation case and say that the state cannot be held liable for the acts of its employees as they had a statutory power to exercise and thus the case cannot be maintained.


Legal Consultancy/Advocate

How will you support the argument - it si the well established Law that in the COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT any act to done by the employees would be done as if representing the organisation. Thus the case is maintainable and the company/GOVT liable.

to go further into the matter ask yourself one maore point, when an employee is travellin to and from from his home to office and return, would that be considered as in due course of the employment




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



IPC Grand Course     |    x