LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Hareena V   13 October 2021

Intenstional tort

I need some case laws regarding intenstional tort


Learning

 2 Replies

Anusha Singh   13 October 2021

As per your query it is understood that you need information about intentional tort and some case laws on it.

Intentional tort

In order to commit an intentional tort, some action must be done with a purpose i.e there must be an intention to commit an act. For the welfare of the society, it is generally assumed that no one should attack the other person intentionally. For example, if you hit a person with an iron rod on the head, there was an intention to cause injury to that person in a particular way.

Intentional tort includes the following:

1.    Battery

2.    Assault

 

3.    False imprisonment:

In D.K.BASU v. STATE OF WEST-BENGAL In this case, the petitioners raised important issues concerning the police powers and if monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of Fundamental Rights, as under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The court held that Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. To check the abuse of police power, transparency of action and accountability were the two safeguards laid down by the court. The Court issued 11 directives where it spelled out the rights of an arrestee or a detainee and how the arresting or detaining authority is expected to behave, including the written record of arrest, informing of arrestee’s family of his arrest, a medical examination on request, among others.

 

4.    Trespass:

In Alka Lamba Trespass case AAP legislator Alka Lamba was today granted bail by a Delhi court after she appeared before it in a case of alleged trespassing and vandalizing a shop here and obstructing police from performing their duty last year. Metropolitan Magistrate Abhilash Malhotra gave the relief to Lamba on furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and surety of like amount. The court fixed June 3 for further proceedings in the case. Lamba was earlier summoned as accused in the case by the court which had taken cognizance of a charge sheet filed by police against her. She was charge-sheeted for alleged offenses under sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 427 (mischief causing damage to property), 451 (house-trespass) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

 

5.    Defamation:

In ARNAB GOSWAMI CASE OF SHASHI THAROOR, The Congress parliamentarian has accused the journalist Arnab Goswami of making baseless statements in connection with the death of his wife Sunanda Pushkar. The Congress leader, who represents Thiruvananthapuram in the Lok Sabha, filed the case in June, accusing Goswami of making baseless statements in connection with the death of his wife Sunanda Pushkar. A chief judicial magistrate’s court in Thiruvananthapuram had issued summons to Goswami, contending that there was enough material for a prima facie case against him.

Hope it helps!

 

Regards,

Anusha Singh

Ananya Gosain   18 October 2021

Greetings! Here are a few more important cases related to intentional torts-

  • Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. V. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath 

Although entry into the property may be legal, therefore, if possession continues even after permission has been given, it may amount to trespass ab initio. The corresponding concept of continuity of a civil mistake can be found in the Tort Law. Trespass in torts can be continued one. Again, if the entry was legal but is subsequently abused and continued after the permission has been determined, the infringement may be ab initio.

  • Cleary v. Booth, (1893) 1 Q.B. 465

Facts:  Booth (Defendant), a school headmaster, administered corporal punishment on two boys after learning that they had fought on the way to school. The defendant was charged with assault and battery and convicted for it. He appealed.

Held: The authority of a teacher to correct his students is not limited only to the wrongs which the student may commit upon the school premises but may also extend to the wrongs done by him outside the school, for “there is not much opportunity for a boy to exhibit his moral conduct while in school under the eye of the master, the opportunity is while he is at play or outside the school”.

Regards


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query