Law Relating To Tort

Law relating to tort is an Uncodified (unwritten law), based on various general principles of Law

Tort (in French) means Wrong (English) or Civil Wrong for which no Remedy is provided by Law.

Wrongs are of Two Types:-
Civil Wrong (Private Wrong):- Wrong done to a particular person, for which Remedy is provided by Law.

Criminal Wrong (Public Wrong):- Wrong done to Entire Society. i.e. Tort deal only with that sorts of civil wrong for which there is no remedy in Law means it cant deal with Criminal Wrong or Civil wrong(for which there is remedy in Law).

Examples of Tort:
Passing off: - trespassing someone's property.
Rediff Communication Limited vs Cyberbooth.

General Condition of Law: 
Must be wrongful act or omission on the part of defendant.

Must be wrongful act or omission must result in causing the legal damage to the plaintiff.

Wrongful act or omission must be of such a nature as to give rise to legal remedy.

Legal Damage
Damnum Sine Injuria is not recognized.

Injuria sine damnum is recognized.

Kinds of tortious Liability
Strict Liability (origin of absolute liability) in U.K or absolute liability (in India)

Vicarious Liability.

For more information just go one step on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_v_Fletcher

The Legal Owner of India Believe It Or Not

The government placed admission to entertainment or access to amusement services" in the negative list – a new list for which there will be no service tax.

advertisements broadcast by television or radio, however, will be excluded from the negative list. what could hurt is the increase in service tax from 10 per cent to 12 per cent proposed in the budget for 2012-13.

Specially because of big cinema run by ambani's dont know why government has done so. it is useless.
As Earlier Exemption From Service Tax Were:
1}exemption to export
2}exemption to rbi
3}exemption to united nation
4}exemption to foreign diplomatic mission
5}exemption to digital cinema service provider (from this year) as we go through the above exempted list we can see that upto 5 its ok means its give some meaning in exemption ,but why for cinema exemption is needed its because of ambani big cinema .well done p.chidambram and well done ambani nice way to handle india's law in india mostly people like ambani dont go beyond the law they make the law in their favour ..

Still India Rocks

Written by Akhlak Raza

Gordon v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company , 2004 Conn. Super LEXIS 3409 (2004)

This was an arbitration in which the “party arbitrator” system was used (see Chapter 7) and resulted in a procedural impropriety which resulted in the court vacating the arbitration award. The plaintiffs’ home in Glastonbury, which lies on the banks of the Connecticut river, was accidentally flooded in March of 2002. When the parties failed to agree on an appraisal amount for the damages, the appraisal arbitration clause of the insurance policy kicked in. The clause read as follows: “If you and we fail to agree on the amount of the loss…each party will choose a competent appraiser…. The two appraisers will choose an umpire. If they cannot agree upon an umpire within 15 days, . . . The appraisers will separately set the amount of the loss. If they fail to agree, they will submit their differences to the umpire.

A decision agreed to by any two will set the amount of the loss.” Gordon at 2. In the Fall of 2003 the appraisers selected by each party inspected the property but could not agree on the amount of loss. Mr. Martin Woods was then selected by the two appraisers to act as umpire. It is the conduct of the umpire, Woods, which was fatal to the ultimate arbitration award. According to the court, the insurance company’s adjuster spoke with Woods prior to Woods being selected as the umpire, and the fact that this conversation took place was not disclosed until the court case following the arbitration. In addition, Woods conducted his own investigation into the damages, which is not itself extraordinary. The fact that he did not disclose these actions, however, was unusual, as the party appraisers would usually be told by the neutral of any additional investigation undertaken.

The court did not find that Woods was necessarily biased as an umpire, and actually wrote in the decision that this was “a fairly close case.” Gordon at 12. The court did ultimately find, however, that the ex parte conversations were adequate to constitute misconduct such that the award must be set aside, despite the fact that the nature of the conversations themselves were not shown to be prejudicial. The judge in Gordon cited the Connecticut arbitration statute, which closely follows the UAA as discussed in Chapter 7. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418 (2004) (a) (3) orders a court to vacate an arbitration award “if the arbitrators have been guilty of misconduct in… any other action by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.”

It is this catch-all provision which allowed the judge to hand down the decision in favor of the plaintiff in this case. In reading Gordon, is there enough evidence of “misconduct” on Woods' part to warrant the triggering of the catch-all provision and vacating the arbitration award? The provision does hold that there must be misconduct “by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.” Were the Gordons’ rights shown to have been prejudiced here, or is it there mere possibility of such, upon which the court relies in its decision?

Information About Ram Jethmalani (Lawyer)

Ram Jethmalani started his career as a professor in Pakistan before partition. He started his own law firm in Karachi with his friend A.K. Brohi who was senior to him by six years. In February 1948, when the riots broke out in Karachi, he fled to India on the advice of his friend Brohi who later turned to be the Law Minister of Pakistan.

Ram Jethmalani first came to spot light with his appearance in the famous K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra case in 1959 with Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud, later to become Chief Justice of India. His later defence of a string of smugglers in the late 1960s established Jethmalani’s image as a ‘smuggler’s lawyer’. Even back then, he would point out that he was only doing his duty as a lawyer.

In 1953 he became a part-time professor at the Government Law College, Mumbai for both graduate and post graduate studies. He also taught Comparative law at International Law at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.[9] He has also been the Chairman of Bar Council of India for four tenures both before and after the emergency. He was also a member of International Bar Association 1996.

Written By Akhlak Raza