• Nihaal Chand vs. Jehan Khan
•  Sreekrishnan vs. Kurukshethra University
• Mohori Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose
• Mohori Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose

192.

The Government imposed a cap on the number of text messages sent per day, from every sim card, to 20, with immediate effect. These restrictions are to remain in force for 15 days. This action was taken against the backdrop of the exodus of north-eastern people from major cities of the country following a tide of rumours spread by text and multimedia messages that people hailing from the north-eastern states would be attacked to avenge a recent ethnic violence in one of the north-eastern states. Companies that were completely dependent upon this mode of communication for customer outreach protested against this cap on messages saying that it was infringing upon their freedom of speech and expression. Decide if it is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.

Principle: All citizens shall have the right
(i) to freedom of speech and expression;

(ii) to assemble peacefully and without arms;

(iii) to form associations or unions;

(iv) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(v) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(vi) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

However, the exercise of these rights is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State.

•  Yes, because the trade of many companies are being affected.
• No, because the restrictions are reasonable and have been imposed due to internal security concerns
• Yes, because the Government is imposing a ban on how much we can communicate.
• Yes, because the Government is imposing a ban on how much we can communicate.

•  From a dishonourable cause an action does not arise.
•  If there is a right, there is always a remedy.
• Damage without legal injury is not actionable.
• Damage without legal injury is not actionable.

• Adversarial System 
•  Judicial System
• Inquisitorial System 
• Inquisitorial System 

• Rights in rem. 
• Rights in personam
• Rights ad infinitum
• Rights ad infinitum

Valkatamma was suffering from a health condition in her stomach which required her to go through a surgery that involved cutting her stomach open as per the advice of her doctor, Dr Chembunarayan. Though the operation was successful, after a few weeks, she started suffering from an infection which was a result of her stomach being cut open for the surgery though all the reasonable precautions to avoid any such infection had been taken by the group of surgeons who operated upon her. She visited another doctor, Dr Kuttalalingam, after the development of this infection, and he told her that even a laser surgery could have cured her stomach ailment without exposing her to the risk of infection. However, as a matter of fact, there were many doctors in the country who supported the advice given by Dr Chembunarayan to cure her health condition, and there were many others who were of the same opinion as that of Dr Kuttalalingam. Nevertheless, Valkatamma sued Dr Chembunarayan. Decide.

Principle: A person is liable for the tort of negligence if he breaches a legal duty of care he owes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a damage resulting from this breach.

• Dr Chembunarayan will win because he had followed an accepted and established medical procedure. Moreover, reasonable precautions had been taken during the surgery
• Dr Chembunarayan will win because the only operation was his responsibility and the operation was successful. What happens post the operation is not his responsibility.
•  Dr Chembunarayan will lose unless he is able to prove that the practice he chose was better than the other practice in this case.
•  Dr Chembunarayan will lose unless he is able to prove that the practice he chose was better than the other practice in this case.

 Nitin started to drive his Tata Nano in the highway after gulping down two bottles of whiskey. Isaac was driving his Reva NXR with the headlights turned off. They collided resulting in an injury on Isaac’s head. Nitin, who was highly intoxicated, had only a narrow chance to avoid the collision, but because of the high levels of alcohol in his blood, he was unable to do so. Isaac sued Nitin for negligence. Will he succeed?

Principle: A person is liable for the tort of negligence if he breaches a legal duty of care he owes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a damage resulting from this breach.

• Yes, because Nitin should be taught a lesson.
• Yes, because Nitin breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people commuting on the highway.
• No, because Isaac provided Nitin with only a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.
• No, because Isaac provided Nitin with only a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.

During the Freshers’ Party of Beliaghata Law College, Saanchi pulled Aurobind’s shots. Aurobind started crying because his shots had been snatched away and decided to sue Saanchi for battery. Will Aurobind succeed in his claim?

Principle: The intentional use of force against another person without lawful justification constitutes the tort of battery.

• No, because Aurobind could easily have helped himself to another glass.
• Yes, because Saanchi had used force against Aurobind without lawful justification
• No, because law does not take note of trifles.
• No, because law does not take note of trifles.

Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?

Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.

• Yes, because the books were in Ranveer’s possession, and trespass is a tort against possession and not against ownership
• Yes, because she shouldn’t snatch things just like that. It is bad manners
• No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.
• No, because she was the rightful owner of the books.

• The judge needs a cause to condemn the accused.
•  No person can be a judge in his own cause.
• The judiciary is appointed for a cause, and they shall serve the cause till their last breath.
• The judiciary is appointed for a cause, and they shall serve the cause till their last breath.