Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858 which is that the parent source of the law concerning the liability of the government provides: “All persons and political bodies will and may have and take comparable suits, for India as they may have done against the said Company.” This Provision was proceeded by Article 300(1) of the Constitution of India which peruses: “The Governor of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union and therefore the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and should, subject to any provisions which can be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relevance their respective affairs within form cases because the Dominion of India and so the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States may have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.”Ī servant of the plaintiff Company was proceeding from Garden Beach of Calcutta in an exceeding carriage drawn by a pair of horses belonging to the plaintiff, and driven by the coachman in their course of employment. The seldom quoted authority on the development of Section 65 of the 1858 Act is that the decision of the Supreme Court of Calcutta rendered in 1861 within the case of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. ![]() This crucial embodiment of common law decision still has some valid crucial headings and influence most of the present times relating to vicarious liability and disputes to establish liability on a sole individual or group of the organization. Secretary of State for India, as this was the first case during which the excellence between sovereign functions and non-sovereign functions was made. The classic decision on the subject is that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. Secretary of State for India The judgment was given great distance back in 1861 when the notion “The King can do no wrong” was still prevalent under English Common Law and thus, the King wasn’t to blame for the wrongs of its servants. in Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. In India the story of the birth of the doctrine of exemption begins with the selection of Peacock C.J. (Pre-constitution case, still applicable, based on Vicarious Liability, Law of Torts) Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858 equated the liability of the Secretary of State for India with that of the East India Company. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company ![]() Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |