A project report on

“Analysis Of The Term Wrongful Act As a Constituent Of a

Tort Claim”

Academic Session: 2015-16

SUBIMTTED TO: SUBMITTED BY
Amrita Mishra Alka Lakra
(Faculty of law) B.B.A.L.L.B (HONS)
1ST SEM
MU15BBALLB02

MATS LAW SCHOOL

MATS UNIVERSITY
ACKONWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project

required a lot of guidance and assistance from many
people.
I am extremely fortunate to have got this all along the
completion of my project work whatever I have done
only due to such guidance and assistance and I would
not forget to thank them.
I respect and thank Mrs. Amrita Mishra for giving
me an opportunity to do the project work on
“Wrongful Act”.
Thanks to all helped me in finishing it and special
thanks to my brother and friends for their support and
cooperation.
I really enjoyed making this project a very big
thanks to everyone who helped me to make a good
project for giving me your precious time which really
means a lot to me.
Yours sincerely
Alka lakra

2
Table of Cases

1. “RADHU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ON (14 SEP , 2007)”

2. “Cbi vs . 1) Inspector Satpal Sharma S/O ... on 13 November,
2013”
3. “P. Viswanathan vs Dr. A.K. Burman And Anr. on 8 October,
2002”

3
Table of content
Title Page no.
Introduction 5-6
Nature of torts 7-8
Constituent of torts 9-20
Cases 21-26
Recommendation and suggestion 27
Conclusion 28
References 29

4
Introduction

Law of tort is concerned with the allocation and distribution of losses. This is the
branch of law governing actions for damages for injuries to private legal rights, for
example, right to property, right to personal security, right to personal reputation,
etc. The word “tort” means in law, a wrong or injury which deals with situations
where a person's actions cause harm to society in general which has certain
characteristics. Its most important characteristics is that it is redressible in an
action for damages at the instance of the injured person. Here the injured person
can get damages from the wrong doer to the satisfaction of his injury.
 
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a
common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the
breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.
Tort law deals with situations where a person's behavior has unfairly caused
someone else to suffer loss or harm. A tort is not necessarily an illegal act but
causes harm. The law allows anyone who is harmed to recover their loss. Tort law
is different from criminal law, which deals with situations where a person's
actions cause harm to society in general. A claim in tort may be brought by
anyone who has suffered loss. Criminal cases tend to be brought by the state,
although private prosecutions are possible.
 
A person who suffers a tortuous injury is entitled to receive compensation for
"damages", usually monetary, from the person or people responsible — or liable

5
— for those injuries. Tort law defines what a legal injury is and, therefore,
whether a person may be held liable for an injury they have caused. Legal injuries
are not limited to physical injuries. They may also include emotional, economic, or
reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional
rights. Tort cases therefore comprise such varied topics as auto accidents,false
imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer
products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts),
among many others.
 
In much of the common law world, the most prominent tort liability is negligence.
If the injured party can prove that the person believed to have caused the injury
acted negligently – that is, without taking reasonable care to avoid injuring others
– tort law will allow compensation.

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Analysis-of-the-term-Wrongful-Act-as-
a-constituent-of-a-Tort-Claim-5261.asp#.VlFiI1UrJD8

6
Nature of torts
a) Definition of torts

According to ‘Pollock’: An act which causes harm to a determinant person

whether intentional or not being a breach of duty arising out of a personal
relation or contract and which is either contrary to law or an omission of a
specific legal duty.

b) Tort and Contract

There is a well marked distinction between a contract and tort .A contract is

founded upon consent: A tort is inflicted against or without consent .A
contract necessitates privity between the parties to it : In tort no privity is
needed. A tort must also be distinguished from a pure breach of contract .

c) Tort and quasi-contract

Quasi-contract cover those situation where a person is held liable to another

without any agreement for money or benefit by him to which the other person
is better entitled.

d)Tort and crime

a tort is also widely different from crime . a tort is an infringement or privation

of private or civil right belonging to individuals considered as individuals

7
whereas a crime is a breach of public right and duties which affect the whole
community considered as a community .

8
Constituent of Torts
The law of torts is fashioned as an instrument for making people adhere to
standard of reasonable behavior and respect that rights and interest of one
another . this it does by protecting interest and by providing for situation
when a person whose protected interest is violated can recover
compensation for the loss suffered by him from the person who has
violated the same by interest here is meant a claim want or desire of a
human being or group of human beings which the human being or group of
human being seeks to satisfy and of which therefore the ordering of human
relation and civilized society must take account .it is however obvious that
every want or desire of a person cannot be protected nor can a person
claim that whenever he suffered loss therefore determines what interest
need protection and it also holds the balance then there is a conflict of
protected interest. An act which infringes are legal right is a wrongful act
but every wrongful act is not a tort to constituent of a tort or civil injury
there must be a wrongful committed by a person the wrongful act must
give rise to legal damage or actual damage.

Essentials or constituents of tort.

1. Wrongful act or omission.

 

2. Wrongful act or omission must result in a legal damages.

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

9
1) Wrongful Act;

The first essential ingredient in constituting a tort is that a person must have
committed a wrongful act or omission i.e., he must have committed a breach of
that duty which has been fixed by law itself. The question, therefore, arises what
then in law, a duty is. It may mean that there is some legal limitation or restriction
on the conduct of a person that he should behave in such a manner as a
reasonable person would have behaved in like circumstances. If a person does not
observe that duty like a reasonable and prudent person or breaks it intentionally,
he is deemed to have committed a wrongful act. A wrongful act may be a positive
ace or an omission which can be committed by a person either negligently or
intentionally or even by committing a breach of strict duty. For example, if a
person drives his motor cycle at an excessive speed in violation of law or fails to
perform a duty as required by law, or beats a person in order to take revenge or
keeps a lion on his land which escapes and injures a person on the road, he can be
made liable for positive wrongful act or omission in negligence, battery or breach
of strict duty, as the case may be.
 
But it may be noted that, a breach of merely moral or religious duty will not
suffice; it must be a duty primarily fixed by law. For example, once Miss A was
seriously ill and she was all alone in her house. She requested her neighbour B to
look-after her. B did this i.e., he brought medicines, cooked food for her and
served her also. She became alright .After sometime B fell ill and by chance he
was alone in his house. He then requested Miss A to look –after him. But Miss a
never acceded to his request with the result B suffered a lot and became disabled.

10
In this case Mr. B cannot take any legal action against Miss A as the duty is simply
a moral duty and has not been fixed by the law itself.
 
Even if it is a breach of a religious duty, which is not imposed by law, an action
cannot be maintained. A case worth mentioning in this area is of  DHADPHALE V.
GURAV (1881) 8 BOM122. In this case the facts briefly were that Dhadphale, a
servant of the Hindu temple, had a right to get the food offered to the idol. The
defendant Mr. Gurav, was under an obligation to the idol to offer the food, but he
did not do so. The servant, therefore, brought a suit against him for damages. It
was held by the court that the defendant was under no legal obligation to supply
food to the temple’s servant, and though, his omission to supply food to the idol
might involve loss to the plaintiff, it was a breach of religious duty, and could not
entitle the plaintiff to maintain a suit.
 
Roger V. Ranjendro Dutt. The court held that, The complained of should, under
the consequences, be legally wrongful, as regard the part complaining. That is’it
must prejudicially  affect him in some right, merely that it will however directly do
harm in his interest is not enough.
 
So, therefore, duty must be from the very first must fixed by law. But if an act has
been done by a person involuntarily or under the influence of pressing danger, he
will not be deemed to have committed a breach of legal duty. Again if an act or
omission is done under some lawful excuse, it would not amount to breach of
legal duty or a wrongful act. For example, a police officer in following a thief

11
trespassed the land of Mr. B. Here the police officer will not be deemed to have
committed a breach of legal duty because of lawful excuse or justification.
 
The crucial test of a breach of legal duty or a legally wrongful act or omission,
however, is its prejudicial effect on its legal right of another person which is dealt
with under the heading legal damage i.e., “infringement of private legal right”,
the second essential of tort. Because without injuria (i.e., infringement of private
legal right) a person does not become a tort- feasor, although he might have
committed a breach of legal duty. For example, driving of a motor-cycle on the
wrong side is a breach of legal duty and is not actionable in tort unless somebody
is injured.

2) Wrongful act or omission must result in a legal

damages;

In general, a tort consists of some act done by a person who causes injury to
another, for which damages are claimed by the latter against the former. In this
connection we must have a clear notion with regard to the words damage
and damages. The word damage is used in the ordinary sense of injury or loss or
deprivation of some kind, whereas damages mean the compensation claimed by
the injured party and awarded by the court. Damages are claimed and awarded
by the court to the parties. The word injury is strictly limited to an actionable
wrong, while damage means loss or harm occurring in fact, whether actionable as
an injury or not.
 

12
The real significance of a legal damage is illustrated by two maxims, namely,
Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno.
 
(i) Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage Without Injury)
 
There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful and give no right of
action to him who suffers from their effects. Damage so done and suffered is
called Damnum Sine Injuria or damage without injury. Damage without breach of
a legal right will not constitute a tort. They are instances of damage suffered from
justifiable acts. An act or omission committed with lawful justification or excuse
will not be a cause of action though it results in harm to another as a combination
in furtherance of trade interest or lawful user of one’s own premises. In
Gloucester Grammar School Master Case , it had been held that the plaintiff
school master had no right to complain of the opening of a new school. The
damage suffered was mere damnum absque injuria or damage without injury.
Acton v. Blundell , in which a mill owner drained off underground water running
into the plaintiff’s well, fully illustrate that no action lies fro mere damage,
however substantial, caused without the violation of some right.
 
There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no remedy, though they cause
great loss or detriment. Los or detriment is not a good ground of action unless it is
the result of a species of wrong of which the law takes no cognizance.
 
(ii) Injuria Sine Damno ( injury without damage)
 

13
This means an infringement of a legal private right without any actual loss or
damage. In such a case the person whose right has been infringed has a good
cause of action. It is not necessary for him to prove any special damage because
every injury imports a damage when a man in hindered of his right. Every person
has an absolute right to property, to the immunity of his person, and to his
liberty, and an infringement of this right is actionable per se. actual perceptible
damage is not, therefore, essential as the foundation of an action. It is sufficient
to show the violation of a right in which case the law will presume damage. Thus
in cases of assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, trespass on land, etc., the
mere wrongful act is actionable without proof of special damage. The court is
bound to award to the plaintiff at least nominal damages if no actual damage is
proved. This principle was firmly established by the election case of Ashby v.
White, in which the plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from exercising his vote by
the defendants, returning officers in parliamentary election. The candidate for
whom the plaintiff wanted to give his vote had come out successful in the
election. Still the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the
defendants for maliciously preventing him from exercising his statutory right of
voting in that election. The plaintiff was allowed damages by Lord Holt saying that
there was the infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.

3) Wrongful act or omission must be of such nature

so as to give rise to a legal remedy.

The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ‘ubi jus ibi  remedium’
or ‘there is no wrong  without a remedy’. If a man has a right, he must  of

14
necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if he is injured
in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right
without remedy; want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.
 
Where there is no legal remedy there is no wrong. But even so the absence of a
remedy is evidence but is not conclusive that no right exists.
 
Therefore  if we mathematically try to explain tort, the following formula is
deducible:
 
Wrongful act + Legal damage + Legal remedy= Torts.
 
Some General Conditions In Torts.
 
Act And Omission- To constitute a tort there must be a wrongful act, whether of
omission or commission, but not such acts as are beyond human control and as
are entertained only in thoughts. An omission is generally not actionable but it is
so exceptionally. Where there is a duty to act an omission may create liability. A
failure to rescue a drowning child is not actionable, but it is so where the child is
one’s own. A person who voluntarily commences rescue cannot leave it half the
way. A person may be under duty to control natural happenings to his own land
so as to prevent them from encroaching others’ land.
 
Negligence
 

15
It is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise
in like circumstances.The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm
caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.
 
Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted
negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his
harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to
compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial
status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very
fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the
law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by
accidental injury.
 
Breach of duty
 
In Bolton v. Stone the English court was sympathetic to cricket players  Once it is
established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter
of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both
subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective) exposes the
plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant
who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which
any reasonable person [objective] in the same situation would clearly have
realized, also breaches that duty.
 

16
Breach of duty is not limited to professionals or persons under written or oral
contract; all members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care toward
others and their property. A person who engages in activities that pose an
unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm,
breaches their duty of reasonable care. An example is shown in the facts of Bolton
v. Stone, a 1951 legal case decided by theHouse of Lords which established that a
defendant is not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff was not a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of his conduct. In the case, a Miss Stone was struck on
the head by a cricket ball while standing outside her house. Cricket balls were not
normally hit a far enough distance to pose a danger to people standing as far
away as was Miss Stone. Although she was injured, the court held that she did not
have a legitimate claim because the danger was not sufficiently foreseeable. As
stated in the opinion, 'Reasonable risk' cannot be judged with the benefit of
hindsight. As Lord Denning said in Roe v. Minister of Health, the past should not
be viewed through rose coloured spectacles. Therefore, there was no negligence
on the part of the medical professionals in a case faulting them for using
contaminated medical jars because the scientific standards of the time indicated a
low possibility of medical jar contamination. Even if some were harmed, the
professionals took reasonable care for risk to their patients.
 
2. Voluntary and Involuntary Acts- a voluntary act has to be distinguished from an
involuntary act because the former may involve liability and the latter may not. A
self willed act like an encroachment for business, is voluntary, but an
encroachment for survival may be involuntary. The wrongfulness of the act and

17
the liability for it depends upon legal appreciation of the surrounding
circumstances.
 
3. Malice- malice is not essential to the maintenance of an action for tort. It is of
two kinds, ‘express malice’ (or malice in fact or actual malice) and ‘malice in law’
(or implied malice). The first is what is called malice in common acceptance and
means ill will against a person; the second means a wrongful act done
intentionally without just cause or excuse. Where a man has a right to do an act,
it is not possible to make his exercise of such right actionable by alleging or
proving that his motive in the exercise was spite or malice in the popular sense.
An act, not otherwise unlawful, cannot generally be made actionable by an
averment that it was done with evil motive.A malicious motive per se does not
amount to injuria or legal wrong.
 
Wrongful acts of which malice is an essential element are:

# Defamation,
# Malicious prosecution,
# Willful and malicious damage to property,
# Maintenance, and
# Slander of title.
 
4. Intention, motive, negligence and recklessness- The obligation to make
reparation for damage caused by a wrongful act arises from the fault and not
from the intention. Any invasion of the civil rights of another person is in itself a

18
legal wrong, carrying with it liability to repair it necessary or natural
consequences, in so far as these are injurious to the person whose right is
infringed, whether the motive which prompted it be good, bad or indifferent. A
thing which is not a legal injury or wrong is not made actionable by being done
with a bad intent. It is no defence to an action in tort for the wrong doer to plead
that he did not intend to cause damage, if damage has resulted owing to an act or
omission on his part which is actively or passively the effect of his volition. A want
of knowledge of the illegality of his act or omission affords no excuse, except
where fraud or malice is the essence of that act or omission. For every man is
presumed to intend and to know the natural and ordinary consequences of his
acts. This presumption is not rebutted merely by proof that he did not think of the
consequences or hoped or expected that they would not follow. The defendant
will be liable for the natural and necessary consequences of his act, whether he in
fact contemplated them or not.
 
5. Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance- The term ‘malfeasance’ applies to
the commission of an unlawful act. It is generally applicable to those unlawful
acts, such as trespass, which are actionable per se and do not require proof of
negligence or malice. The term ‘misfeasance’ is applicable to improper
performance of some lawful act. The term ‘non-feasance’ applies to the failure or
omission to perform some act which there is an obligation to perform.
 
6. Fault- Liability for tort generally depends upon something done by a man which
can be regarded as a fault for the reason that it violates another man’s right.
 

19
But liability may also arise without fault. Such liability is known as absolute or
strict liability. An important example is the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher thus the two
extremes of the law of tort are of non liability even where there is fault or liability
without fault. Between these two extremes is the variety of intentional and
negligent wrongs to the question whether there is any consistent theory of
liability, all that can be said is that it wholly depends upon flexible public policy,
which in turn is a reflection of the compelling social needs of the time.
 

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Analysis-of-the-term-Wrongful-Act-as-
a-constituent-of-a-Tort-Claim-5261.asp#.VlFrOVUrJD8

20
“ CASES”

I. “RADHU VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ON (14 SEP ,

2007)”

In this appeal by special leave by the accused, the judgment of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh dated 12.9.2003 in Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1993, affirming
the judgment dated 25.5.1993 in Sessions Trial No.127/1991 passed by the II
Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, convicting and sentencing the accused
under sections 376, 323 and 342/34, is under challenge.

In brief the prosecution case is as follows : On 28.1.1991 at about 8 p.m.,

prosecutrix Sumanbai, went to a shop for purchasing some groceries. On her way
to the shop, Gyarsibai, a relative, invited her to come inside her house. When she
entered Gyarsibai's house, her son Radhu who was in the room came out,
dragged her inside the room and confined her in the room during the entire night.
During the night, he sexually assaulted her by inserting his penis in her vagina
twice. When she cried, Radhu gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth. Radhu
freed her only the next day (Tuesday) morning. She went back to her house and
told her mother Lalithabai (PW-4) about the incident. As her father Mangilal (PW-
7) had gone out of town, her mother sent Dinesh to inform him about the
incident. When her father returned on 30.1.1991, she along with her father went
from their village Umarkhali to Barud where they met their relative Ram Lal and
his wife and Gulabbai (PW-5) and she told Ramlal about the incident. Thereafter,
they also accompanied her and her father to the Barud Police Station where her

21
oral report was recorded by the officer in charge of the Police Station (PW9) as a
First Information Report

The FIR states that one Dinesh was sent by Lalithabai to fetch her husband.
Lalitabai and Mangilal have stated that they did not know anyone by the name
Dinesh. Sumanbai stated in her evidence that on 29.1.1991, as her father was
away, her brother-in-law went to bring back her father, that the name of her
brother-in-law is Ramesh, but the SHO wrongly wrote his name as 'Dinesh'. But
none else mentioned about such a mistake. Neither Ramesh nor Dinesh was
examined.

The evidence of the prosecutrix when read as a whole, is full of discrepancies and
does not inspire confidence. The gaps in the evidence, the several discrepancies in
the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such an
incident ever took place. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
defence had failed to prove that Mangilal, father of prosecutrix was indebted to
Radhu's father Nathu and consequently, defence of false implication of accused
should be rejected. Attention was invited to the denial by the mother and father
of the prosecutrix, of the suggestion made on behalf of the defence, that
Sumanbai's father Mangilal was indebted to Radhu's father Nathu and because
Nathu was demanding money, they had made the false charge of rape, to avoid
repayment. The fact that the defence had failed to prove the indebtedness of
Mangilal or any motive for false implication, does not have much relevance, as
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges. We are satisfied that the
evidence does not warrant a finding of guilt at all, and the Trial Court and High
Court erred in returning a finding of guilt.

22
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below and
acquit the accused of all charges.

II. “Cbi vs . 1) Inspector Satpal Sharma S/O ... on 13

November, 2013”

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that a case bearing FIR No. 78/1997, u/s
363/364 IPCrelating to kidnapping of Master Arpan, grandson of local MLA
Suraj Paliwal was registered against unknown persons on 1.2.1997 at PS
Najafgarh. In the said case, one Ranbir was a suspect in the kidnapping,
therefore, earlier on 01.02.1997 his brother Raj Singh and later on his father
Ram Kishan was picked up on 02.02.1997 and both of them were being
interrogated at PS Najafgarh. On 5.2.1997, while he was interrogated, Ram
Kishan's wife Shanti Devi had come to PS Najafgarh with food and had talked
to her husband and had given him food. Thereafter she had come out of the
room and was allegedly in a sad state of mind and on being asked by Lady
Constable Santosh, she had told her that her son had done a wrong thing by
kidnapping a child and now the police might have interrogated all the family
members and relatives which could RC NO.5 (S)/98 CBI vs. Satpal Sharma etc.
1/22 have been very humiliating for the entire family. Thereafter she had
started climbing the stairs and lady constable Santosh had tried to stop her but
she had managed to climb up and had jumped down from the roof of the
Police Station and had tried to commit suicide. Thereafter she was taken to the
hospital by Addl. SHO PS Najafgarh Satpal Sharma. She had expired at R.M.
Lohiya Hospital on 5.2.1997 at 7.45 PM. A complaint regarding the committing
of suicide by Shanti Devi, was made by Const. Santosh and on her complaint
23
FIR No. 90 of 1997 was registered at PS Najafgarh, Delhi under Section 309 IPC.
Since Shanti Devi had expire in police custody, therefore, enquiry u/s
176 Cr.P.C. was conducted by the SDM Najafgarh and he had observed that
there was a need for a thorough probe by an independent agency into the
circumstances of Shanti Devi's death and accordingly on the recommendation
of SDM instant case was transferred to CBI. In view of my aforesaid detailed
discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that investigating agency has
miserably failed to place such material on record in the form of prima facie
evidence sufficient enough to frame any charge for any of the offences alleged
to have been committed by either of the accused persons. Accordingly,
accused Satpal Sharma and Anand Prakash are discharged from the allegations
of the offences under Section 304A/342/343 IPC. Bail bonds and surety bonds
of both the accused persons have been cancelled and discharged. However,
they are directed to furnish their bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. in
the sum of Rs. 15,000/ each within ten days from the date of this order.

III. “P. Viswanathan vs Dr. A.K. Burman And Anr. on 8

October, 2002”
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge
of this Court dated 21st August 2000 rendered in Writ Petition No. 99 of 1999. By
this judgment and order the learned single Judge granted part relief to the writ
petitioner being the respondent No. 1 by directing the respondent No. 2 to pay a
sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation with liberty to realize this amount of
compensation or a part thereof from the respondent No. 2, viz., the appellant
herein. Further liberty has been granted to the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1

24
to file a suit for damages against the respondents, viz., the appellant and the
respondent No. 2 herein or any other officer against whom personal acts of
malice, misfeasance or malfeasance might be pleaded and proved.This case has
chequered history which is put in a narrow compass as follows.The respondent
No. 1 at the relevant time was a registered medical practitioner and on the date
of filing of the writ petition he had completed his practice for 16 years in a
chamber situated at Kalpana Medical Store at Goalghar in the town of Port Blair.
Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the then Superintendent of Police being the
appellant the writ petitioner was arrested. The complaint was lodged purported
to be under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 4
of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (TADA for short).
After being arrested the petitioner was placed in confinement followed by raid in
his house. The petitioner had to remain in custody for about 100 days before he
was granted bail by the Court on 13th December, 1993. Even after being released
on bail the case of the petitioner remained pending for more than four years as
no charge-sheet was submitted. On submission of charge-sheet the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair upon considering the charges and the materials in
support thereof produced declined to frame any charge holding that no case had
been made out for proceeding against the petitioner. We are told that the
amount of compensation has been paid by the Government but we are not
directing the Government to ask for refund of the same for the time being and we
simply set aside the direction of the Learned Trial Judge for recovery of the same
from the respondent No. 2. The appeal is allowed to the extent as above.All
points are kept reserved for decision in the suit and the payment which has been
made pursuant to the order of the Learned Trial Judge will abide by the result of

25
the suit. There will be no order as to costs.Let the records together with judgment
of this case delivered today be sent to the Circuit Bench of this Court at Port Blair
by the Registrar General of this Court as early as possible after the judgment is
signed.

http://indiankanoon.org/search/?
formInput=related+case+for+wrongful+confinement

26
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
 

Wrongful act is a very wide term in tort. Effort should be made that every time
the act or omission should be interpreted so properly, effectively and efficiently
so that the injured party could be satisfied to the fullest and therefore there is no
chance of complaints from both the parties. Now in this era of complex society
there are numerous wrongful acts which are being committed in our day today
life but some acts are of such nature which are committed only because the fear
of committing that act is very less due to the less amount of unliquidated
damages for the same. So the interpreters should consider this thing in account.
There is also lack of awareness in India, the acts which should be resolve under
law of tort are being prosecuted under CrPc. So steps should be taken to
enlighten this area also.

27
CONCLUSION

 
As we say Law of tort is concerned with the allocation and distribution of losses to
the injured party so for this purpose commitment of ‘wrongful act or omission’ is
the first step in constituting the tort. There are many acts which though harmful
are not wrongful and give no right of action to him who suffers from their
effects.Damage without breach of a legal right will not constitute a tort. On the
other hand if there is an infringement of a legal private right without any actual
loss or damage in such a case the person whose right has been infringed has a
good cause of action.Every act which is wrongful (in the eyes of law) calls for an
unliquidated damages, amount of which is further asserted by court accordingly.
The claim differs from person to person and from act to act for e.g. if a person
abuses a person like any person from general public and if a person abuses the
President of our country then in both the cases the amount of damages will be
different as no doubt both the acts are wrongful acts but both the persons cannot
be compare equally.
 
So ‘wrongful act’resulting in legal damage and legal remedy is the fundamental
and principle requirement in constituting the the tort without which no question
of claim arises .

28
REFERENCES
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. THE LAW OF TORTS BY RATAN LAL AND DHIRAJLAL
2. UNIVERSALS GUIDE TO CLAT & LL.B. 2015-2016
 WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Analysis-of-the-term-
Wrongful-Act-as-a-constituent-of-a-Tort-Claim-
5261.asp#.VlFiI1UrJD8

2. http://indiankanoon.org/search/?
formInput=related+case+for+wrongful+confinement

3. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Analysis-of-the-term-
Wrongful-Act-as-a-constituent-of-a-Tort-Claim-
5261.asp#.VlFrOVUrJD8

29
30