In England, the Government was never seen as an 'honest man.' It's essential for the rule of law that the Crown, like other public authorities, should be legally responsible and accountable for wrongs done to its subjects. The significant increase in government activity from the late 19th century onwards made it unacceptable for the Government, representing the Crown, to be exempt from ordinary law. English law has always maintained that the King is subject to law and can breach it.
In India, the situation is different. The maxim 'the King can do no wrong' has never been accepted. The Union and the States are legal entities and can be held liable for breach of contract and tort. They can file lawsuits, and lawsuits can be filed against them.
Requirements
Written Contract
Execution by Authorized Person
Expression in the Name of President (Governor)
Non-compliance: Effect
Valid Contract: Effect
Quasi-contractual Liability
In Quasi-contractual Liability:
Key Case: Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa
Grant of State Largess
Contract of Service
Unconscionable Contracts
Statutory Contracts
28 docs|9 tests
|
1. What is contractual liability and how does it apply in legal agreements? |
2. Can you explain the doctrine of unjust enrichment and its relevance in tort law? |
3. What is the liability of the state in tort law, and under what circumstances can it be held liable? |
4. How does the doctrine of vicarious liability function in the context of employment? |
5. What constitutional provisions govern the liability of the government in India? |
|
Explore Courses for CLAT PG exam
|