UG-CLAT LEGAL REASONING QUIZ 8

The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.

By ‘damnum’ is meant damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, service, health or the like. In another words, it means loss without injury or harm. This is not actionable. If by action of Mr. X injury is caused to Mr. Y but no legal right is violated, no action will lie.

In the Gloucester Grammar School,(1441) YB II Henry IV Case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, purposefully opened a school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased competition, the plaintiff has had to reduce the fees. It was determined that even though the plaintiff suffered harm, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant could not be held liable.Hawford J. remarked as follows in this case: - Damnum may be obsque injuria, as if I have a will and my neighbour puts up another will whereby the profit of my will is diminished. I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged.

The maxim ‘Injuria sine damnum’means infringement of private legal right without damage or loss. In such a case the person in whom the legal right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages although he has suffered no actual loss or harm.

In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election, and the defendant, a returning officer in the election. The defendant wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, as a result of the defendant's wrongful act of allowing the candidate for whom he wishes to vote in the election, the plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the defendant was held liable.

What does maxim ‘Damnum sine injuria’ mean?

The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.

By ‘damnum’ is meant damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, service, health or the like. In another words, it means loss without injury or harm. This is not actionable. If by action of Mr. X injury is caused to Mr. Y but no legal right is violated, no action will lie.

In the Gloucester Grammar School,(1441) YB II Henry IV Case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, purposefully opened a school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased competition, the plaintiff has had to reduce the fees. It was determined that even though the plaintiff suffered harm, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant could not be held liable.Hawford J. remarked as follows in this case: - Damnum may be obsque injuria, as if I have a will and my neighbour puts up another will whereby the profit of my will is diminished. I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged.

The maxim ‘Injuria sine damnum’means infringement of private legal right without damage or loss. In such a case the person in whom the legal right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages although he has suffered no actual loss or harm.

In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election, and the defendant, a returning officer in the election. The defendant wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, as a result of the defendant's wrongful act of allowing the candidate for whom he wishes to vote in the election, the plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the defendant was held liable.

Ashby vs. White case explains

The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.

By ‘damnum’ is meant damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, service, health or the like. In another words, it means loss without injury or harm. This is not actionable. If by action of Mr. X injury is caused to Mr. Y but no legal right is violated, no action will lie.

In the Gloucester Grammar School,(1441) YB II Henry IV Case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, purposefully opened a school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased competition, the plaintiff has had to reduce the fees. It was determined that even though the plaintiff suffered harm, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant could not be held liable.Hawford J. remarked as follows in this case: - Damnum may be obsque injuria, as if I have a will and my neighbour puts up another will whereby the profit of my will is diminished. I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged.

The maxim ‘Injuria sine damnum’means infringement of private legal right without damage or loss. In such a case the person in whom the legal right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages although he has suffered no actual loss or harm.

In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election, and the defendant, a returning officer in the election. The defendant wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, as a result of the defendant's wrongful act of allowing the candidate for whom he wishes to vote in the election, the plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the defendant was held liable.

Mr. X has an account in a bank. He has sufficient fund in his account, and his account is in operation mode. Mr. X drawn a cheque to bank for making payment, but the banker refused to honour the cheque.Will the banker be liable for his act?

The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.

By ‘damnum’ is meant damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, service, health or the like. In another words, it means loss without injury or harm. This is not actionable. If by action of Mr. X injury is caused to Mr. Y but no legal right is violated, no action will lie.

In the Gloucester Grammar School,(1441) YB II Henry IV Case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, purposefully opened a school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased competition, the plaintiff has had to reduce the fees. It was determined that even though the plaintiff suffered harm, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant could not be held liable.Hawford J. remarked as follows in this case: - Damnum may be obsque injuria, as if I have a will and my neighbour puts up another will whereby the profit of my will is diminished. I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged.

The maxim ‘Injuria sine damnum’means infringement of private legal right without damage or loss. In such a case the person in whom the legal right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages although he has suffered no actual loss or harm.

In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election, and the defendant, a returning officer in the election. The defendant wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, as a result of the defendant's wrongful act of allowing the candidate for whom he wishes to vote in the election, the plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the defendant was held liable.

Maxim ‘Injuria sine damnum’ means:

The literal meaning of the maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria, is loss or damage in terms of money, property, or any physical loss that occurs without the infringement of any legal right. It is not actionable in law even if the act was intentional and done with the intent of causing harm to someone else but without infringing on the person's legal rights.

Damnum Sine Injuria is a maxim that refers to an injury suffered by the plaintiff but no violation of any legal right of a person has taken place. In such instances, where there is no violation of a legal right, but the plaintiff suffers injury or damage, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against the other for the same, as it is not actionable in law unless there is some infringement of a legal right.

By ‘damnum’ is meant damage in the sense of substantial loss of money, comfort, service, health or the like. In another words, it means loss without injury or harm. This is not actionable. If by action of Mr. X injury is caused to Mr. Y but no legal right is violated, no action will lie.

In the Gloucester Grammar School,(1441) YB II Henry IV Case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, purposefully opened a school in front of the plaintiff's school, causing him damage. As a result of increased competition, the plaintiff has had to reduce the fees. It was determined that even though the plaintiff suffered harm, there was no infringement of any legal right, and thus the defendant could not be held liable.Hawford J. remarked as follows in this case: - Damnum may be obsque injuria, as if I have a will and my neighbour puts up another will whereby the profit of my will is diminished. I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged.

The maxim ‘Injuria sine damnum’means infringement of private legal right without damage or loss. In such a case the person in whom the legal right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may recover damages although he has suffered no actual loss or harm.

In the case of Ashby vs. White, the plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election, and the defendant, a returning officer in the election. The defendant wrongfully refused to accept the plaintiff's vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no financial loss, as a result of the defendant's wrongful act of allowing the candidate for whom he wishes to vote in the election, the plaintiff's legal rights were violated, and thus the defendant was held liable.

If Ramesh opened a medical store in front of the medical store of Madan. Because of the competition Madan had to give more discount, and consequently suffered major losses. Which maxim will be applied here?

The word “Talak” comes from the root “Tallaka” which means ‘to release’ or ‘to make a wife free from the bondage of marriage’. The word is usually rendered as repudiation. In other words, Talak means the exercise of the absolute power which the husband possesses of divorcing his wife at all times. According to Muslim law, any husband, who is of sound mind and has attained puberty, may divorce his wife whenever he desires without assigning any reason, at his mere whim or caprice. Talak may be oral or in writing. – A talak may be affected (1) orally (by spoken words) or (2) by a written document called a Talaknama.

In Shayara Bano v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016, decided on 22 August, 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-biddat). In brief, Hon’ble Court has observed that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable and as a result any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place, and accordingly held it to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without discrimination. As regards Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “law in force” in Article 13 (1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Later on, 31 July, 2019, an act was passed to protect the rights of married Muslim women and to prohibit divorce by pronouncing Talaq by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. According to the section 2(c) of The Muslim women (Protection of rights on marriage) Act, 2019, ‘Talaq’ means talak-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.Section 3 of this act states that any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Here, 2(a) describes"electronic form" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished under section 4 of this act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife shall be-

The word “Talak” comes from the root “Tallaka” which means ‘to release’ or ‘to make a wife free from the bondage of marriage’. The word is usually rendered as repudiation. In other words, Talak means the exercise of the absolute power which the husband possesses of divorcing his wife at all times. According to Muslim law, any husband, who is of sound mind and has attained puberty, may divorce his wife whenever he desires without assigning any reason, at his mere whim or caprice. Talak may be oral or in writing. – A talak may be affected (1) orally (by spoken words) or (2) by a written document called a Talaknama.

In Shayara Bano v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016, decided on 22 August, 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-biddat). In brief, Hon’ble Court has observed that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable and as a result any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place, and accordingly held it to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without discrimination. As regards Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “law in force” in Article 13 (1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Later on, 31 July, 2019, an act was passed to protect the rights of married Muslim women and to prohibit divorce by pronouncing Talaq by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. According to the section 2(c) of The Muslim women (Protection of rights on marriage) Act, 2019, ‘Talaq’ means talak-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.Section 3 of this act states that any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Here, 2(a) describes"electronic form" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished under section 4 of this act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Punishment for pronouncing talaq having the effect of instantaneous divorceis referred in -

The word “Talak” comes from the root “Tallaka” which means ‘to release’ or ‘to make a wife free from the bondage of marriage’. The word is usually rendered as repudiation. In other words, Talak means the exercise of the absolute power which the husband possesses of divorcing his wife at all times. According to Muslim law, any husband, who is of sound mind and has attained puberty, may divorce his wife whenever he desires without assigning any reason, at his mere whim or caprice. Talak may be oral or in writing. – A talak may be affected (1) orally (by spoken words) or (2) by a written document called a Talaknama.

In Shayara Bano v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016, decided on 22 August, 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-biddat). In brief, Hon’ble Court has observed that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable and as a result any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place, and accordingly held it to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without discrimination. As regards Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “law in force” in Article 13 (1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Later on, 31 July, 2019, an act was passed to protect the rights of married Muslim women and to prohibit divorce by pronouncing Talaq by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. According to the section 2(c) of The Muslim women (Protection of rights on marriage) Act, 2019, ‘Talaq’ means talak-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.Section 3 of this act states that any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Here, 2(a) describes"electronic form" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished under section 4 of this act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

A talaq can be affected -

The word “Talak” comes from the root “Tallaka” which means ‘to release’ or ‘to make a wife free from the bondage of marriage’. The word is usually rendered as repudiation. In other words, Talak means the exercise of the absolute power which the husband possesses of divorcing his wife at all times. According to Muslim law, any husband, who is of sound mind and has attained puberty, may divorce his wife whenever he desires without assigning any reason, at his mere whim or caprice. Talak may be oral or in writing. – A talak may be affected (1) orally (by spoken words) or (2) by a written document called a Talaknama.

In Shayara Bano v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016, decided on 22 August, 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-biddat). In brief, Hon’ble Court has observed that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable and as a result any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place, and accordingly held it to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without discrimination. As regards Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “law in force” in Article 13 (1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Later on, 31 July, 2019, an act was passed to protect the rights of married Muslim women and to prohibit divorce by pronouncing Talaq by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. According to the section 2(c) of The Muslim women (Protection of rights on marriage) Act, 2019, ‘Talaq’ means talak-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.Section 3 of this act states that any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Here, 2(a) describes"electronic form" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished under section 4 of this act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

What is punishment given to Muslim husband who pronounces talak?

The word “Talak” comes from the root “Tallaka” which means ‘to release’ or ‘to make a wife free from the bondage of marriage’. The word is usually rendered as repudiation. In other words, Talak means the exercise of the absolute power which the husband possesses of divorcing his wife at all times. According to Muslim law, any husband, who is of sound mind and has attained puberty, may divorce his wife whenever he desires without assigning any reason, at his mere whim or caprice. Talak may be oral or in writing. – A talak may be affected (1) orally (by spoken words) or (2) by a written document called a Talaknama.

In Shayara Bano v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016, decided on 22 August, 2017, Hon’ble Apex Court has set aside the practice of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-biddat). In brief, Hon’ble Court has observed that Triple Talaq is instant and irrevocable and as a result any attempt at reconciliation between the husband and wife by two arbiters from their families, which is essential to save the marital tie, cannot ever take place, and accordingly held it to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without discrimination. As regards Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “law in force” in Article 13 (1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq.

Later on, 31 July, 2019, an act was passed to protect the rights of married Muslim women and to prohibit divorce by pronouncing Talaq by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. According to the section 2(c) of The Muslim women (Protection of rights on marriage) Act, 2019, ‘Talaq’ means talak-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.Section 3 of this act states that any pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or in any other manner whatsoever, shall be void and illegal. Here, 2(a) describes"electronic form" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Any Muslim husband who pronounces talaq referred to in section 3 upon his wife shall be punished under section 4 of this act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The pronouncement of talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife may be -