IN THE CIVIL COURT OF CALCUTTA

AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL SUIT NO../2014

UNDER THE

Under Section 9 of the Code of the Civil Procedure

-IN THE MATTER OF-

MR. ALOK BANERJEE..PLANTIFF

VERSUS
SHIPPING COMPANYDEFENDANT

Memorial on behalf of the Defendant

DRAWN AND FILED BY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

RASHI PANDIT
ROLL NO. 402
SEMESTER I A
1 | Page

TABLE OF CONTENT

Particular

Page No.

1. List of Abbreviations.3
2. Index of authorities....4
Books referred...4
Statues...4
Websites....4
List of cases...5
3. Statement of Jurisdiction...6
4. Statement of Facts.7
5. Statement of Issues8
6. Statement of Arguments9
7. Arguments Advanced10
8. Prayer.14

2 | Page

ABBREVIATIONS

&

And

A.I.R.

All India Reporter

Honble

Honorable

CPC

Civil Procedure Code

Sec

Section

Co.

Company

Vs.

Versus

Ltd.

Limited

Rs.

Rupees

3 | Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF BOOKS
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal - The Law of Torts. Twenty Sixth Edition
Dr. R.K. Bangia- Law of Torts. Twenty Second Edition

Ramaswamy Iyer's The Law of Torts, Tenth edition.

Winfield & Jolowicz's Tort, Eighteenth edition.

STATUTES
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

LIST OF WEBSITES
www.manupatra.com

www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
www.westlawindia.com
www.scconline.com

LIST OF CASES

4 | Page

1. Gloucester Grammar School Case,

(1410) Y.B. Hill10
2. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.
1892 A.C. 25...11
3. Bradford Corp. (Mayor of) v. Pickles,
(1895) A.C. 587..11
4. Vishnu Datta v. Board of H.S. & Intermediate education, U.P.
A.I.R. 1981 All. 4612
5. P. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma
A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 103...12

5 | Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff has approached this Honble Civil Court under Sec - 9 of CPC. The Defendant
humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Honble Civil Court.
The defendant has opposed the plaintiffs approach to the Civil Court of Calcutta under section 9
of The Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The counsel for the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of this
Civil Court which has the power under its jurisdiction under Section 9 of The Civil Procedure
Code to hear the present matter and adjudge accordingly which reads as:
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein
contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature expecting suits of which their
cognizance is either on expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation1. A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.
Explanation2. For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in explanation 1 or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place.

6 | Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Defendant most respectfully and humbly submits as under:

Mr. Sunil, Mr. Rajesh, Mr. Sanjeet & Mr. Sohan were the owner of a shipping
company.
They used to ship clothes from one port to another.
Mr. Ram and Mr. Shyam planned to join their business together.
Later all six of them agreed to run their business together with their head office in
Calcutta.
Offered special terms to new customers.
Mr. Alok Banerjee sued all the six partners for the loss caused to him because of the
competition in the market.

7 | Page

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Issue 1: Whether Damnum Sine Injuria applies in this case?

Issue 2: Whether the Plaintiff can claim compensation from the defendant?

8 | Page

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.

Whether Damnum Sine Injuria applies in this case?

It is humbly submitted before the Honble court that Damnum Sine Injuria applies
in this case. The Defendant did not infringe any legal rights of the plaintiff. They
have by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their
profit. In this case, the plaintiff did suffered damage but there was no legal injury.

II.

Whether the Plaintiff can claim compensation from the defendant?

It is humbly submitted before the Honble court that the plaintiff is not entitled of
any damages as no legal injury has been caused to the plaintiff by the defendant.
They all came together to extend their trade and increase their profit, which is not
wrong and it doesnt infringe any legal right of the plaintiff. So, no compensation
can be claimed by the plaintiff.

9 | Page

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: WHETHER DAMNUM SINE INJURIA APPLIES IN THIS CASE?

It is humbly contended before the honble court that Damnum Sine Injuria perfectly applies in
this case.
The legal maxim, Damnum Sine Injuria contains two very important terms, damnum and
injuria. Damnum means damage, whereas injuria stands for legal injury. It means damage
which is not coupled with an unauthorized interference with the plaintiffs lawful right. Causing
of damage, however substantial, to another person is not actionable in law unless there is also
violation of a legal right of the plaintiff.
Damnum may be abseque injuria, as if I have a mill and my neighbor builds another
mill whereby the profit of my mill is diminished, I shall have no action against him, although I
am damaged but if a miller disturbs the water from going to my mill, or does any nuisance
of the like sort, I shall have such action as the law gives.1
In the Gloucester Grammar School Case2, there the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival
school to that of the plaintiffs. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their fees
from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy
for the loss thus suffered by them. Thus, setting up a rival school by the defendant is not
actionable even though the plaintiff suffered loss because of competition.
Similarly in this case, the plaintiff suffered loss as the defendant gave offers to their new
customers but there was no legal damage.
1 Hankford J, Said
2 (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47, p. 21,36
10 | P a g e

In Mogul steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.,3 a number of steamship companies
combined together and drove the plaintiff company out of the tea-carrying trade by offering
reduced freight. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the
defendants had by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their profits.
Similarly in this case, the defendant was just exercising its right to free trade and the act done by
them was to extend their trade and gain profit.
Even if the Defendant had evil intent, they cannot be held liable for the compensation as, in
Bradford Corporation (Mayor of) v. Pickles,4 the house of lords held that even if the harm to
the plaintiff has been caused maliciously, no action can lie for the same unless the plaintiff can
prove that he has suffered injuria. Thus, a legal act though motivated by malice, will not make
the defendant liable.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this court that Damnum sine injuria arises in the
present case and the defendant is not liable for any damage suffered by the plaintiff.

3 (1892) A.C. 25
4 (1895) A.C. 587
11 | P a g e

Issue 2: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF CAN CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM THE

DEFENDANT?
It is humbly contended before this court that the defendant cannot be held liable to pay
compensation to the plaintiff as there is no legal injury or infringement of legal right in this case.
The plaintiff did suffer damage but such a case is not enforceable in law for damages. Claiming
compensation does not fall under any of the heads recognized in common law.
As said by Lord Wright, The mere fact that a man is injured by anothers act gives us in itself a
cause of action, if the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even though
the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is exercising a legal right.5
In Vishnu Datt v. Board of H.S. & intermediate education, U.P.,6 Vishnu datt, an intermediate
student, was detained for shortage of attendance. His detention was found by the court to be
illegal as the attendance registers of the college were not maintained according to the regulations
of the board. As a consequence of the detention, he lost one year. His action to claim
compensation was not allowed as the plaintiffs claim did not fall under any of the heads
recognized in common law, and moreover, the statutory provision did not provide for any
compensation in the circumstances mentioned above.
In P. Seetharamayya v. Mahalakshmamma,7 The four defendants tried to ward off the flow of
water into their plot from a stream by digging a trench as well as putting up a bund on their
lands. The fifth defendant acting independently put up bunds on her land to prevent the flow of
water to her land. As a result, the rainwater now flowed to the plaintiffs land causing damage to
them. The plaintiff in his suit requested for damages amounting Rs. 300 for the loss cause due to
the flow of the water to their land.

5 Grant v. Australian knitting mills, (1935) All E. R. 209, 217; (1936) A.C. 85, 103,
per Lord Wright
6 A.I.R 1981 All. 46
7A.I.R 1958 A.P. 103
12 | P a g e

The High court held that the owner of land on or near a river has a right to build a fence upon his
ground to prevent damage to his ground by the overflow of river, even though as a result of the
same, the overflowing water is diverted to the neighbors land and causes damage.
This being a clear case of Damnum Sine Injuria the defendants were not held liable for the harm
to the plaintiffs.
Similarly in this case, the plaintiff has not suffered any legal injury but damage, so Damnum Sine
Injuria applies in this case, due to which plaintiff cannot be granted any compensation. The
plaintiff can get compensation only if he proves to have suffered injury because of an illegal act
of the defendant and not otherwise.
Keeping in mind the above arguments, it is humbly submitted before this Honble Civil Court
that the defendant has committed no tort and thus can on no grounds be held liable for
compensation under the law of torts in the civil court of justice.

13 | P a g e

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the defendant humbly prays before the court to declare that:

1. The Defendant shall not be liable, as no legal injury was caused.

2. The plaintiff is not entitled to get compensation.
And pass any order in favor of the Defendant that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity
and good conscience.

All of which is most respectfully submitted before this court.

Counsel on behalf of the Defendant

14 | P a g e