Damnum sine injuria means real and substantial damage without infringing any legal claim. In such a case, there is no action. There are many damages whose loss is not taken into account and the mere loss of monetary value in itself does not constitute legal damage. The essential condition is the violation of a right in court. In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Bhim Singh, Member of Parliament for Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested and taken into custody and deliberately prevented from attending sessions of the Legislative Assembly. There was also a voting session that was to take place and since he was not allowed to leave. In the assembly, where his voice was very important. Although the person he wanted to vote for won, his right to vote was violated. In this case, it was concluded that the harm was inflicted on the plaintiff morally, but from a legal perspective, so that no legal prejudice was inflicted on the plaintiff who follows the general principle of the maxim “damnum sine injuria”, according to which no remedy for moral injustice is awarded unless his legal rights are violated.
It was established that there had been an arrest with malicious and malicious intent and the complainant was entitled to compensation of Rs 50,000 as a member of the Legislative Assembly had been arrested on his way to the Legislative Assembly, resulting in the deprivation of the right to attend the next session of the Assembly. In the specific cases of Injuria Sine Damnum, the court is competent to pay compensation by granting appropriate financial compensation. The court assumes that in cases where the right has been violated, damages must be awarded, but in cases where no legal action has been violated, the Maxim Damnum sine Injuria applies and there is no remedy available for this. It can therefore rightly be said that an act lawfully or lawfully committed without negligence and in the exercise of a legal right, such damage caused to others as a result is damage without prejudice. This case concerns the collusion of majority shipping companies to distribute a company by transporting the tea trade to less freight. This resulted in unlawful harm to the plaintiff and civil proceedings ensued. The court ruled that the companies` agreements did not result in a violation of legal law. He was arrested and not even brought before the court and held in a hidden place for four days. The case concerns a violation of personal liberty if the police obtain the pre-trial detention of the arrested person and do not bring him before the magistrate within the required time. There has been a flagrant violation of the rights guaranteed by articles 21 and 22.
[12] www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/civil-rights/ashby-v-white/ This maxim Injuria Sine Damnum means the violation or violation of a right of a person`s legal personality, even if there is no actual loss or damage. In such a case, the person whose right is violated has a significant cause of action. He does not have to prove any particular damages. The violation of private law is in itself punishable. What must be proven is the violation of a right, in which case the law assumes damage. Thus, in the case of bodily injury, bodily injury, deprivation of liberty, defamation, etc., the simple tort without proof of special damage is punishable. The court is obliged to award the plaintiff at least symbolic damages if no actual damage is proven. In this case, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for the construction of a well on his own property, which obstructed the flow of water on the plaintiff`s property and thus caused him financial harm due to the shortage of water for distribution to the people served by the organization. The tribunal applied the doctrine of damnum sine injuria and concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation because the defendant had not caused him any wrongful loss or breach of legal action. [5]casebrief.fandom.com/wiki/The_Mayor_of_Bradford_v_Pickles#:~:text=The%20court%20held%20that%20as,the%20water%20beneath%20his%20land.
In cases where a football player has fallen into a deep pit and injured his leg, it can be difficult to repair him in recognition of the damage done to his sports career, unlike a normal man who can only claim damages. As cited in Ashby vs. White (1703), in which the plaintiff was entitled to vote in parliamentary elections held at that time. The respondent, an election official, wrongly refused to allow the applicant to vote. The plaintiff was not prejudiced because the candidate he wanted to vote for had already won the election, but the defendants were nevertheless held liable. It has been concluded that damage is not only financial loss, but that damage constitutes damage, so that if a person is hindered in his rights, he is entitled to compensation. This article attempts to discuss two important legal maxims of tort law – Damnum sine Injuria and Injuria sine Damnum. [8] www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-epstein/economic-harms/mogul-steamship-co-v-mcgregor-gow-co/ In another famous case, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill received a symbolic shilling in a defamation lawsuit against an author who had damaged his image by publishing that he had been drunk at a party. [11] Injuria sine damno is a violation of a legal right without causing harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff, and if a legal claim is violated, the person entitled to the right has the right to bring an action. Every human being has an absolute right to property, personal immunity and liberty, and the violation of this right is punishable in itself. A person against whom the right has been violated has a cause of action, so even a breach of a legal action knowingly gives rise to the cause of action. The law even gives freedom that if a person merely threatens to violate a legal action, even if the violation has not been completed, the person whose right has been threatened may bring an action under the provisions of the Special Relief Act with explanation and order.
For a better understanding of the two maxims, the following jurisprudence is cited: Although morally reprehensible, there is no legal obligation for the actions of the accused. In this case, it is usually the economic crime of conspiracy to violate the rights of the plaintiff. It was decided that the combination of workers and an agreement between them was a legal act at common law and possibly enforceable but not punishable. In V. Blundell`s claim, while digging a coal mine, the defendants intercepted water that affected the plaintiff`s less than 20-year-old well at a distance of approximately one mile. They were not held accountable. It has been observed: “He who possesses the surface may dig and use all that is there freely and for his own purposes, and that in exercising these rights he intercepts or drains the water collected in the underground springs in the well of the neighbor, this inconvenience to his neighbor falls under the description damnum sine injuria, which cannot become the reason for action. In a case similar to (Ashby v. White), in Ashrafilal v.
Municipal Corporation of Agra, “the complainant`s name was removed by the relevant authorities (election officials) and removed from the voters list, preventing the complainant from exercising his right to vote. The plaintiff sued the Municipal Corporation of Agra for violation of his fundamental right. The court held the Agra Municipal Corporation liable because the plaintiff`s right to choose had been violated and the plaintiff had been awarded compensation. These damages are awarded by the courts if they find that the plaintiff`s legal right has been violated, but he did not appear in court with clean hands.