TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses suit, upholds dismissal & order legality, rejects damages claims based on sovereign immunity & absolute privilege.</h1> <h3>A.M. Ross Versus The Secretary Of State For India</h3> The court dismissed the suit with costs, ruling that the dismissal of the local agent was legal, the order closing the depot was ultra vires, and the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the dismissal of the local agent.2. Legality of the order closing the depot to recruiting.3. Legality of the suspension of the local agent pending inquiry.4. Plaintiff's entitlement to damages for the alleged tortious acts.5. Plaintiff's entitlement to damages for alleged defamation.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Dismissal of the Local Agent:The plaintiff challenged the dismissal of a local agent by the District Magistrate of Ganjam. The argument was based on the contention that the condition allowing the District Magistrate to cancel the local agent's license was ultra vires, as Section 67 of the Assam Labour and Emigration Act, 1901, specified the cases in which the District Magistrate could dismiss local agents. The court held that the condition was valid under Section 91 of the Act as amended and that the dismissal was not open to objection. The court stated, 'it seemed to me that the condition was a necessary and proper one to be made under Section 91 of the Act as amended.'2. Legality of the Order Closing the Depot to Recruiting:The court found that the order of the District Magistrate closing the depot to recruiting by garden sirdars working under the Act was ultra vires. The depot was not only for the local agent but also for garden sirdars as required under Section 62 of the Act. The court noted, 'the concessions had not the effect of limiting the right of working under the Act, or preventing employers from so doing, if they preferred to conform to the more arduous and exacting requirements of the regular procedure.'3. Legality of the Suspension of the Local Agent Pending Inquiry:The legality of the suspension order was questioned on the grounds that the statutory power of dismissal did not include a power of suspension. The court referenced Barton v. Taylor and an American decision, Gregory v. New York, to support the view that a statutory power of dismissal does not include a power of suspension. However, the court found it unnecessary to decide the point as the plaintiff failed to show any additional damages incurred due to the suspension.4. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Damages for the Alleged Tortious Acts:The court examined whether the plaintiff had any cause of action against the Secretary of State for India in Council for the alleged tortious acts. The court referred to several precedents, including The Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji, and concluded that the Secretary of State could not be held liable for the acts of its servants done in the exercise of sovereign powers. The court stated, 'the Company could not have been made liable for the tortious acts done by their servants in India, in the exercise of sovereign powers, which it had not ordered or ratified.'5. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Damages for Alleged Defamation:The plaintiff sought damages for an alleged libel in a Government Order stating that his conduct was 'not wholly above suspicion.' The court found that no suit lies against the Secretary of State for a libel published by the Madras Government unless it was shown that the publication was made under the orders of the Secretary of State or ratified by him. The court also held that the publication was absolutely privileged as it was made in the execution of official duty. The court cited Oliver v. Lord Bentinck and Grant v. Secretary of State for India to support this conclusion. The court further noted, 'it would be contrary to public interest to allow public officers to be sued for libel in respect of publications made in the course of their official duty on the mere allegation that the publication was malicious.'Conclusion:The suit was dismissed with costs. The court found that the dismissal of the local agent was legal, the order closing the depot was ultra vires, and the suspension pending inquiry was not conclusively decided but found to be non-damaging. The plaintiff's claims for damages for tortious acts and defamation were dismissed based on the principles of sovereign immunity and absolute privilege.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
