https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199154 State liability in tort was examined in relation to allegedly unlawful attachment, execution and detention of money. Acts done by revenue officers under statutory authority did not, without malice, want of reasonable and probable cause, or State ratification of an actionable wrong, fasten damages liability on the Government. The court also treated the payment of the disputed sum as voluntary, made with notice and an opportunity to object, so it could not support a claim for wrongful detention or damages. Loss of interest was held too remote because it flowed from intervening judicial action and the plaintiffs' own payment choice, not from a direct and proximate tort. en-us Mon, 03 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:21:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199154 State liability in tort was examined in relation to allegedly unlawful attachment, execution and detention of money. Acts done by revenue officers under statutory authority did not, without malice, want of reasonable and probable cause, or State ratification of an actionable wrong, fasten damages liability on the Government. The court also treated the payment of the disputed sum as voluntary, made with notice and an opportunity to object, so it could not support a claim for wrongful detention or damages. Loss of interest was held too remote because it flowed from intervening judicial action and the plaintiffs' own payment choice, not from a direct and proximate tort. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199154