https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300153 Release of large quantities of water from a dam, causing flooding, was treated as negligence because the dam owners failed to prove adequate precautions, proper water-level management, or that rainfall was so extraordinary as to amount to an act of God; the defence therefore failed under strict liability and Rylands v. Fletcher principles. Although exact monetary loss was not proved, substantial damage was established by reports and photographs, so reasonable compensation could be awarded on available material, including apportionment where natural forces and negligence both contributed. The Court also used Article 142 to assess compensation on a reasonable basis. en-us Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:36:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300153 Release of large quantities of water from a dam, causing flooding, was treated as negligence because the dam owners failed to prove adequate precautions, proper water-level management, or that rainfall was so extraordinary as to amount to an act of God; the defence therefore failed under strict liability and Rylands v. Fletcher principles. Although exact monetary loss was not proved, substantial damage was established by reports and photographs, so reasonable compensation could be awarded on available material, including apportionment where natural forces and negligence both contributed. The Court also used Article 142 to assess compensation on a reasonable basis. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300153