The plaintiff instructed his Banker to deposit excise duty on his behalf in the Govt. treasury and debit the current account of plaintiff. The Bank deposited the said sum in the treasury. Later the plaintiff came to know, that the said amount was embezzled by the Treasurer and the Accountant of the treasury and the amount was not credited in the name of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff brings an action against the State for damages then the State is:
A. Not liable to compensate as it involved a sovereign function
B. Liable to compensable as the function is a banking function which is not a sovereign function of the State
C. Liable to compensate as an ordinary employer
D. Not liable to but the individuals are liable to compensate
Answer: Option B
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in
A. Winterbottom v. Wright
B. Pasley v. Freeman
C. Winsmore v. Greenbank
D. Rookes v. Barnard
The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means
A. Where there is no fault, there is no remedy
B. Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk
C. Mere giving consent does not imply to take risk
D. Scientific knowledge is not enough to cause injury
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.
B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners
C. Derry v. Peek
D. Cann v. Willson
A. Section 82 of the Evidence Act
B. Section 102 of the Evidence Act
C. Section 122 of the Evidence Act
D. Section 124 of the Evidence Act
Join The Discussion