X an employer of M Bank was arrested by the police upon a written complaint of M Bank, but X was acquitted at session trial. X claimed damages and court held that (Guari Pd. v. Chartered Bank case)
A. Bank had a probable cause hence no false imprisonment
B. Bank had a reasonable cause hence no false imprisonment
C. As bank caused arrest of X hence bank is liable
D. None of these
Answer: Option A
Solution(By Examveda Team)
The case of Guari Pd. v. Chartered Bank pertains to the concept of false imprisonment. In this case, the court held that the bank had a probable cause for initiating the arrest of X, the employee. As a result, it was ruled that there was no false imprisonment on the part of the bank.Option B: Bank had a reasonable cause hence no false imprisonment is not the correct answer as the case specifically refers to a probable cause rather than a reasonable cause.
Option C: As bank caused arrest of X hence bank is liable is not the correct answer as the court's ruling in the mentioned case established that there was no false imprisonment due to the probable cause presented by the bank.
Option D: None of these is not the correct answer as explained above.
Given the options provided, the correct answer is Option A: Bank had a probable cause hence no false imprisonment.
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
Join The Discussion
Comments ( 1 )
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
The plaintiff, being an employee of the defendant bank, was arrested by a police officer upon a written complaint of the defendant bank, but was acquitted at the Sessions trial. The Court held that the issue as to arresting or causing the arrest of the plaintiff and that the defendant had reasonable and probable cause for so doing, was immaterial.
The court observed as below:
“I have carefully considered the damage which accrued from those events. I have taken into account the position of the plaintiff in the bank, and the pain and suffering which must have been caused to him by being taken from the bank to the police-station; by being detained there, and then taken to the Magistrate's Court. It is in respect of those events, and those events only, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and I assess the damages at Rs. 1,500. There will be, therefore, a decree for the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500, with costs on scale No. 2, and interest on judgment at 6 per cent.
As the defendant caused the arrest of the plaintiff, the latter was held entitled to recover damages for false imprisonment from the defendant.
In the light of the above the option suggested by you needs review please