The paradigm tort consists of an act or omission which gives rise to harm or injury to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which the courts impose liability. In the context of torts, "injury" represents a kind of harm recognised as attracting legal liability[1].

The term "tort" is the French equivalent of the English word 'wrong' and of the Roman law term 'delict'. It is also derived from the Latin word "tortum" which means twisted or wrong or crooked and is in contrast to the word rectum which means straight. It includes conduct that is not straight or lawful but on the other hand, twisted or unlawful. Tort means the breach/violation of some duty, independent of a contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable[2].

This branch of the law deals with civil law, including lawsuits but excluding issues involving contracts. It may include physical or mental harm, damage or loss of property and so on. Some examples of tort can be a violation of a duty to injure the reputation of someone else, thus resulting in the tort of defamation, violation of a duty to not interfere with the possession of land of another person results in the tort of trespass to land, etc[3].

Tort law is a form of restorative justice as it seeks to mitigate losses or injury with monetary compensation. The person committing the wrongful act is called a tortfeasor. When two tortfeasors commit a tort independently, they are called independent tortfeasors and when they commit a 'tort' together, they are called joint tortfeasors.

The three major categories under tort law are negligent tort, intentional tort and strict liability torts. Negligent torts constitute accidents. Theft is an example of an intentional tort, i.e. harm done to people intentionally or with wilful misconduct. Under strict liability, the manufacture or production of defective goods is liable for damages in tort. Strict liability torts are involved with the culpable state of mind of the person doing the harm[4].

Definitions Of Tort

As per Section 2 (m) of the Limitation Act, 1963 "Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust".

Some of the important definitions, which indicate the nature of this branch of law are:

• Winfield and Jolowicz:
  Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redress able by an action for unliquidated damages.
   
• Salmond and Hueston:
  A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other mere equitable obligation.
   
• Sir Frederick Pollock:
  Every tort is an act or omission (not being merely the breach of a duty arising out of a personal relation, or undertaken by contract) which is related in one of the following ways to harm (including reference with an absolute right, whether there be measurable actual damage or not), suffered by a determinate person:
  
  1. It may be an act which, without lawful justification or excuse, is intended by the agent to cause harm, and does cause the harm complained of.
  2. It may be an act in itself contrary to law, or an omission of specific legal duty, which causes harm not intended by the person so acting or omitting.
  3. It may be an act violation the absolute right (especially rights of possession or property), and treated as wrongful without regard to the actor's intention or knowledge. This, as we have seen is an artificial extension of the general conceptions which are common to English and Roman law.
  4. It may be an act or omission causing harm which the person so acting or omitting to act did not intend to cause, but might and should with due diligence have foreseen and prevented.
  5. It may, in special cases, consist merely in not avoiding or preventing harm which the party was bound absolutely or within limits, to avoid or prevent.
      
• Fraser:
  It is an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the injured party.
   
• Merriam Webster[5]:
  Tort is a wrongful act other than a breach of contract for which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction.

Analysis Of Salmond's Definition Of Torts

Elements of Salmond's definition of tort are:

1. Tort is a civil wrong
   According to Salmond, tort is a kind of civil wrong. In case of a civil wrong, a civil proceeding is instituted by the plaintiff/injured party against the defendant/tortfeasor/wrongdoer. Compensation is made by the defendant to the injured party, for the injury caused. Whereas in criminal wrong, the criminal proceedings against the accused are brought by the State and the individual, who is the victim of the crime, i.e., the sufferer. The victim is not compensated but justice is administered by punishing the wrongdoer in such a case.
    
2. Tort is a civil wrong but not breach of contract or breach of trust
   Tort is that civil wrong which is not exclusively any other kind of civil wrong. One has to first see whether the wrong is civil or criminal and if it is a civil wrong, it has to be further seen if it exclusively belongs to another recognised category of civil wrongs, like breach of contract or breach of trust. If it is found that it is neither a mere breach of contract nor any other civil wrong, then we can say that the wrong is a 'tort'.
   
   In 1984, The Union Carbide Plant located in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, leaked 40 tons of Methyl Iso- cyanate (MIC), which is an extremely toxic gas. This caused the death of thousands of people and led to long term medical effects like immune and neurological disorders, eye problems, respiratory difficulties, cardiac failures and birth defects among children born to the affected mothers. The people who suffered as a result of the gas leak had to contract with the Company, but still Union Carbide was held liable under tort. Thus it is a case of tort as a civil wrong[6].
   
   Thus, tort is a civil wrong but all civil wrongs are not torts.
   
   An employee and employer have contractual obligation towards one another. The employee has to discharge his functions and duties effectively and employer has to pay the employee an agreed sum of money for his/her role. Thus, the right to move court is exclusively within the parties to the contract. Therefore, in case of breach of contract by the employee or employer would result in a civil wrong which is not tort[7].
    
3. Remedy of tort is Unliquidated damages
   In general, Damages refer to the sum of money which the law imposes for a breach of some duty or violation of some right. Liquidated damages means such compensation which has been previously determined or agreed to by the parties. When the compensation has not been so determined but the determination of the same is left to the discretion of the court, the damages are said to be unliquidated.
   
   In tort, the compensation has previously not been determined or agreed by the parties but it is left to the direction of the court, whereas in breach of contract or breach of trust, the damages may be liquidated or previously determined or agreed. The damages to be paid are determined at the discretion of the court because generally, the parties are not known to each other until the tort is committed and moreover, it is difficult to estimate beforehand the quantum of loss in the case of a tort.
   
   Thus tort involves unliquidated damages. There are other remedies also which could be available when the tort is committed. It is also just possible that sometimes the other remedies may be more effective than the remedy by way of damages. For example, when a continuing wrong like nuisance is being committed, the plaintiff may be more interested in the remedy by way of 'injunction' to stop the continuance of nuisance rather than claiming compensation.

Aim Of Tort Law

The primary aims of tort law are to provide relief to injured parties for harms caused by others, to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm and to deter others from committing harmful acts. Torts can shift the burden of loss from the injured party to the party who is at fault or better suited to bear the burden of the loss[8]. In tort, compensation can be seen as an end in itself. It is based on corrective and restorative justice. It can also be seen as a form of social control. Tort law may affect people's conduct and the punishment may deter/prevent certain actions. It aims to restore the victim to the place they were at before the injury occurred.

Essentials Of Tort

1. There must be some act or omission on the part of the defendant
   In order to make a person liable for a tort, he must have done some act which he was not expected to do or he must have omitted to do something which he was supposed to do. Either a positive wrongful act or an omission which is illegally made, will make a person liable. For example, A commits the act of trespass or publishes a statement defaming another person, or wrongfully detains another person, he can be made liable for trespass, defamation or false imprisonment, as the case may be. Similarly, when there is a legal duty to do some act and a person fails to perform that duty, he can be made liable for such omission. For example, if a company, which maintains a public park, fails to put proper fencing to keep the children away from a poisonous tree and a child plucks and eats the fruits of the poisonous tree and dies, the Corporation would be liable for such omission[9]
   
   It may be noted that the wrongful act or a wrongful omission must be recognised by law. If there is a mere moral or social wrong, there cannot be a liability for the same. For example, if somebody fails to help a starving man or save a drowning child, it is only a moral wrong and therefore, no liability can arise for that unless it can be proved that there was a legal duty to help the starving man or save the drowning child[10].
    
2. The act or omission should result in legal damage (injuria), i.e., violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff
   A tort consists of some act done by a person who causes injury to another, for which damages are claimed by the latter against the former. The word "damage" is used in the ordinary sense of injury or loss or deprivation of some kind. The word "injury" is strictly limited to an actionable wrong, while damage means loss or harm occurring in fact, whether actionable as an injury or not. The real significance of a legal damage is illustrated by two maxims, namely, Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum.
   
   
   1. Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage Without Injury)
      There are many acts which though harmful are not wrongful in the eyes of law and give no right of action to him who suffers from their effects. Such sort of damage suffered is called Damnum Sine Injuria or damage without injury. Damage without breach of a legal right will not constitute a tort. They are instances of damage suffered from justifiable acts.
      
      In Gloucester Grammar School Case[11], it was held that the plaintiff had no right to complain of the opening of a new school. The damage suffered was mere damnum absque injuria or damage without injury. Hankford J. said : "Damnum may be absque injuria, as if I have a mill and my neighbour builds another mill whereby the profit of my mill is diminished, I shall have no action against him, although I am damaged. But if a miller disturbs the water from going to my mill, or does any nuisance of the like sort, I shall have such action as the law gives".
      
      There are moral wrongs for which the law gives no remedy, though they cause great loss or detriment. Loss or detriment is not a good ground of action unless it is the result of a species of wrong of which the law takes cognizance[12].
       
   2. Injuria Sine Damnum ( injury without damage)
      This means an infringement of a legal private right without any actual loss or damage. In such a case the person whose right has been infringed has a cause of action. It is not necessary for him/her to prove any special damage because every injury imports a damage when a man is hindered of his right. Every person has an absolute right to property, to the immunity of his person, to his liberty and an infringement of this right is actionable per se.
      
      Thus in cases of assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, trespass on land, etc., the mere wrongful act is actionable without proof of special damage. This principle was firmly established by the election case of Ashby v. White[13], in which the plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from exercising his vote by the defendants, returning officers in parliamentary election.
      
      The candidate to whom the plaintiff wanted to give his vote had come out successful in the election. Still the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the defendants for maliciously preventing him from exercising his statutory right of voting in that election. The plaintiff was allowed damages by Lord Holt saying that there was the infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.

Mental Element In Tortious Liability

The existence of law of tort is dependent upon the circumstances and facts of each case. It may or may not be essential to prove a mala fide intent to fix liability upon the tortfeasor.

Fault When Relevant

Most torts require that the defendant was at fault in some way. This means that, in order to be liable, the defendant must either have deliberately acted wrongfully or there must have been something they could reasonably have been expected to do to prevent the harm they caused, which they failed to do[14].

Knowledge along with reasonable and substantial certainty, that an act of the defendant shall produce a tortious result, is sufficient to hold him liable. Similarly, if the defendant's horses, for no fault on his part, causes injury to somebody on a public highway, the defendant can take the defence of inevitable accident[15]. In branches of tort like assault, battery, etc, the state of mind of a person is relevant to ascertain the liability.

Fault When Not Relevant

In certain cases, the mental element is not relevant to ascertain the liability and the liability arises even without any wrongful intention or negligence on the part of the defendant. For example, in case of defamation, the defendant can be made liable when he did not intend to defame but the act turns out to be defamatory[16]. In case of strict liability also, a person may be held liable when he himself was not at fault[17].

Malice

In simple words, "malice" means wrongful intention to cause injury to other party. Malice is not essential to the maintenance of an action for tort. It is of two kinds, 'malice in fact' (express malice or actual malice) and 'malice in law' (implied malice). 'Malice in fact' means ill will against a person and evil motive for a wrongful act. When the defendant does a wrongful act with a feeling of vengeance or ill will, the act is said to be done 'maliciously'.

'Malice in law' means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. Malice in law means that wrongful intention is presumed in case of an unlawful act. A malicious motive per se does not amount to injuria or legal wrong, if the act done is legal, as was illustrated in Bradford Corporation v. Pickles[18]. Similarly, a wrongful act does not become lawful just because the motive is good. Wrongful acts of which malice is an essential element are: Malicious prosecution, assault, battery, false imprisonment, deceit, etc.

Difference Between Tort And Other Wrongs

Tort And Contract

The definition given by P.H. Winfield clearly brings about the distinction between tort and contract. It says, Tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages. A contract is that species of agreement whereby a legal obligation is constituted and defined between the parties to it. It is a legal relationship, the nature, content and consequence of which are determined and defined by the agreement between the parties.

Some of the distinctions between tort and contract are given below[19]:

1. Tort Law is uncodified law whereas Contract Law is a codified law in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. In tort, the duty is fixed by the state; In contract, duty is not fixed by law, but is mutually given by parties to each other.
3. A tort is inflicted against or without consent; a contract is founded upon consent.
4. In tort no privity is needed, but it is necessarily implied in a contract.
5. A tort is a violation in rem (right vested in some person and available against the world at large.); a breach of contract is an infringement of a right in personam ( right available against some determinate person or body).
6. Motive is often taken into consideration in tort, but it is immaterial in a breach of contract.
7. In tort the measure of damages is not strictly limited nor is it capable of being indicated with precision; in a breach of contract the measure of damages is generally more or less nearly determined by the stipulations of the parties.
    

Tort And Crime

Not every civil wrong is a tort. A civil wrong may be labelled as a tort only where the appropriate remedy for it is an action for unliquidated damages. The distinction between civil and criminal wrongs depends on the nature of the remedy provided by law.

Difference between Crime and Tort:
Being a civil injury, tort differs from crime in all respects in which a civil remedy differs from a criminal one. There are certain essential marks of difference between crime and tort and they are:

1. Tort is an infringement or privation of private or civil rights belonging to individuals, whereas crime is a breach of public rights and duties which affect the whole community.
2. Tort is dealt with under the civil courts, whereas criminal law is dealt under criminal courts.
3. In tort the wrong doer has to compensate the injured party whereas in crime, he is punished by the state in the interest of the society.
4. In tort the action is brought about by the injured party whereas in crime the proceedings are conducted in the name of the state.
5. In tort damages are paid for compensating the injured and in crime it is paid out of the fine which is paid as a part of punishment. Thus the primary purpose of awarding compensation in a criminal prosecution is punitive rather than compensatory.
6. The damages in tort are unliquidated and in crime they are liquidated.

Tort And Quasi-Contract

Quasi contract cover those situations where a person is held liable to another without any agreement, for money or benefit received by him to which the other person is better entitled. Quasi contract differs from tort in that:

1. In tort, duty is imposed towards all people generally and not to a definite person. Whereas in quasi contract, duty is towards a definite person from whom the person has enriched wrongful benefits.
    
2. In quasi contract the damages recoverable are liquidated damages, and not unliquidated damages as in tort.

Quasi contracts resembles tort in one aspect. The obligation in quasi contract and in tort is imposed by law and not under any agreement.

Tort And Breach Of Trust

In the case of breach of trust by the trustee, the beneficiary can claim such compensation which depends upon the loss that the trust property has suffered. The amount of damages being ascertainable before the beneficiary brings the action, the damages, in the case of a breach of trust, are liquidated. On the other hand, damages in a tort are unliquidated[20]. Law of trust can be regarded as a division of the law of property which is fairly detachable from other parts of law.

The law of torts has its origin as a part of Common Law whereas breach of trust could be redressed in the Court of Chancery.

Remedies

The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium', which means that "where there is a right, there is a remedy".

The law recognizes torts as civil wrongs and allows injured parties to recover for their losses. Injured parties may bring suit to recover damages in the form of monetary compensation or for an injunction, which compels a party to cease an activity. The party seeking an injunction typically must prove that it would suffer considerable or irreparable harm without the court's intervention.

There are 2 major types of remedies available : Judicial and extra judicial remedies.

The judicial remedies are a power of the court because such relief shall be given to the aggrieved party by the court or judge for the loss happen than court provides the compensation to the party for the loss suffered by the party. Extra-judicial remedies in the extra-judicial remedies if the injured party take law in there hand according to law and the injured party have all power that is known as extra-judicial remedies[21].

Judicial remedies are of three main type:

1. Damages

   Damages refer to the sum of money which the law imposes for a breach of some duty or violation of some right.
   
   

   Types of Damages:

   1. Nominal damages:
      Ordinarily, damages are equivalent to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. When there has been infringement of the plaintiff's legal right but he has suffered no loss thereby (injuria sine damnum) the law awards him nominal damages in recognition of his right. The claimant in such a case would receive a very small sum of money. In Ashby v. White[22], the returning officer wrongfully disallowed a qualified voter to vote at a Parliamentary election but it was found that the voter suffered no loss thereby in so far as the candidate for whom he wanted to vote had even otherwise won the election. The defendant was held liable.
       
   2. Contemptuous Damages:
      The amount awarded is very trifling because the court forms a very low opinion of the plaintiff's claim and thinks that the plaintiff although has suffered greater loss, does not deserve to be fully compensated. It is to be distinguished from nominal damages because nominal damages are awarded when the plaintiff has suffered no loss, whereas contemptuous damages are awarded when the plaintiff has suffered some loss but he does not deserve to be fully compensated.
       
   3. Compensatory Damages:
      Most damages are intended to be compensatory, that is to compensate the claimant for loss which has been suffered. If the damages can be calculated exactly, they are described as special damages. Other types of damages which are not capable of financial assessment in any accurate way are called general damages. General damages include pain and suffering, loss of amenity, etc. The aim of compensatory damages is to put the claimant in the position he or she would have been in had the tort never been committed[23].
       
   4. Aggravated and exemplary Damages:
      When the damages awarded are in excess of the material loss suffered by the plaintiff with a view to prevent similar behaviour in future, the damages are known as 'exemplary, punitive, or vindictive'. they are rather by way of punishment to the defendant.
      
      In Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K.[24], the Supreme Court awarded exemplary damages when there was a wrongful detention. In certain cases, courts will award punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages to deter further misconduct. When the court has an interest in deterring future misconduct, the court may award punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
       
   5. Prospective Damages:
      Prospective or future damages means compensation for damage which is quite likely the result of the defendant's wrongful act but which has not actually resulted at the time of the decision of the case. For example, if a person has been crippled in an accident, the damages to be awarded to him may not only include the loss suffered by him up to the date of the action but also future likely damage to him in respect of that disability.
      
      In Y.S. Kumar v. Kuldip Singh[25], the respondent, who was Excise and Taxation Officer, was hit by a motor cycle, resulting in physical injuries at the ankle. Because of the injuries, he suffered permanent disability which affected enjoyment of his normal life. He was awarded compensation of Rs. 7,200 calculated at Rs. 50 per month for a period of 12 years on account of physical disability and loss of enjoyment of normal life.
       

2. Injunction:

   An injunction is a type of order which is given by the court for doing of some act or preventing conduct or continuity of any act the court has the right to concede or refused this remedy. The injunctions are of various kinds.
   

   1. Temporary Injunction

      It is an injunction which continues until a specific time. A temporary or interlocutory injunction is generally granted before the case has been heard on merits and it is only provisional and, as such, continues until the case is heard on its merits or until further orders of the court.
       

   2. Perpetual Injunction

      A perpetual injunction is one by which the defendant is perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which could be contrary to the right of the plaintiff.
       

   3. Prohibitory Injunction

      Prohibitory injunction forbids the defendants from doing some act which will interfere with the plaintiff's lawful rights. The examples of it are restraining the defendant from committing or continuing the acts like trespass or nuisance.
       

   4. Mandatory Injunction

      Mandatory injunction is an order which requires the defendant to do some positive act, for example, an order to pull down a wall which causes obstruction to the plaintiff's right of light[26].
       

3. Specific Restitution of Property

   When the plaintiff has been wrongfully dispossessed of his movable or immovable property, the court may order that the specific property should be restored back to the plaintiff. Recovery of land can be made by an action for ejectment and the recovery of chattels by an action for detinue.

Extra Judicial Remedies

Apart from the above-stated remedies of damages, injunction and specific restitution of property which are also known as judicial remedies, a person may have recourse to certain remedies outside the court of law. Such remedies are known as extra-judicial remedies. A person can have these remedies by his own strength by way of self-help.

These are of five main types:

1. Expulsion of trespasser:
   A person can use a reasonable amount of force to expel a trespasser from his property.
    
2. Re-entry on land:
   In this case, the owner of a property can remove the trespasser and re-enter his property by using a reasonable amount of force.
    
3. Re-caption of goods:
   In this case, the owner of goods is entitled to recapture his/her goods from any person whose unlawful possession they are in.
    
4. Abatement:
   In case of a nuisance, be it private or public, a person (the injured party) can remove the object causing nuisance. Generally before abatement is made, notice to the other party is required unless the nuisance is one which, if allowed to continue, will be a danger to the life or property[27].
    
5. Distress Damage Feasant:
   If a person's cattle/chattels move to another's property and his crops are spoiled or damage is done, then the owner of the property is entitled to take possession of the cattle/goods until he is compensated for the loss suffered by him.

Conclusion
A tort occurs when someone commits a wrong against another person. Tort law is a civil law that aims to return individuals back in the position they were in before the wrong was committed against them to ensure they do not suffer any unnecessary loss. In a tort case, there are two parties involved i.e. plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff is the one who has been injured and his/her rights have been violated. He is the one who is the complainant and who comes to the court seeking remedy.

On the other hand, the defendant is a person who has violated the rights of the other person and has injured the other person. Some of the earliest actions known to English law are those concerned with protecting interests in land. These include the torts of nuisance and trespass to land, libel, slander, malicious prosecution and injurious falsehood. There are three categories of tort. They are negligent tort, intentional tort and strict liability torts. The damages awarded by the court are generally compensatory.

These damages accomplish only approximate justice for the injuries or property damage caused by the tortfeasor. Tort law can go a step further towards deterrence, beyond compensation to the plaintiff and occasionally awarding punitive damages against the wrongdoer. The overall intent is to discourage others from making the same mistakes and to avoid having to pay the fines that come with tort judgments.

For the society to exist peacefully, each member of the society has to fulfil some duties towards the other people of the society like duties to respect people's private spaces, not to do things that unfairly disturbs others, be careful and diligent when we deal with fellow beings, etc.

Just as we have such duties, others have the right to expect us to perform these duties. Similarly, others also have duties towards us, and we have the right to expect them to fulfil these duties. Thus all the people are interlinked to each other for these rights and duties towards each other, thus creating a world of rights and duties. We have the right to things like private spaces, the right not to be unfairly disturbed, etc. and at the same time, we have the duty of respecting the rights of others.

The tort law deals with the violation of these rights by other people. These rights are not mentioned in the written laws generally, but have become the part of the legal system by the common law and by the acceptance of the masses. Despite that, very few tort claim cases comes to the courts, primarily because people are not aware of their rights, and also because fighting a court case, in Indian scenario, is often not worth the time and effort.

End-Notes:

1. Philip Cooke, Law of Tort, p.no.4, Pearson Longman, 2005
2. Law of Tort and Consumer Protection, available at : http://www.fimtggsipu.org/study/ballb104.pdf
3. Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, p.no.3, Allahabad Law Agency, 2019
4. Tort Law, available at : https://cleartax.in/g/terms/tort-law
5. Tort Definition and Meaning, available at : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tort
6. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 248 Glasgow Corp. v. Taylor, (1922) 1 A.C. 44.
7. Tort, available at : https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-574-various-definitions-of-the-term-tort-and-comment-on-any-one-better-known-to-you.html
8. Tort, available at : https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort
9. Glasgow Corp. v. Taylor, (1922) 1 A.C. 44.
10. Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, p.no.17, Allahabad Law Agency, 2019
11. (1410) Y.B. Hill 11 Hen, 4 of 47, p. 21, 36.
12. Law of Tort and Consumer Protection, available at : http://www.fimtggsipu.org/study/ballb104.pdf
13. (1703) 2 Lord Raym, 938
14. Catherine Elliott & Frances Quinn, Tort Law, p.no. 4, Pearson Longman, Great Britain, 2009
15. Holmes v. Mather, (1875) L.R. 10 Ex. 261.
16. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., (1929) 2 K.B. 331
17. Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
18. (1895) A.C. 587.
19. Difference between tort and other wrongs, available at : http://www.fimt-ggsipu.org/study/ballb104.pdf
20. Winfield Tort 10th ed. p. 15. The question has been discussed in detail in Winfield Province of the Law of Tort (1931) Chap. VI.
21. Judicial Remedies Under Tort Law in India, available at : https://lexforti.com/legal-news/remedies-under-torts/
22. (1703) 2 Lord Rayam, 938; Tour v. Child, (1857) 7 E. & B. 377.
23. Harpwood, Nigel Gravells, et.al., Principles of Tort Law, p.no. 414
24. A.I.R 1986 S.C. 494
25. A.I R. 1972 Punjab & Haryana 326
26. Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, p.no.438, Allahabad Law Agency, 2019
27. James v Williams, (1843) 11 M & W 176