LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
FACTUAL SITUATION: ABC Coaching Centre was a poplular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainers of ABC, had some difference of opinion with the owner of ABC and left the coaching centre. In August 2016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABC. What do you think is the right legal position?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A violation of a legal right of someone, whether results in a legal injury or not, gives rise to an action in tort for compensation. At the same time, an action by someone, which results in some loss or damage to somebody else is not actionable, if there is no violation of a right of that somebody.
FACTUAL SITUATION: ABC Coaching Centre was a poplular CLAT coaching academy with several good trainers. A lot of aspirants used to attend its coaching classes from all over and was making good profit. During a session, T, one of the very good and popular trainers of ABC, had some difference of opinion with the owner of ABC and left the coaching centre. In August 2016, T started another Entrance Coaching Centre closer to ABC which resulted in a substantial drop in its students and huge financial loss. The owner of ABC wants to file a case against T for the loss sustained by ABC. What do you think is the right legal position?
The correct option is D T has not violated any of ABC's legal right though they sustained some financial loss, and not legally bound to compensate ABC.
Injuria sine damnum means injury of legal rights without damage. It basically states that infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage. The maxim 'Damnum sine injuria' means that "no action will lie if there is actual loss or damage but there has been no infringement of legal right". Where there has been no infringement of any legal right, the mere fact of harm or loss will not render such act or omission actionable although the loss may be substantial or even irreparable. This maxim has been propounded in the above mentioned case law as T had not violated any of ABC's legal rights.
Injuria sine damnum means injury of legal rights without damage. It basically states that infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage.
