Juristic Personality 1. Concept of Legal Personality In every legal system, there must be entities that can hold rights and bear duties. These entities are called legal persons. A legal person may be: • A natural person (human being) – exists by nature, recognized by law. • A juristic person (artificial person) – created by law, such as companies, states, and institutions. Definition (Salmond): A person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Statutory Definition: • Section 11, IPC and Section 2(26), BNS – “Person” includes companies, associations, and bodies of persons, whether incorporated or not. 2. Natural vs Juristic Persons • Natural Persons: Born with personality; e.g., citizens, residents. • Juristic Persons: Granted personality by legal recognition; e.g., corporations, municipal bodies, universities, religious institutions. 3. Types of Juristic Persons A. Corporations:-A corporation is an artificial legal person with separate identity from its members. (i) Corporation Sole • A single office that continues despite change of holder. • Examples: President of India, Governor of a State, CAG. • Salmond calls it “two persons in one” — the human and the permanent office. (ii) Corporation Aggregate • A group of persons forming one legal entity. • Created by charter, by statute, or by registration. • Examples: RBI, Infosys Ltd, BMC. B. Corporate Personality • Case: Salomon v. Salomon (1897) – Established that a company is a separate legal entity. • Rights: Own property, sue and be sued, enter into contracts. • Acts through agents/directors. C. Religious Institutions as Juristic Persons • Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) – Hindu idols recognized as legal persons capable of owning property and suing. D. The State • Under Article 300, Constitution of India – Union and State governments can sue and be sued in their own names. 4. Entities Without Separate Legal Personality • Unincorporated Associations – Social clubs, trade associations; cannot sue in own name. • Partnership Firms – Not distinct legal persons, but can sue/be sued if registered. • Registered Trade Unions – Recognized by statute; have limited rights. 5. Special Situations A. Double Capacity One human can act in multiple legal roles (e.g., individual & trustee) but still has one legal personality. B. Legal Status of a Dead Person • Legal personality ends with death. • Certain rights remain protected: dignity of burial, protection from defamation, enforcement of will. C. Legal Status of an Unborn Child • Can hold certain rights subject to birth. • Example: Section 13, Transfer of Property Act – property can be transferred for benefit of unborn. 6. Theories of Corporate Personality 1. Fiction Theory – Corporation is an artificial creation of law (Savigny). 2. Concession Theory – Personality exists because the state allows (Dicey, Salmond). 3. Realist Theory – Corporation is a real social group (Gierke, Maitland). 4. Bracket Theory – Corporate name is just a symbolic bracket for members (Ihering). 5. Purpose Theory – Personality exists only to fulfill specific purposes (Brinz). 6. Hohfeld’s Theory – Only humans truly have rights; corporation is a legal method. 7. Doctrine of Lifting the Corporate Veil General Rule: Company is separate from members (Salomon). Exception: Courts may “lift the veil” to find real persons controlling the company. When Applied: • Fraud or improper conduct (Gilford Motor Co. v. Horne, 1933) • Evasion of obligations (Jones v. Lipman, 1962) • Public interest or prevention of crime (DDA v. Skipper Construction, 1996) 8. Corporate Liability • Civil Liability – For breach of contract, negligence, etc. • Criminal Liability – For offences where fine is applicable; directors/officers may also be liable. • Cases: Satyam Scandal (2009), Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984). Conclusion The concept of juristic personality is one of the cornerstones of modern law. By granting legal recognition to artificial entities like corporations, institutions, and even religious idols, the legal system allows them to own property, enter into contracts, and be held liable — just like natural persons. This concept facilitates commerce, governance, and social organization. However, the law also ensures accountability by doctrines like lifting the corporate veil, ensuring that legal personality is not misused as a shield for fraud or injustice. ✓ To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +91 8840961324 or call us on +91 9151591324 At Theory of Abrogation, we equip you with everything you need: •Subject-wise expert classes •Mock test series •Legal current affairs •Personalized mentorship for interview preparation “Your law degree is your foundation, but your preparation is what will build your success.” Join Our New Batch Now! Prepare smart. Prepare with Theory of Abrogation. Contact Us: B-109, Commercial Complex Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-09 +91 9971399324 | +91 8840961324 [email protected]
Category: LANDMARKS
Ownership and Possession in Jurisprudence – Meaning, Essentials, Types, and Case Laws Ownership and possession are two core concepts in jurisprudence and property law. While often related, ownership is the ultimate legal right over a thing, whereas possession refers to physical control or holding of that thing. This distinction is vital for law students, judiciary exam aspirants, and legal professionals because courts often decide property disputes based on these concepts. Ownership – Meaning and Significance Ownership means having legal rights over a property or object. It is not just physical control; it covers a bundle of rights, such as: • Claiming possession • Using and enjoying • Transferring or disposing • Protecting against interference by others Salmond’s view: Ownership is a legal relationship between a person and a thing, which includes rights in rem (enforceable against the whole world). Austin’s view: Ownership is a right against everyone, not limited by time, usage, or method of transfer. Essentials of Ownership 1. Right of Possession • Even if the owner is not in actual possession, the law recognizes their right to claim it. Example: If M’s watch is stolen, M remains the owner and can recover it. 2. Right to Use and Enjoy • Owner may: • Manage the property • Use it personally • Earn income from it These are liberties, not always strict legal rights. 3. Right to Consume, Destroy, or Transfer (Alienate) • Owner can: • Eat, use up, or destroy the thing • Sell, gift, or mortgage it (Subject to legal restrictions – e.g., land sale to foreigners may be restricted.) 4. Indeterminate Duration • Ownership lasts until voluntarily transferred or abandoned. • After death, it passes to heirs. 5. Residuary Character • Even after granting rights to others (e.g., tenancy), the remaining rights stay with the owner. Ownership vs. Possession • Ownership = Legal title • Possession = Actual holding or control Example: A landlord owns a house but the tenant possesses it. A thief possesses a watch, but ownership remains with the lawful owner. Encumbrances on Ownership An encumbrance is a limitation or burden on ownership rights, where another person has some right over the property. Common examples: • Lease – Tenant’s right to occupy • Servitude – Right of way over land • Mortgage/Security – Creditor’s interest in property What Can Be Owned? Ownership is not limited to physical property. It can include: • Physical assets – land, buildings, vehicles • Rights – debt recovery, patent rights • Investments – stocks, bonds Salmond: Law protects rights, not objects directly — so ownership is always of a right. How Ownership is Acquired According to Salmond, ownership can be acquired: 1. By Law – Without any action (e.g., inheritance) 2. By Act/Event – Original acquisition (first-time possession) or derivative acquisition (purchase, gift) Types of Ownership 1. Corporeal & Incorporeal – Physical things vs. rights 2. Trust & Beneficial Ownership – Trustee holds legal title; beneficiary enjoys benefits 3. Legal & Equitable – Indian law treats both equally 4. Sole & Co-ownership – Single owner vs. joint owners 5. Vested & Contingent – Absolute vs. conditional ownership Possession – Meaning and Legal Recognition Possession means having physical control over a thing with the intention to hold it. Before law existed, possession was a natural fact; later, law started protecting it for maintaining peace and order. Salmond: Possession is actual holding (possession in fact) + intention (animus possidendi). Essentials of Possession 1. Corpus Possessionis (Physical Control) • Ability to use and exclude others • Confidence that interference will not occur 2. Animus Possidendi (Intention to Possess) • Acting as if the property is one’s own • Not necessarily believing you are the legal owner • Savigny: True possession requires acting like an owner Kinds of Possession 1. Corporeal & Incorporeal – Tangible items vs. rights 2. Immediate & Mediate – Direct control vs. control through another 3. Adverse Possession – Long, open, and hostile possession without permission can lead to ownership 4. Possession in Fact & in Law – Actual control vs. legal right to control Modes of Acquiring Possession • Taking – With or without consent of the possessor • Delivery – Actual or constructive (surrender, transfer of legal control) Legal Importance of Possession • Evidence of Ownership – Presumed owner unless proven otherwise • Adverse Possession – Can ripen into ownership • Protection under Law – Section 6, Specific Relief Act protects possession from unlawful eviction • Transfer of Ownership – Often through possession Important Case Laws 1. Merry v. Green (1843) – No possession without intention 2. Armory v. Delamirie (1722) – Finder has rights against all except true owner 3. South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman (1896) – Possession of land includes objects in it 4. Hannah v. Peel (1945) – Finder’s rights can prevail over absentee owner 5. Hibbert v. McKiernan (1948) – Trespasser cannot claim possession Possessory Remedies Possession is protected by: • Criminal law – Prevents unlawful dispossession • Tort law – Actions for wrongful interference • Property law – Section 6, Specific Relief Act: Even unlawful possession cannot be disturbed without due process Conclusion Ownership and possession, though closely related, are not the same. Ownership gives complete legal rights, while possession is physical control with intention. Law protects both to maintain peace, order, and property security. ✓ To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +91 8840961324 or call us on +91 9151591324 At Theory of Abrogation, we equip you with everything you need: •Subject-wise expert classes •Mock test series •Legal current affairs •Personalized mentorship for interview preparation “Your law degree is your foundation, but your preparation is what will build your success.” Join Our New Batch Now! Prepare smart. Prepare with Theory of Abrogation. Contact Us: B-109, Commercial Complex Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-09 +91 9971399324 | +91 8840961324 [email protected]
Major Schools of Jurisprudence: Explained with Key Thinkers and Concepts Jurisprudence is the theoretical study of law, helping us understand its purpose, nature, and functioning in society. Several schools of jurisprudence have emerged over time, each with a different approach to how law should be interpreted. Here’s an overview of six major schools of jurisprudence with important thinkers and principles. 1. Analytical School (Legal Positivism) Also known as Imperative School, Positive Law School, English School, or Austinian School, this school focuses on the logical structure and analysis of law, rather than its moral content. 🔹 Key Idea: Law = Command of the sovereign backed by sanction. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, believed that the purpose of law is to ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He rejected natural rights and disliked judge-made law, advocating for codification. His famous book: The Limits of Jurisprudence Defined. John Austin, often regarded as the father of English jurisprudence, emphasized that only laws made by the sovereign and backed by sanctions are “laws properly so called”. His work Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) divided laws into: • Laws properly so called: Commands from a sovereign (e.g., IPC). • Laws improperly so called: Customs, moral rules, scientific laws. H.L.A. Hart refined Austin’s theory with his book The Concept of Law. He introduced: • Primary rules: Substantive obligations (e.g., do not steal). • Secondary rules: Rules about making and interpreting laws (e.g., Constitution). Hans Kelsen, through his Pure Theory of Law, emphasized that law is a hierarchy of norms, and its ultimate source is a Grundnorm (Basic Norm), like “The Constitution must be obeyed”. 🔻 Criticism of Analytical School: 1. Ignored customs and moral foundations. 2. Overemphasis on command and sanction. 3. Dismissed international law. 4. Neglected the role of judiciary and permissive laws. 2. Historical School This school believes law is not created but evolves with society through customs, traditions, and national spirit (Volksgeist). Friedrich Karl von Savigny, the father of this school, argued that law grows organically from the people’s beliefs, not from rulers. Henry Maine, in his book Ancient Law, observed the evolution of law from status to contract. Puchta and Hugo further emphasized that law is shaped by collective consciousness. Example: The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 formalized customs that already existed. 3. Sociological School This school sees law as a tool for social engineering, focusing on how law affects people’s lives and promotes justice, equality, and social welfare. Roscoe Pound, the most influential figure, said: “Law is social engineering”—it should fix societal problems like an engineer repairs machinery. Other notable thinkers: • Eugen Ehrlich: Introduced the concept of “Living Law”, found in people’s actual behavior. • Leon Duguit: Emphasized social solidarity over state sovereignty. • Ihering: Believed law exists to protect social interests, not just individual rights. Example: Child Labour Laws protect vulnerable children, reflecting law’s role in solving social issues. 4. Realist School This school asserts that law is what the courts do, not just what is written in statutes. It focuses on judicial behavior, real-life application of laws, and how judges’ personal views and facts influence decisions. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said: “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” Jerome Frank introduced “Fact Skepticism”, saying that judges are influenced by their backgrounds. Karl Llewellyn stressed the difference between “law in books” and “law in action”. Example: Different judgments for the same crime reveal how judicial discretion shapes the law. 5. Philosophical (Natural Law) School This school holds that law must be rooted in morality, ethics, and justice. It connects law with what is right, not just what is written. 🔹 Key Idea: Law = Morality + Justice Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle laid early foundations. Plato said that justice is the highest aim of the state. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that law must reflect God’s will and moral values. Immanuel Kant emphasized law should protect freedom and human dignity, while Rudolf Stammler believed justice is the purpose behind all laws. Example: Laws against slavery or racial discrimination reflect moral truth, even if such practices were once legal. • Landmark judgements 1. Analytical School (Legal Positivism) This school focuses on law as it is (not what it ought to be), emphasizing sovereign authority and codified law. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) — Habeas Corpus Case • Facts: During Emergency, right to life under Article 21 was suspended. • Relevance: The majority judgment reflected legal positivism, stating that if law permits detention, courts cannot interfere, even if it seems unjust. • Criticism: Later overruled in Puttaswamy case; criticized for ignoring natural rights. State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co. (1996) • The Supreme Court held that a law cannot be struck down merely because it is unjust, reaffirming Austinian positivism. 2. Historical School This school values customs, traditions, and the spirit of the people (Volksgeist). M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) • Context: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. • Relevance: Court considered the historical and customary significance of the site to the Hindu community. Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga Sethupathi (1868) (Privy Council) • Recognized customary Hindu law, showing that law derives authority from age-old customs. 3. Sociological School This school focuses on law as a tool for social change and welfare. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) • Relevance: Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplace. • Reflection: Shows law evolving to meet social needs, even without specific legislation — Roscoe Pound’s theory of law as social engineering. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) • Issue: Decriminalization of adultery. • Relevance: Reflected changing societal values, and the Court emphasized individual dignity over archaic morality. 4. Realist School Focuses on what courts actually do rather than what laws say. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) • Relevance: Reflected the practical realities of political influence, and judicial discretion. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) • The Court emphasized sensitivity to victims in rape cases, departing…
Supreme Court: Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards in Limited Cases Under Arbitration Act
In a landmark judgment, a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled (by a 4:1 majority) that courts can modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — but only in specific, narrowly defined situations. 🔹 What the Court Held: Limited Scope for Modification Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, writing for the majority, laid down four clear circumstances in which a court may modifyan arbitral award: Severable Awards: If the flawed part of the award can be clearly separated from the valid part, only the invalid portion can be struck or altered. Clerical/Typographical Errors: Obvious mistakes in numbers, language, or calculations can be corrected. Modification of Post-Award Interest: In certain cases, courts can revise the interest awarded after the arbitration concludes. Article 142 (Supreme Court Only): The Supreme Court may use its extraordinary constitutional powers to modify awards—but only cautiously and within legal boundaries. 🔹 Dissenting Opinion by Justice Viswanathan Justice K.V. Viswanathan disagreed on key points: He held that Section 34 does not allow for modification, as that would amount to a merits review, which is against the spirit of arbitration. Courts can only set aside an award—not change or rework it. He opposed using Article 142 to modify awards, warning it could destabilize arbitration outcomes, especially in cases involving foreign awards. However, he agreed that clerical and typographical errors could be corrected. In his view, allowing modification blurs the line between judicial review and arbitration, undermining the finality and autonomy of the arbitral process. 🔹 Issues the Court Considered The case focused on three central questions: What does it mean to “modify” an arbitral award? Can the court partially modify an award without changing its core? Can valid and invalid parts of an award be separated (severability)? 🔹 Background: Why the Case Was Referred The case arose after conflicting judgments from different benches of the Supreme Court. Some earlier decisions held that courts cannot modify arbitral awards (M. Hakeem, SV Samudram), while others had modified or approved modified awards (Vedanta, J.C. Budhraja, Tata Hydroelectric). This contradiction led a 3-judge bench in February 2024 to refer the matter to a larger bench for clarity. 🔹 Arguments by the Union of India Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued against allowing modifications: He emphasized that Section 34 only permits setting aside an award, not changing it. If the tribunal doesn’t fix errors upon remand (under Section 34(4)), the only option is to set aside the award. Modification is not the same as severing a flawed portion—severance doesn’t involve rewriting. Any expansion of power should come from the legislature, not through judicial interpretation. 🔹 Petitioners’ Stand Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, for the petitioners, argued that: The original UNICITRAL Model Law wasn’t adapted properly into Indian law. Other countries (like the UK and Singapore) didn’t adopt Article 34 rigidly. Indian courts should have the power to partially set aside or modify awards to correct serious errors. Section 34 must be read broadly to allow for justice and fairness, especially when an award is clearly wrong. 🔹 Article 142 and Modification Powers The majority allowed the Supreme Court to modify awards under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives it extraordinary powers to ensure complete justice. However, they stressed this must be used sparingly and cautiously. Justice Viswanathan strongly opposed this, warning that such use could create uncertainty, particularly in cases with international implications. 🔹 Conclusion: A Balanced Approach This ruling strikes a middle path: It confirms courts cannot rewrite or reassess the merits of arbitral decisions. But it allows limited corrective power in specific and justifiable situations, preserving the efficiency and integrity of arbitration.