This article is written by Aadrika Malhotra, a law student at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. It talks about the differences between the law of torts and the law circling around breach of trust. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is unliquidated damages, whereas a breach of trust is a civil and criminal wrong for which the remedy is liquidated damages.
It has been published by Rachit Garg.
Table of Contents
The concept of breach of trust is often regarded as a portion of law so self-constrained as to be easily detached from the rest of the legal system. There are several different definitions of tort that have been passed over the years. The definition given under Section 2(m) of the Limitations Act, 1963 makes a clear distinction between tort and breach of trust. It states that a tort is a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or the breach of trust. Several practitioners have tried to distinguish between these two and have considered one important thing that the law of torts gives rise to damages, whereas the law of breach of trust gives rise to restitution. Both of them can be constituted as breaches of duty, which give rise to these claims that seek compensation.
Origin of tort and breach of trust
Tort law addresses and provides remedies for civil wrongs and compensation for damages for people who are liable. The law of torts came into existence in India through England after the Norman Conquest. The term “tort” means that there are certain rights that are endowed in society to further enforce the rights and duties mentioned in the Constitution. The sessions during the trials of the judges in England were “assizes,” or in simpler language, “sittings.”
In the fourteenth century, the word “negligenter” began to be used in trespass writs to portray negligent conduct. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, negligence was considered to be the most important tort, which plays a crucial role in all other tort categories.
Conflict between King Henry II and Archbishop Thomas
The grandson of the infamous conqueror William, King Henry II, instituted a statute which stated a jury that consisted of twelve men would decide whether an alleged crime was committed or not and to what extent the punishment for the defendant would go. The only way to avoid the harsh punishment was to be a member of the clergy, for those eligible could be tried by the Ecclesiastical courts, which were more humane. King Henry II became aware of this source and considered this as Thomas Becket’s (King Henry’s chancellor) disloyalty, whom he promoted to the archbishop of Canterbury.
Court of Chancery
Becket’s courts were dubbed the Court of Chancery, later courts of equity, which are now known as the civil courts. The major reason for this court’s existence was that the common law courts could only award financial compensation. It ignored the fact that the affected person must be suffering emotional loss, which is something the Courts of Chancery could help with. They can order the perpetrator to refrain from doing something that puts the victim in distress. The law of equity was a forum to compensate for emotional as well as financial pain, all heard in English, not just Latin.
Law of Torts and ancient India
Tort law in India is a fragment of English law that states that morality is a legal impulse to perform duties amongst each other, and if in the event such a breach occurs, there shall be a remedy to prevent the same and compensate the plaintiff fairly against the tortfeasor. The word “jimha,” which means “crooked,” constitutes tortious or fraudulent conduct in ancient Indian languages as the liability of the state.
The Vedas, Sutras, Smritis, Epics, and Arthashastras define law and legal scriptures from ancient India. They describe the responsibilities the state had to compensate the plaintiffs as imposed by kings and officials. The infamous concept of vicarious liability developed in the Vedic era in ancient India, when the king had to safeguard the lives and personal liberty of people. Such compensations for any breach, if admitted, were all taken from the king’s “malkhana.” The settled law states that the common man will be fined “Karshapana,” and the king shall be fined one thousand. If an act done by the servant was for the benefit of the master, the latter shall be punished and compensated for the same.
Henry Maine defined the Penal law of ancient communities as “not a law of crimes,” but the “law of wrongs,” which later got termed the law of torts.
Development of Law of Torts in India
During British rule, all courts in India were intertwined by the UK Acts of Parliament along with a few Indian enactments to act in accordance with equity and justice if there was no specific rule in a dispute during a suit. When there arose a suit for damages for torts, the courts followed the English Law for it was consistent with the ideas of equity and justice.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Apex Court laid down principles to deal with new problems in the economy and not be restrained by English or any foreign laws. This landmark case stated that India’s own tort laws, apart from the ones taken from Britain, will be taken into consideration while deciding cases. The court further held that Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enables the civil court to try cases in all civil matters; therefore, it will implicitly confer the right to apply the Law of Torts principles as well for equity and justice.
Winfield and Indian judiciary
Winfield defines torts as all injuries done to a person unless there is a reasonable justification in the eyes of the law. All unjustifiable harm is tortuous, and that enables the court to create new torts. This concludes that the law of torts is ever-growing. The principle of “ubi jus ibi remedium” means that “wherever there is a right, there is a remedy.” In the case of Ashby v. White (1703), Chief Justice Holt held that “man will multiply injuries, and actions must be taken for every man who has been injured to get him the compensation for such injury.”
The Indian judiciary is in huge favour of the Winfield theory, which has also been upheld in the case of M.C. Mehta, as discussed above. In this case itself, the Apex Court made a new law of absolute liability in place of the strict liability prevalent in English laws. Winfield also commented on Salmond’s Pigeon Hole Theory, which states that there shall be no general principle of liabilities; if a plaintiff can prove his point beyond a reasonable doubt in any of the already mentioned torts, he will be compensated. Winfield said that both of these theories are correct, except for his proclamation of the concept from a wider point of view.
Breach of trust
A person is said to have committed a breach of trust if he violates trust and abuses property that was given to him by another person. The concept of trust came from the ancient Roman and Greek laws prevalent before the twenty first century. The term “fiducia”, which means a contract between two parties where a party transfers property to another for specific reasons with a promise of restoration in the future, the former being called the “fiduciant” (settlor) and the latter the “fiduciarius” (trustee), and the agreement between them was called “Fiducia cum amico.” If the terms were met, the fiduciarius was liable for an “acto fiduciae,” which was to be upheld, or else it would be an “infamia,” a lack of legal or social standing.
Crusader and Court of Chancery
When a person would leave England to fight in the Crusades, he would give his land ownership to another to manage his estate and also pay and receive any feudal dues, after which the land would be returned to the original owner. The English common law regarded property as an invisible entity, and the owner of such property had all legal rights to it, which also meant that even after the return of the crusader, the manager did not give the property back to him. This would lead to a petition being filed in front of the king and, furthermore, proceeding to the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery. He would determine what was fair and just to find the crusader’s plea admissible so the title could be returned to him despite his acquaintance having legal ownership of the estate.
This meant that the crusader was the beneficiary and the acquaintance was the trustee, which developed into the concept of trust that we are familiar with today. In the twentieth century, jurisdictions such as the Cook Islands and Nevis developed and offered asset protection trusts and frivolous lawsuits to administer the estates of the beneficiaries.
Civil breach of trust
A trustee is said to commit a civil breach of trust if he fails to do any duty assigned to him by the beneficiary and the law, like protecting the investment of trust money. In a civil breach of trust, the trustee is liable to compensate the beneficiary for any losses to the property trusted due to the trustee’s negligence.
Criminal breach of trust
The presence of mens rea, or dishonest intention, is an essential part of a criminal breach of trust. The dishonesty and misappropriation of the property trusted for his own benefit by the trustee can constitute a criminal breach of trust.
Essential elements of tort and breach of trust
There are four key elements that constitute a tort:
A wrongful act or omission
The accused can be both morally and legally wrong for the petitioner to seek remedy under the law of torts. A moral wrong does not always have to be legally wrong, and it is not enough for an act to be immoral to the extent that it can be termed a wrongful act under tort law. An act is wrongful only when it is legally wrong, regardless of whether it is moral or immoral. A wrongful act is recognized by law when one’s legal rights are violated. If an act seems prima facie legal, classifying it as a crime or tort might violate somebody else’s legal rights. A tort will arise only if the act done amounts to the infringement of a private legal right or if there is a breach of a legal duty.
A duty to care
The law has imposed a duty on everybody to observe and maintain a reasonable standard of care while performing any act that may be injurious to another. To constitute a breach of duty or tort, there has to be a proven duty to care for the affected party that was breached by the tortfeasor, with or without any direct connection to the said duty, which is imposed by law.
In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), the House of Lords came up with the neighbour principle, wherein Lord Atkin stated that an individual must take reasonable care to avoid accidents that are foreseeable and would likely injure one’s neighbour. He said that neighbours are the people closely and directly affected by one’s act, and one must have them in contemplation because those people might get affected when one directs their mind to the act or omission in question to be constituted as a tort.
Actual damages or a legal injury
For a wrongful act to be termed a tort, the plaintiff must have suffered some harm or loss from the particular act, or there must exist an infringement of any legal right of the plaintiff by the said act done by the tortfeasor. There are two maxims that determine the types of damages or injuries that fall under a tort.
Damnum Sine Injuria
It literally translates to damage without injury, where the party affected suffers damage, which may or may not be physical, but does not suffer any infringement of legal rights. There shall be an actual or substantial loss to the plaintiff without his legal rights being infringed. The plaintiff cannot take action or make a claim because his legal rights have not been violated, which has also been explained in the case of Gloucester Grammar School, wherein the defendant set up a school next to the plaintiff’s school, causing the plaintiff to suffer monetary loss. The Court of Common Pleas of England held that there would be no suit in this case, irrespective of the monetary damages, as no legal right of the plaintiff was violated when the defendant set up his school.
Injuria Sine Damnum
It literally translates as injury without damage, which is actionable under the law of torts because there was a legal damage suffered by the plaintiff regardless of actual harm or loss. The plaintiff can approach the court for remedy, as seen in the case of Ashby v. White (1703), wherein the plaintiff was forbidden from voting by the constable. Even though the candidate the plaintiff was to vote for won, the court held that his legal rights were violated, constituted a legal injury without damage, and held the defendant guilty of tort.
Wherever there is a wrong, there is a remedy. This is the basic principle of tort law, so granting rights without the provision of a remedy is of no point. The injured parties receive compensation in the form of damages and restitution of property after examining the liabilities of the defendants and undergoing certain tests.
Breach of trust
The property in dispute must be that of another person entrusted to the trustee
The property held in dispute must belong to another person, i.e., there shall be a beneficiary who owns the property, and a trustee shall be trusted with the same under the conditions of the beneficiary, which shall be agreed on by both the plaintiff and defendant.
Illustration: Person A trusts his property to Person B, and on his return, Person B refuses to return the property to him; this is a breach of trust.
Dishonest intention and use of the property for personal gain
Dishonesty, as defined under Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, means wrongful gain or loss to a person. The use for personal gain by the trustee will be proved only if he has obtained some personal gain from the use of the property without the permission of the owner. In the case of Krishan Kumar v. Union of India (1959), the Supreme Court held that misappropriation arises when a person, the trustee, sets another person up with the property of the beneficiary by way of conversion or disposal of property with malafide intention. The person who has committed a criminal breach of trust must dispose of the property to another person or willfully make that person misappropriate the property.
Statutory provisions for tort and breach of trust
Provisions for constitutional tort
A constitutional tort is committed by the violation of the fundamental rights of a person at the hands of the state or any of its regulatory bodies. This implies that the government of India can be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees.
Article 300 of the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution does not immunise the state from any liability by its citizens and gives them the power to sue the Government of India for respective affairs. The union and state are considered juristic persons who can make contracts and carry on business, which further gives them the right to defend their actions legally like any other person.
The article gives sovereign immunity to the state, including matters of defence of a country or protection of the military, and any other matters regarding the welfare of the state. Other administrative and legislative functions also fall into this domain, also known as the Act of State Defence.
In the case of P&O Navigation Company v. Secretary State of India (1861), the question of sovereign immunity came up, with it being held that the government cannot be liable for the injuries caused to people while carrying out sovereign functions. The only time it will be held liable is when the acts done by the public servants are non-sovereign in nature.
In the case of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983), the petitioner filed a case against the state for his illegal imprisonment and asked for compensation for the same. The question of law arises as to whether the court can provide damages under Article 32 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court stated that such monetary damages will be granted and that civil liability can arise when the constitutional rights and liberty of a person are violated.
In the case of Sebastian Hongray v. Union of India (1984), two people whisked away by the Sikh regime were missing, and a writ petition for habeas corpus was filed by the students of JNU under Article 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court initiated an inquiry into the matter and also discovered that the defendants misled the inquiry and meanwhile committed wilful disobedience, which led the Court to award exemplary damages of one lakh rupees to each of the individual’s wives.
Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) is another case where the Supreme Court held that it would only consider appropriate cases for constitutional tort, but it did not lay down the said appropriate criteria. A MLA was illegally detained and could not attend the house proceedings, after which his wife filed a writ for habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Court held that it shall pass exemplary damages where there is an appropriate case for the remedy of the violation of the constitutional and legal rights of a person.
Remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution
The claim of damages or compensation in every case that asks for remedies for the violation of fundamental, legal, or constitutional rights of a person was obvious but needed to be discussed in detail, which was further done in the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), wherein the Apex Court clarified that a remedy sought under Articles 32 and 226 may be denied if the claim is questionable. Both of these articles precisely lay out the remedies sought, and in the case of the violation of a fundamental right, the remedy for tort can be sought, which is also an inherent remedy.
Can a minister’s statement constitute a constitutional tort?
In the case of Kaushal Kishore v. The State of UP (2023), a constitutional bench held that a mere statement made by a minister that may be inconsistent with the rights of a person may not be actionable as a constitutional tort.
The same can be actionable if that statement instituted an action taken by government officials or officers against that particular person that harmed that person in a way that would invoke a constitutional tort remedy in court.
The matter regarding constitutional tort has been left open-ended and vague by the court on many occasions, and judgements have been passed in favour of people who have been harmed by the words of any minister. The Government (Liability in Torts) Bill was introduced after the judgement of Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964), which laid down the legislation for the tortious liability of the state, but until now, no proper legislation has been passed.
Breach of trust
The Indian Trust Act, 1882
The definitions of private trusts, trustees, duties, and liabilities are all discussed under The Indian Trust Act, 1882. The person who created a trust is called a truster, and the one who benefits from the trust is called the beneficiary, whereas the trustee is the one who holds the property. Section 6 of the act lays down the provisions for the elements of a valid trust as follows:
- There must be an intention by the author to create trust.
- There shall be a specific purpose fulfilled by the trust so formed.
- Any monetary purpose thus applied shall be served by the entrustment of the property.
- Giving control or transferring the property to the trustor is the sole intention of the author.
- The trustee shall expect a salary for the benefit of his trust.
The liabilities of a trustee are defined under Sections 23 to 30 of the Act, wherein the concept of breach of trust is discussed in detail.
Where a trustee commits a breach of trust, he is liable to compensate the beneficiary for all the losses sustained as an effect of the breach of trust on the said property. If the beneficiary commits fraud to frame the trustee, the former shall be liable as per the provisions stated in the act. A trustee won’t be liable to pay if he actually received interest, is fairly presumed to, or ought to receive such interest.
Non-liability on co-trustees default
A trustee is not liable for the acts of his co-trustee in the breach if admitted, though there are certain conditions under which the trustee is liable for the breach by his co-trustee which are as follows:
- If the trustee delivers the trust property to his co-trustee without seeing if the co-trustee would use it for proper application;
- If the trustee allows the trust property to the co-trustee without enquiring what dealings the co-trustee would undergo with the property and lets him keep the property longer than the case requires it to be kept; and
- If the trustee becomes aware of the breach committed by the co-trustee and actively tries to conceal it or does not take adequate steps to prevent it, he would be liable for breach of trust.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Chapter XVII of the IPC deals with offences against property and compensation for damages to property. Criminal breach of trust is dealt with in Sections 405 to 409, which are as follows:
Section 405 of the IPC states that if any person entrusted with property dishonestly converts, misappropriates, uses, or disposes of that property while violating the law or any legal contract associated with that property, expressly or impliedly, or makes any other person do so, they commit a criminal breach of trust.
- The accused must be entrusted with the property of the plaintiff.
- The accused must have violated the trust of the plaintiff by misappropriating the property.
It means that the property was given to the trustee to take care of for a specified period of time by the trustor for its protection or any other person prescribed to the trustee, which may be movable or immovable. In the case of R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (1962), the Supreme Court clarified that the term “property” used is wide enough to be compared with movable property and shall be confined to it as well. In the case of Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras (1957) the Apex Court held that entrustment is the most important element without which an offence of breach of trust cannot be committed.
After the entrustment of property, any kind of misappropriation on the part of the trustee will be considered a breach of trust. It can be him using the property for his own unauthorised purposes or wrongful gains with dishonest intention over which he has no authority. In the case of Surendra Prasad Verma v. The State of Bihar (1972), the Supreme Court held that, irrespective of whether the accused had possession of the property at the time of misappropriation or not, he would be held liable because he was the only one who had possession of the property.
Violation of Law
The trustor gives directions for the maintenance of the property entrusted to the trustee, which may be in an oral or written contract. Any misappropriation during the period of trust so formed is a violation of the law and is thus considered a breach of trust. In the case of Krishan Kumar v. The Union of India (1959), the Supreme Court held that it is not essential to prove how the accused misappropriated the property in every case, but rather that the intention of the accused is what holds value.
Section 406 of the IPC states the punishment for criminal breach of trust, which says that the accused shall be punished with imprisonment for a term up to three years or with a fine, or both. This offence is tried in front of a magistrate and is also a non-bailable and cognizable offence that is also compoundable on behalf of the plaintiff.
Section 407 of the IPC states the types of criminal breaches of trust wherein whoever is entrusted with the property as a carrier, wharfinger, or warehouse-keeper commits a breach of trust and shall be punished with up to seven years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Section 408 of the IPC states that any clerk, servant, or employee who is entrusted with property in any manner or in any domain and commits breach of trust will be punished with a term up to seven years, a fine, or both.
Section 409 of the IPC states the punishment for the breach of trust committed by a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent with respect to the property entrusted, which may be imprisonment for life or up to ten years, a fine, or both.
Compensation for tort and breach of trust
An injured person under tort law is compensated by several remedies, the most common of which is damages, which is the amount of money the tortfeasor pays to the plaintiff.
Damages in Tort Law
This type of damage refers to the damages awarded to the plaintiff where he has not suffered any substantial injury or loss for which he must be compensated. It can be seen in cases of injuria sine damno, where the legal rights of the person have been violated but the actual loss is not there. In the case of Ashby v. White (1703), the plaintiff went to the tortfeasor’s hotel, but since he belonged to the West Indies, he was rejected. The House of Commons held that even though the plaintiff did not suffer any actual harm, his legal rights were violated, and the defendant had to pay nominal damages of five guineas.
This type of damage is similar to nominal damage except that actual harm occurred to the plaintiff, but the amount is so meagre that the court considers that the suit wasted its time. Therefore, only a meagre amount of damages is awarded to the plaintiff in such cases. Let’s say White’s dog enters Beige’s house, and the latter steps on the dog’s faeces; the latter approaches the Court because he is disgusted by that; in such a case, the Court shall presume that its time has been wasted and shall grant minimal damages.
This type of damages is awarded for actual injuries incurred by the plaintiff from the tortfeasor, which are not to punish the defendant but to return the plaintiff to his original position before the breach was committed. These damages help cover monetary losses that can be easily recovered by the defendant, which the plaintiff has already lost and nothing more.
This type of damage is awarded when the exceptional harm caused to the plaintiff cannot be recovered by compensatory damages such as loss of self-esteem, pain, agony, or mental torture, which cannot be sorted out monetarily.
In cases where the tort committed is oppressive or vindictive, this type of damage comes into play when the court wants to punish the tortfeasors so that there is an example set for people to deter from crimes like these. The goals of punishment and deterrence are served when compensatory and aggravated damages cannot cover the tort committed.
Damages in shortening of lifespan
If, due to the tort committed by the tortfeasor, the lifespan of the plaintiff is reduced, the court may award damages to the latter without considering his social status. The test to determine compensation is the prospect of a happy life, not the amount of time reduced from his lifespan, which is an objective one for which very moderate damages are awarded.
Damages in case of death
The loss suffered by the dependent by the death of the person he depended on is covered in this theory, where a lump sum payment is made, which would be determined as to how much interest it would bring if deposited in a fixed deposit.
If there is a loss that might occur in the future due to the tortfeasor, which is determined by multiplying the likely loss due to occur every year by a multiplier indicating for how many years the loss would occur, the court awards a certain amount of damages.
Breach of trust
The plaintiff can opt for legal remedies in case a breach of trust occurs, such as injunctions, restitution, liquidated damages, a fine, incarceration, or criminal proceedings. Section 23 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 states the liability for breach of trust, which has been mentioned above in the article (supra). A beneficiary can claim punitive damages for the breach of trust in a fiduciary relationship in addition to the actual damages suffered.
If the case of breach of trust is criminal and not civil, the court may award imprisonment that can extend up to ten years with a fine, as discussed above (supra).
In the case of K.M. Nanavati v. State (1961), the Apex Court sentenced the accused, who was a naval officer, for breaching the trust of his wife by abandoning her after having an extramarital affair to three years in jail. In the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya (1990), the Apex Court held the accused guilty of criminal breach of trust for misappropriating the goods entrusted to him and sentenced him to two years in prison.
An Injunction is a civil remedy sought by the plaintiff in a suit for the admitted breach of trust, which is an order by the court forbidding the accused from doing a certain act. Injunctions will be offered only when it is proved beyond doubt that such harm occurred or is likely to occur due to the breach committed by the accused against the plaintiff. The court may grant a temporary injunction to the plaintiff and may also deny the final injunction if it doesn’t deem such action necessary. In the case of S. Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (2001), the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in Apex Court against the trustee who sold the property without the plaintiff’s permission. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff by granting a permanent injunction to restrict the accused from interfering with the possession of the property.
Summary of differences between tort and breach of trust
|Basis||Tort||Breach Of Trust|
|Nature||It is a civil wrong for which a civil suit can be filed in court.||It is both a civil and criminal wrong for which one can approach the civil or criminal court, depending on the circumstances.|
|Legislation||Tort law is not part of the legislation.||The law for breach of trust has been codified.|
|Motivation||Motivation is unimportant.||Motivation is important.|
|Foundation||The common law is the foundation for tort law.||The law of equity is the foundation of a breach of trust.|
|Relationship of the plaintiff and defendant||The plaintiff and defendant might not have been acquainted before the wrong was done.||The plaintiff and defendant must have a sense of trust between each other before the wrong is done.|
|Damages||The plaintiff can claim unliquidated damages as remedies for tortious acts.||The plaintiff can opt for legal remedies in case a breach of trust occurs, such as injunctions, restitution, liquidated damages, a fine, incarceration, or criminal proceedings.|
The law of tors refers to a system that makes it possible for the plaintiff to sue for damages in a civil suit where the accused’s actions cause harm to the plaintiff, which can be intentional, negligent, or strictly liable. The accused has to compensate for the losses that occurred or any emotional pain that was inflicted on the plaintiff, intentionally or unintentionally. There is no legislation for the law of torts, and the parties to the wrong may or may not know each other before it was committed. On the contrary, breach of trust is a crime that may be civil or criminal in nature, with the prerequisite that the parties have some sense of trust in each other, particularly on the part of the trustor entrusting the trustee with his/her property. There is a fiduciary duty on the part of the trustee to fulfil, and if some breach occurs on his/her behalf, he/she will be liable for breach of trust. The nature of damages also differs in both terms, wherein tortious liabilities award unliquidated damages, whereas breach of trust remedies award liquidated damages.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What constitutes a violation of trust?
A violation of trust occurs when the accused violates/breaches the terms of a trust agreement, which is also a violation of the law.
What are the different types of torts?
The different types of torts include assault, battery, property damage and conversion, causing emotional distress or pain intentionally or unintentionally.
Can a wrong be both a tort and breach of trust?
Yes, it can be both, depending on the harm caused and the party injured, where tort law and trust law can intersect.
Is tort a breach of duty?
Tortious acts are committed if the accused breaches his duty of reasonable care towards the plaintiff. The breach of any fiduciary duty is also considered a tort, for a tortious act cannot happen without the responsibility underlying the accused’s actions.
Who can you not sue under the tort law of the state?
A foreign enemy residing in enemy territory of a state cannot sue for tort, for he/she does not have the right to do so. If a public official in his/her official capacity commits a tort, he/she cannot be sued, but they can be sued for acts outside their official capacity.
What are the legal provisions for breach of trust in IPC?
The provisions for breach of trust are enumerated in Sections 405 to 409 of the IPC, 1860.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: