LEGAL MAXIMS

1. DAMNUM SINE INJURIA: Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim which refers to
as damages without injury or damages in which there is no infringement of any legal
right which are vested with the plaintiff. Since no legal right has been infringed so no
action lies in the cases of damnum sine injuria. The general principle on which this
maxim is based upon is that if one exercises his common or ordinary rights, within
reasonable limits, and without infringing other’s legal right; such an exercise does not
give rise to an action in tort in favour of that other person. Damages can be in any
form either in the form of any substantial harm or loss suffered from respect to the
money, comfort, health, etc.
It is an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for any moral wrongs,
unless and until any legal right has been infringed. Even if the act or omission such
done by the defendant was intentional, the Court will not grant any damages to the
plaintiff. As was cited in the case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford vs. Pickles (1895) in
which the corporation of Bradford filed a suit against the defendant alleging that the
act of defendant by digging a well in the adjoining land owned by the defendant has
cut the underground supply of water in the corporation’s well hence causing them
monetary losses since there was no adequate supply of water to discharge for the
people living under the jurisdiction of the corporation. It was held that the defendant
is not liable since they had not violated any legal right of the plaintiff.
In another case of Gloucester Grammar School (1410) in which a schoolmaster, set-
up a rival school to that of the plaintiff and since because of the competition the
plaintiff had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per quarter. Thus, claimed
for compensation from the defendants for the losses suffered. It was held that the
plaintiff had no remedy for the losses suffered, since the act though morally wrong
has not violated any legal right of the plaintiff.

2. INJURIA SINE DAMNUM: Injuria sine damnum is a violation of a legal right

without causing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff and whenever any legal
right is infringed, the person in whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an action.
Every person has an absolute right to his property, to the immunity of his person, and
to his liberty & infringement of this right is actionable per se. A person against whom
the legal right has been infringed has a cause of action such that even a violation of
any legal right knowingly brings the cause of action. The law even gives the liberty
that if a person merely has a threat of infringement of a legal right even without the
injury being completed, the person whose right has been threatened can bring a suit
under the provisions of Specific Relief Act under Declaration and injunction.
In the case of Mogul steamship co. ltd vs. McGregor, Gow & co., the plaintiff was
an independent ship-owner who used to send his cargo port to obtain cargo from
China to England. An association of 4 ship-owners, also the defendants in the
following case offered a special concession to customers to oust their rival, the
plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff under these circumstances suffered loss and sued all
four of them for compensation of the losses he suffered. Since, the general principle
of Damnum Sine Injuria expresses that ‘if one exercises his common or ordinary
 rights, within reasonable limits, and without infringing other’s legal right; such an
exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in favour of that other person.
Bhim Singh Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir
In the following case of Bhim Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Mr Bhim Singh,
an MLA of Jammu & Kashmir was arrested & detained in police custody & was
deliberately prevented from attending the sessions of the legislative assembly to be
held. There was also a voting session which was going to be held and since he was not
allowed to go. At the assembly session where his vote was very important. Though the
person to whom he wanted to vote won but his right to vote was infringed.
It was concluded that the member of the legislative assembly was arrested while en
route to the seat of assembly & in consequence of the member was deprived of his
constitutional rights to attend the assembly session & responsibility for the arrest &
hence is entitled to reasonable compensation.

3. AUDI ALTRUM PARTEM: Maxim: "Audi alteram partem"

Meaning: Hear the other side. Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase meaning "listen
to the other side", or "let the other side be heard as well". It is the principle that no
person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the
opportunity to respond to the evidence against them
Case Law: In [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248], the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of the principle "audi alteram partem" in the context
of natural justice and the right to be heard.
In the case of administrative decisions, the application of "audi alteram partem"
means that authorities must provide notice to the affected parties, disclose the
evidence or allegations against them, and allow them to respond adequately. Failure to
adhere to this principle can render an administrative decision invalid.

4. NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA: The maxim "nemo judex in causa sua" means "no
one should be a judge in their own cause." It embodies the requirement of impartiality
and bias-free decision-making.
In [State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625], the Supreme Court
held that a decision-maker must be disinterested and free from any conflict of interest.
If there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, the decision may be invalidated.
This principle underscores the importance of ensuring that those making
administrative decisions maintain their objectivity and independence. It prohibits
decision-makers from having a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

5. RES NULLIUS: Res nullius means nobody’s property or a thing which has no owner.
If the owner of a property abandons property possessed by him then that property is
called res nullius. Such property is as much res nullius as a property that is ownerless.
Res nullius is ownerless property and it can be owned by any person. The person who
takes first possession of the res nullius is the owner of that property.
‘A’ abandoned his gaming consol on the road; ‘B’ found it and took it with him. Now
in this case the goods were Res Nullius and thus who takes first possession of the
them is to be considered as owner of those goods.
CASE: State of U.P v. Ist Additional District Judge
 In the above mentioned case the principle laid down by maxim ‘Res Nullius’ was
considered by the honorable Allahabad High Court

6. LOCUS STANDI: The Latin Maxim “Locus Standi” consists of two words namely
“locus” which means place and “standi” means the right to bring an action. So,
collectively, it refers to the right to appear in court or to file an action. According to
this principle, before approaching the court, one must demonstrate his legal capacity.
It means that the person can only go to court if his personal interests are jeopardized
or he is injured. One of the core concepts of the adversarial legal system is this
maxim.
Locus standi is crucial because it ensures that only those having a legitimate stake in a
case or disagreement are permitted to participate in judicial processes. It serves as a
deterrent to frivolous or irrelevant lawsuits and contributes to the legal system's
integrity and efficiency.

7. ULTRA VIRES: Ultra vires translates to ‘beyond the powers’. It is used to describe
an act which requires legal authority or power but is then completed outside of or
without the requisite authority. In relation to corporations 'ultra vires' denotes some
act or transaction on the part of a corporation which, although not unlawful or
contrary to public policy if done by an individual, is yet beyond the corporation's
legitimate powers as defined by the statute under which it is formed, or the statutes
which are applicable to it, or by its constitution,

8. RESPONDENT SUPERIOR: Respondent superior is a legal doctrine, most

commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the
wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the
employment or agency

9. AB INITIO: From the beginning.

Explanation: This means that something is valid or applicable from the very start
or the beginning.

10. VOID AB INITIO: Having no legal effect from inception. A law, agreement, sale, or
other action that is void has no legal effect. A void action cannot be ratified or
validated. An action that is void ab initio never had any legal effect

11. ADJUDICATE: To adjudicate is to act like a judge. A judge might adjudicate a case
in court, and you may have to adjudicate in the local talent show.

12. IN PARI-DELICTO: In pari delicto, Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition
of the possessor)", it is a legal term used to refer to two persons or entities who are
equally at fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort. The doctrine is
subject to a number of exceptions, including that the plaintiff must be an active,
voluntary participant in the wrongful conduct, the plaintiff's wrongdoing must be at
least substantially equal to or greater than that of the defendant, the "adverse interest"
exception, and the "innocent insider" exception.
13. ALIBI: proof that someone who is thought to have committed a crime could not have
done it, esp. the fact or claim that the person was in another place at the time the
crime happened. n alibi is also an excuse for something: At another place, elsewhere.
Explanation: The claim or evidence that someone was in a different location when
a crime was committed, providing them with an alibi or an alternative explanation.

14. VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA: It means to a willing person, it is not a wrong. In
the law of torts, if any person commits any wrongful act which causes injury to
another person, he is held liable and has to pay damages or provide some other
remedy which the Court determines, to the victim of such an act.
But in some cases even if a person suffers some loss because of the act of another
person, he cannot claim damages from that person because of the operation of
defences of tort. One such defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti
non fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to
the act which has caused injury to him. There are 2 essential elements in this defence:
 The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk
 The plaintiff with the knowledge of risk has voluntarily agreed to suffer the
harm

15. GOOD FAITH: Good faith is a broad term that's used to encompass honest dealing.
Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose,
faithful performance of duties, observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of
fraudulent intent.

16. HABEAS CORPUS: Habeas Corpus is a Latin word meaning which literally means
'to have the body of'. It is an order issued by the court to a person who has detained
another person, to produce the body of the latter before it. The court then examines
the cause and legality of detention. This writ is used to release a person who has been
unlawfully detained or imprisoned. By virtue of this writ, the Court directs the person
so detained to be brought before it to examine the legality of his detention

17. SINE DIE: When a legislature adjourns sine die, it signifies the legislative body has
concluded its meeting without setting a day or time to reconvene. It literally means to
adjourn “without a day.”

18. RES IPSA LOQUITUR: Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Latin phrase that means the thing
speaks for itself. In the law of torts, it is a very popular doctrine. In cases, where the
evidence is itself sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendant, the maxim is used
there. So, the maxim points out any circumstantial evidence or an object which itself
shows that an act has been committed. It shows that if the defendant was not
negligent, the accident would not have happened.

In the law of torts, to prove somebody's negligence, the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff which means the person who is the victim of the tort. It becomes really
 difficult to prove that the defendant was at fault and also to gather evidence against
his act or omission. If the plaintiff is not able to prove negligence on the part of the
defendant, the defendant cannot be made liable. So, the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor
came into force under which a plaintiff can use circumstantial evidence to establish
negligence.
The maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies in situations like:
 The cause of the accident was under the management or control of the
defendant
 The accident is such as in the ordinary course of things and would not happen
if those who have the management use proper care
In the cases where this maxim is used, the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to
the defendant and then the defendant has to disprove the accusations made upon him.

19. EX PACTO ILLICITO NON ORITUR ACTIO: “No action can arise from an
illegal act”. It is also presented as the “Illegality Defence Principle” or the “Defence
of Illegality”. Defendants raise as a defence, to defeat the claim, the illegality on
which the claim is based.
The traditional courts response when the claimant tried to rely on illegality to prove
his claim, was that, “Let the estate lie where it falls”.
In effect, the claimed property remained there where it stood. No balancing
considerations were taken into account. The moral and ethical approach of the case
was the dominant factor and directed the decision.

20. DALI INCAPX: Doli incapax is a term that means ‘incapable of wrongdoing.’ It’s a
principle that protects children from being held criminally responsible for their
actions.
According to the principle of Doli Incapax, in the case of India, it’s presumed that
children under the age of 7 cannot understand the consequences of their actions. As a
result, they are granted full immunity from criminal liability.

21. UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM: The law of tort is said to be the development of the
maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium. The word “jus” means legal authority to do something
or to demand something. The word “remedium” means that the person has the right of
action in the court of law. The literal meaning of the maxim is where there is a wrong
there is a remedy Where there is a right, there is a remedy
Law of equity highlights the facts that if there is a breach of right then the right which
is breached is incomplete without availability of proper remedy. The common laws
were restricted to a limited number of remedies until the concept of law of equity was
developed. In case of breach of rights, there are only a few writs which can be filed
and if in any case the suit is not covered under the writs then the suit will be
dismissed. There are so many rights available but no remedy is available in case of its
breach. To remove this deficiency the concept of a court of chancery came into
existence and have the jurisdiction to decide matters relating to equity and justice.
Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir: In this case, there is an applicant
who is the MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary gathering. While he was
on his way to the parliamentary meeting, he was inappropriately captured by a cop
 and he was not able to be introduced before the judge on time and he had a lawful
right to go to the gathering.
His fundamental right under article 21 under the Indian constitution has been violated.
The Supreme Court considered that the respondent was liable for violating the
applicants rights and it granted him a damage of rupees 50000 to the candidate for
encroachment of his fundamental right.
Ashby V. White: This is basically a case of English tort law which is related to the
violation of right and remedy provided by law. Plaintiff Mr. Ashby is a registered
voter but he was interrupted from voting in the elections. So there is a violation of
fundamental right which is Right to vote, by the officer Mr. white. The candidate,
whom he wanted to vote, won the election. Now, he wants the compensation of the
violation of his legal right. The court held that however, the plaintiff has suffered any
damage because he wished to vote in the election, his right has been infringed and he
was interrupted from exercising his legal right. Therefore, the plaintiff was awarded
compensation in the form of damages.

22. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA: Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi
Mens Sit Rea means “An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty
mind.”
It highlights that both the physical act and the corresponding guilty intention are
necessary to establish criminal liability. This principle safeguards individuals from
being unjustly convicted for acts committed without criminal intent.
The principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea has been incorporated into the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in two primary ways.
• Firstly, by explicitly incorporating the necessary mental state (mens rea) within the
definition of an offence.
• Secondly, through the inclusion of ‘General Exceptions’ outlined in Chapter 5 of the
Code.
These exceptions, such as mistake of fact, accident, infancy, and insanity, negate the
presence of mens rea in certain circumstances.

23. DE FACTO: In fact.

Explanation: Describes a situation that exists or is true in practice, even if it may not
be legally recognized or formally established

24. EX POST FACTO: - After the fact or retroactively.

Explanation: Refers to a law or action that is applied retroactively, affecting
events or actions that occurred before the law was enacted.

25. PRIMA FACIE: The Latin expression prima facie means “at first sight”, “at first
view", or "based on first impression." In both civil and criminal law, the term is used
to denote that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to
proceed to trial or judgment.

26. RES JUDICIATA: Meaning: A matter already judged.

 Case Law: In Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi (1960) 3 SCR 590, the court
discussed the doctrine of "res judicata," which prevents the same matter from being
re-litigated between the same parties.

27. ANIMUS DAMINII: Savigny, based on the content of Roman Jurist Paul, said that
there are two elements of possession:
1) Corpus possessions “commonly known as ‘corpus’
2) Animus Domini ”known as ‘animus. Animus basically means the mental element
or the aim to hold the possession as proprietor against all others. In simple words, it is
a cognizant aim to avoid others from the objective aim of possession. Without the
mental element, there can be no possession.

28. IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT: it means that ignorance of fact is an excuse.

This principle provides a defence for individuals who may have caused harm due to a
lack of knowledge or information. For example, if a person was driving a car and
accidentally hit a pedestrian who suddenly ran onto the road, the driver may be able to
use “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” as a defence if they can prove that they did not see the
pedestrian and could not have avoided the accident.
This concept is exemplified in the case of State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi, in which the
accused while guarding their field, shot an arrow at a moving object in the belief that
it was a bear. However, the object turned out to be a person, resulting in their death.
The court found the accused not liable, granting them immunity under the principle of
mistake of fact.

29. IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT: Ignorance of the law is no

excuse. Case Law: In the case of [Mens Rea v. R.C. Meena (1996) 6 SCC
626], the Supreme Court held that the maxim "Ignorantia juris non
excusat" applies, and individuals cannot escape liability by claiming
ignorance of the law.
In the case of Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup, the court held that mistake or
ignorance of the law, even if in good faith, is not a valid defence. However, it may
still be considered as a mitigating factor in some cases. Additionally, the arrest of a
person without a warrant is not justified even if the person was ignorant of the law.

30. SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX: Meaning: The welfare of the people is the
supreme law.
Case Law: In [Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545], the
court upheld the eviction of pavement dwellers, emphasizing the principle that the
welfare of the people is of paramount importance.

31. RES IPSA LOQUITUR: Meaning: The thing speaks for itself.
Case Law: In [Siddhartha v. State of M.P. (2011) 1 SCC 694] , the doctrine
of "res ipsa loquitur" was applied when an object fell from a train and
injured a passenger. The court held that negligence could be inferred
without direct evidence.
32. ACTIONABLE PER Se - The act is punishable, and no proof of damage is
required.
Explanation: This refers to an action or behaviour that is inherently
wrong or punishable without needing to prove any specific harm or
damage caused.

33. ACTIO PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA - A personal right of

action dies with the person.
Explanation: When a person passes away, their legal rights also cease.

34. AD HOC - For the particular end or case at hand.

Explanation: Something done or created specifically for a particular
purpose

35. AMICUS CURIAE - A friend of the court or member of the Bar appointed to
assist the Court.
Explanation: An individual or organization who is not directly involved
in a case but offers their expertise or opinion to the court to provide
additional guidance.

36. BONA FIDE - In good faith.

Explanation: Acting or behaving sincerely, honestly, and without deceit
or ill-intention.

37. BONA VACANTIA - Goods without an owner.

Explanation: Refers to unclaimed property or assets that have no
rightful owner.

38. BONI JUDICIS EST AMPLIARE JURISDICTIONEM - It is part of a

good judge to enlarge their jurisdiction.
Explanation: A competent judge is responsible for interpreting and
applying the law broadly to ensure justice.

39. CAVEAT - A caution registered with the public court to indicate that they are
not to act in a matter without giving prior notice to the caveator.
Explanation: A notice or warning registered with the court to prevent
any action or decision without notifying the party who issued the caveat.

40. CAVEAT EMPTOR: Meaning: Let the buyer beware. The principle that places the
responsibility on the buyer to be cautious and diligent when making a purchase, as
they are responsible for evaluating the quality and suitability of the goods or services.
Case Law: In [Satyam Cinema v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 1], the court
referred to the maxim "caveat emptor" in the context of consumer protection and
product liability cases
41. CAVEAT VENDITOR - Let the seller beware.
Explanation: The principle that places the responsibility on the seller to
be cautious and honest when selling a product, as they may be held
accountable for any defects or misrepresentations.
42. CERTIORARI - A writ used to quash orders passed by an inferior court.
Explanation: A legal writ that allows a higher court to review and
potentially overturn a lower court's decision.

43. CORPUS - Body.

Explanation: Refers to the physical body of a person, often used in
legal contexts such as "habeas corpus" (the right to challenge unlawful
detention).

44. CORPUS DELICTI - The facts and circumstances constituting a crime and
concrete evidence of a crime, such as a corpse (dead body).
Explanation: In criminal law, it refers to the concrete evidence or
material elements that prove a crime has been committed.

45. DE JURE - By law.

Explanation: Something that is recognized or established by law.

46. DE MINIMIS - About minimal things.

Explanation: Refers to matters or issues that are so insignificant or
minimal that they are not considered worthy of attention or legal action.

47. DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX - The law does not govern trifles or ignores
insignificant details.
Explanation: It is a legal principle stating that the law does not
concern itself with minor or trivial matters.

48. DE NOVO - To make something anew.

Explanation: Refers to starting afresh or from the beginning.

49. DICTUM - Statement of law made by a judge in the course of the decision but
not necessary to the decision itself.
Explanation: A statement or remark made by a judge in a court decision
that is irrelevant or necessary to the case's outcome.

50. DETINUE - The tort of wrongfully holding goods that belong to someone else.
Explanation: Refers to the wrongful act of retaining or refusing to
return someone else's property or goods

51. ESTOPPEL - Prevented from denying.

Explanation: A legal doctrine that prevents a person from denying or
contradicting a previous statement or position they have taken.

52. EX GRATIA - As a favor.

Explanation: Something done or given voluntarily, out of kindness or
goodwill, without legal obligation.

53. EX OFFICIO - By virtue of the office held.

Explanation: By the authority or power granted to someone because of
their position or office.
54. EX PARTE - Proceedings in the absence of the other party.
Explanation: Legal proceedings or actions that take place without the
presence or participation of the opposing party.

55. Factum probans - Relevant fact.

Explanation: A fact or evidence that is significant or relevant in
establishing a claim or proving a case..

56. IPSO FACTO - By the mere fact itself.

Explanation: Something that automatically or inherently follows or
results from a particular fact or action.

57. IN PROMPTU - In readiness.

Explanation: Refers to being prepared or ready for something.

58. IN LIEU OF - Instead of.

Explanation: In place of or as a substitute for something else.

59. IN PERSONAM - A legal proceeding directed against a specific individual.

Explanation: Refers to a legal action or proceeding targeted or directed
specifically against a particular individual to establish personal rights or
obligations

60. INNUENDO - Spoken, defamatory words because they have a double meaning.
Explanation: Refers to a statement or remark that implies a defamatory
meaning or intention through indirect or veiled language.

61. IN STATUS QUO - In the current state or condition.

Explanation: Describes the existing or current state of affairs or
circumstances.