Case Analysis of

Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of

Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1

Submitted by:
Nikhil Goyal

FACTS
In 1954 the state of Gujarat passed a provision for construction
for dam which was completed in 1955.The appellant who was the
owner of jay laxmi salts Pvt. Ltd. Wrote many petitions to the
concerning authorities to either abandon or change the location of
dam so that his factory would not be affected by the dam, but the
authorities did not took notice of his complaints and continued to
make dam without any changes. On 5th July, 1956, due to heavy
rainfall his factory premises were flooded because of high level of
dam water so the owner approached authorities for compensation
of Rs. 4 lakh but authorities wanted it to be privately assessed
after which an amount of Rs. 1,58,735 was considered as loss
suffered by owner and it was not paid so he filed a suit for
compensation. The trial court and High court of Gujarat
dismissed the suit on various grounds but on 4th May,1994
honble supreme court of India held that the state is liable to
compensation to the appellant.
ISSUES
Following issues are related to the mentioned case which brought
both the parties to court :

1. Increase in level of water due to which appellants factory

was flooded was an act of god according to authorities.
2. There was negligence by authorities while constructing the
dam due to which premises were compromised.
3. Did appellant filed for suit very late and the suit was now
barred by time.
4. Was the construction of dam a wrongful construction
because it could have caused harm to appellants property
right from the time it was constructed.

RULES
1. Rule of strict liability apply to authorities.
2. Non-natural use of land by authorities caused harm to
appellants property.
3. Authorities were liable for misfeasance, malfiseance.
4. Article 120 of limitation act and article 30 applies to this
case.

ANALYSIS
1. As authorities brought something near the appellants factory
which caused damage to property so they were now bound to
compensate the owner of factory under the rule of strict
liability.
2. Even after several notices by the owner, concerning
authorities did not take required steps to protect the factory
so they were also liable for negligence.
3. Although appellant filed suit after 2 years of construction of
dam but he was not barred by time because he was constantly
informing authorities about the dangers of dam right from the
construction of dam.
4. The authorities were held liable because they did not take
necessary precautions while constructing dam and also did
failed to take required steps to compensate the appellant. It
was stated that foundation of torts is on the morality that no
one has right to injure or harm other intentionally or even
innocently.
5. Although the dam was constructed to benefit majority of
people but it does not mean that rights of one person could be
violated and he could be injured in any manner.

CONCLUSION

Justice Sahai watched that whole law of torts is established and

organized on ethical quality that nobody has right to injure or
mischief other deliberately or even guiltlessly. I concur with J.
Sahai's perception on the grounds that in the event that it would
have not been so at that point there is no other center standard
of choosing the hard case like this one. For this situation the
harm caused to the appealing party was because of carelessness
of officers as well as because of disappointment of releasing open
obligation and slip-up at different stages. The case has been
translated normally and comprehensively yet it is whelmly limited
while application if done to offer equity to appealing party.
Accordingly it is antiquated to near regularly extending and
developing skyline of convoluted obligation as it is essential for
precise development, social advancement of society and social
refinesses.
CASES WITH SIMILAR SITUATIONS
1. Rylands vs. Fletcher
2. State of Punjab vs. modern cultivators
3. Union of India vs. united India insurance Co. Ltd.