Law Of Torts

The legal claim applicable here is conversion, which occurs when a person wrongfully exercises control over someone else’s personal property, resulting in permanent deprivation. Even if Sumit did not intend to harm the vase, his careless handling caused its destruction. Since the damage is irreversible and Mohan is permanently deprived of his property, conversion applies.
Option (A) is incorrect — trespass to chattels is for temporary interference, not permanent destruction.
Option (B) is incorrect — Sumit had permission to use the vase.
Option (C) is correct — the destruction of the vase justifies a claim of conversion.
Option (D) is incorrect — delay alone doesn't amount to conversion without destruction or denial of ownership.

This case falls under the principle of Absolute Liability, which was established in India by the Supreme Court in the Oleum Gas Leak case (MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1987). According to this principle, if an enterprise engages in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone, the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate the affected persons, regardless of negligence, foreseeability, or precautions taken.
Option (A) is incorrect — absolute liability applies even if the flaw was unforeseen.
Option (B) is correct — the inherently dangerous nature of dam operation imposes absolute liability.
Option (C) is incorrect — fault or warning signs are irrelevant under absolute liability.
Option (D) is incorrect — compliance with safety norms doesn’t absolve liability under this rule.

The tort of battery involves the intentional and direct application of physical force by one person on another without lawful justification. It does not require the injury to be severe or permanent. What matters is the intentional nature of the act and the fact that it led to harmful or offensive physical contact.
Option (A) is correct because Ravi intentionally pushed Mohan, which qualifies as direct physical contact.
Option (B) is incorrect—battery does not depend on the extent of injury.
Option (C) is incorrect—there is no requirement of permanent injury for battery.
Option (D) is incorrect—self-defense applies only when there is an immediate threat, which is not evident here.