Capacity to be Sued

- Capacity of a convict

A convict whose sentence was in force and unexpired and who was not lawfully at large
under any license could not sue for injury to his property or recovery of a debt. This disability
was removed under the criminal justice act 1948, a convict can therefor sue for wrongs to his
property and person like any other citizen the same goes for Indian law where the convicts
are not by mere reasons of their conviction denuded of their fundamental rights which they
otherwise possess.

A convict can sue for a vindication of a right which is invaded by a tortious act
committed by the other, he can thus sue for battery or assault if prison authorities apply
excessive force to enforce prison discipline or apply force for improper purpose. In the case
of Smt. Kewal Pati vs State of UP, a convict was assaulted by another convict and was killed
due to the failure of the prison authorities to protect him, the dependents of the convict filed a
case under sec 32 of the constitution, and the court granted a compensation of Rs. 1 L for the
violation of fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the constitution by the state.

- Alien enemy

An alien enemy is every person residing in a foreign country, the government of which is at
war with India and carrying on business in that country without license from Central
Government. An enemy alien cannot sue in his own rights.

In the case of Manasi Film Co. vs Gemini Pictures Circuits, it was decided that, every
person residing in a country, the government of which is a t war with India and carrying on
business in that country without the license on that behalf granted by the central government
is deemed to be an alien enemy residing in a foreign country

- Husband and wife

A married women cannot sue for any tort committed by a third person unless her husband
joined as plaintiff. She could also not be sued for a tort committed by her unless her husband
was made defendant. Further, she could not sue her husband and the husband could not sue
her for any tort committed by one against the other. These anomalies were removed by law
reform (husband and wide) Act, 1962 Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act,
1935 and married woman’s property Act 1882.
 In the case of Ajay Hasia Vs Khalid Mujib, it was decided that even if there was an
anomaly in the Indian law similar in any manner to those in common law, it could not survive
the impact of the constitution which, under article 14 embodies a guarantee against
arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Thus, the legal position is that marriage has no effect on
the rights and liabilities of either of spouses in respect of tort committed by them or by third
party.

- Corporation

A Corporation is a legal person- created by a statute like SBI, University or municipal

corporation, it has the capacity to be sued and sued.

Suits by corporations

A corporation cannot bring a suit for torts which are only against living persons: eg; assault,
false imprisonment. It cannot sue for torts essentially against its shareholders or employees
unless it has some impact on its governance or business. Subject to this, Corporation can sue
for torts against itself. Eg; malicious petition for winding up.

Suits against corporation

A. Is a corporation liable for torts committed by its agent when acting within the scope of
powers of a corporation? In this case, the earlier view was that, if it was for trespass,
assault, conversion etc but not for torts involving malice or fraud. But now, the
doctrine of alter ego is applied where the mind and will of a natural person who has
management and control of the action of a corporation in relation to the act or
omission in point. So, now a corporation may be sued for wrongs, even for malice or
fraud.
B. Is a corporation liable for the tortious act of its servants, which is ultra vires the
corporation? in this case, the earlier view was that a corporation is vicariously liable
for the tortious act of its servants even though it is ultra vires provided it is done
during employment. However, in India, there are differing views on this matter, but it
is generally agreed that a corporation cannot escape accountability for a tort
committed against it because the act was not intra vires.
Municipal Council v. Thiruveriamuthu Pillai (1961)