MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE IN TORT LAW By - Kanishk Shah

Malfeasance, Misfeasance And Nonfeasance In Tort Law

 

Authored By - Kanishk Shah

 

Abstract

Malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance are three different fields under tort law, all of them interconnected. Malfeasance refers to the intentional commission of a malicious act; misfeasance is the incorrect performance of an action that is lawful in nature. Misfeasance is also often applied and attached to public officials and government offices. Nonfeasance is the omission to perform an act when there is a duty to perform the act. The distinctions between the three have been made in various cases and will be examined in the research paper. It has been established that to impose malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance, there must be either malice or bad faith[1]. This has been set in the fact that a tortious act is based without a just cause and reason. This will be looked upon and examined by the researcher in the paper.

Negligence is also said to fall under misfeasance and is a common issue in civil cases and tort law. Negligence, or the failure to perform the act adequately, has been defined in multiple leading case laws in India and will also be looked upon critically by the researcher by analyzing multiple cases, both Indian and of different countries. The researcher will also determine the whether the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance should be inclusive of negligence or not.

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Table of Cases. 2

CHAPTERIZATION.. 3

Chapter 1. 4

Introduction. 4

Research Questions. 5

Research Objectives. 5

Literature Review.. 6

Chapter 2. 7

Understanding of Malfeasance with a look upon its History. 7

Understanding misfeasance with a look upon its history. 8

Understanding Nonfeasance and its Distinctions From Malfeasance and Misfeasance. 9

Negligence and Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance. 10

Chapter 3. 11

Critical Analysis and the Development of Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance in India, along with the Distinction of Negligence. 11

Conclusion. 13

Suggestions. 13

References. 14

 

 

 

Table of Cases

Indian

Prayaga Doss Jee Varu vs Tirumala Anandam Tillai

Municipal Corporation. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti

Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

Common Cause v. Union of India

Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum

Jaldu Venkatasubba Rao v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Company of Calcutta

State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke

 

Foreign

Ex Parte Reed

Calveley v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police

Daugherty v. Ellis

Ashby v. White

Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council

Burton v. West Suffolk County Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTERIZATION

The following is the chapterization used in this research paper:

Chapter 1

1. Introduction
2. Research Questions
3. Research Objectives
4. Literature Review

Chapter 2

1. Understanding Malfeasance with a look upon its History;
2. Understanding Misfeasance with a look upon its History;
3. Understanding Nonfeasance and its Distinctions from Malfeasance and Misfeasance;
4. Negligence and Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance

Chapter 3

1. Critical Analysis of the Development of Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance in India
2. Conclusion
3. Suggestions

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

Introduction

Malfeasance dictionarily means “the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.” Legally and in torts law, it has been defined as “the commission of an unlawful act, which are actionable per se and do not require proof of intention or motive.” In the legal sense, malfeasance has evolved into more than just an unlawful act. While it does still cover that aspect, it has also been associated more and more with public officials and government offices committing wrongful acts and misusing their powers.

Misfeasance dictionarily means “a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action.”[2] Legally, it has been established to mean “imputable to discharge of public duty.”[3] The performance of a lawful act in an unlawful manner is essentially what misfeasance entails. This also arises when the defendant has a duty towards the plaintiff to perform some act but fails to do so satisfactorily. However, in cases where the person performing the act does not have a duty towards the plaintiff and still performs the act in an improper manner, the defendant can be held liable for the acts committed. Misfeasance is also related to “misfeasance in public office,” i.e., the improper performance of an act that the public official is legally obliged to do. It is the deliberate abuse of power by a public official given to him by law. Here, as well, the intention to commit the wrongful act, along with the knowledge that the act is unlawful is necessary to establish misfeasance in public office.

Nonfeasance dictionarily means “the omission of some act that ought to have been performed.”[4] Legally, and in torts as well, nonfeasance is “the omission to discharge duty.”[5] The non-performance of an act that the defendant is obliged to perform which leads to damage is a tort, and the defendant will be held liable for it. Nonfeasance of gratuitous undertaking will not impose liability on the defendant, as the defendant did not have a duty to perform the act in the first place.
For example, a bystander who does not act upon seeing a person drown in front of him will not be liable for not acting to rescue the person as he did not have a pre-existing relationship with the drowning person, and therefore, no obligation to save him.

All these definitions, meanings and the understanding that we have of the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are through various journal articles and books written by accomplished individuals, and by significant judgements and landmark cases throughout the years in not only India, but in the UK, Australia, and other nations.

This research paper will attempt to provide a clear and a deep understanding of what malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are, as well as how these have developed in India along with the help of case laws, journal articles and other materials. The researcher hopes to probe into the history of these three topics in cases throughout the years and will attempt to trace and provide an accurate account of the same.

 

Research Questions

The following are the Research Questions that the researcher will be using to form the research paper:

1. What are the variances between malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance?
2. How have the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance developed in India?
3. Does negligence come under, or as a part of, malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance?

 

Research Objectives

The following are the objectives of the research conducted in the instant research paper:

1. Understanding what malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance mean in the legal sense;
2. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the distinctions between malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance;
3. To understand whether negligence comes under the purview of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance;
4. To view and understand the development of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in India.

 

Literature Review

Misfeasance in Public Office, by Mark Aronson[6]

This is a research paper authored by Mark Aronson, a faculty of law in the University of New South Wales. It traces the history of the tort of misfeasance and endeavors to show how the tort of misfeasance is an oddity in the tort law. In his paper, Mark Aronson propounds that the tort of misfeasance is a peculiarity in tort law, but essential in the modern period. He further states misfeasance to be a compensatory tort in nature and questions why “public officers” and “public powers” have not yet been defined. He concludes by defining misfeasance as “harms caused by public officers who knew or suspected that they were abusing their public power or position to the detriment of the individual.”

Nonsense and Nonfeasance – Reaction and Reform, by Gerald Dworkin

This is a journal article published in the Modern Law Review. The author here focuses on highway misfeasance and nonfeasance, and explains the intricacies of differentiating between misfeasance and nonfeasance in cases. He takes the case of Burton v. West Suffolk County Council to explain the difficulties in determining a case to be of misfeasance or nonfeasance.

Tort Law in India, by Usha Ramanathan

This is a work on torts in India, and analyses the case of Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat as a landmark judgement in establishing negligence and tort law in India. The paper also defines malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance and explains the meanings, usages and cases of the same. It also focuses upon negligence and nonfeasance and defines the same, along with key elements to nonfeasance.

Liability for Misfeasance in a Public Office, by Robert J. Sadler

This paper argues on whether or not the tort of malfeasance and misfeasance in public offices should be delimited or not. It argues that now, in the modern age of democracy, where every official is held accountable for their actions and their responsibilities, the time for delimitation of the tort of misfeasance is now. It argues that a precise delimitation will also be of practical significance.

Misfeasance in a Public Office: a Tort Law Misfit?, by John Murphy

This paper looks at how tort theorists consider misfeasance in public office to be an oddity and then tries to show that it is not a misfit in torts law. It establishes that the salient features of misfeasance in public office are not an oddity, but rather, can be observed in almost all torts and goes on to show the significance of the role the particular tort plays in holding public officials accountable and responsible.

Chapter 2

Understanding of Malfeasance with a look upon its History

Malfeasance is a tort where the defendant, a public official, has violated his position or power to carry out an unlawful act which had caused damage to others. One of the oldest case laws where the term malfeasance has been used, and in this meaning, is that of Ex Parte Reed[7] ,where the judgement was meted out in the Supreme Court of the US in the year 1879, where the wrongdoer, Reed, was a public official serving in the navy. All the cases since then inside the US where malfeasance is involved have been with relation to public authorities. The view of the Supreme Court of the US has been firm on the definition of malfeasance – “Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do.”[8] This summary of the court doesn’t limit the ambit of malfeasance to just public officials, and expands it to any wrongful act committed by a person, as shown in Daugherty v. Ellis[9].

In Indian cases and judgements, the terms malfeasance has been used as far back as 1894, but in Prayaga Doss Jee Varu vs Tirumala Anandam Tillai[10], the Privy Council held the defendants liable for both malfeasance and misfeasance. It is interesting to note that the defendants were trustees of a temple that was being built, i.e., officials.

While malfeasance has been used in multiple judgements in the history of Indian courts, the definition that it upholds for malfeasance remains the same – the commission of any unlawful act.

Malfeasance, as a tort, does not require proof of motive, intention or ill-will. When a person commits an unlawful act against someone, that is enough to prove malfeasance. To understand this, let’s take an example: a judge takes bribes from the convicts for reduced sentences or for letting them off. Here, the judge knows that this action of taking bribe is unlawful in nature and can make him liable for punishment or legal remedy, yet he continues with the act. The knowledge of the judge is enough to constitute malfeasance. 

The key element of malfeasance, therefore, becomes the knowledge of the defendant. The plaintiff does not have to prove ill-will of the defendant. The key elements, thus, are that the act must be unlawful in nature and that the defendant committed this unlawful act with the knowledge that the act was illegal in nature. The plaintiff must not have suffered any damage to be able to sue for malfeasance, as any unlawful acts that are actionable per se and meet the requirements mentioned above, are enough to constitute the tort of malfeasance.

Malfeasance, as a tort, is compensatory in nature. The plaintiff sues the defendant to claim damages for the loss suffered. The plaintiff does not have the burden to prove malicious intention of the defendant, as well.

 

Understanding misfeasance with a look upon its history

Misfeasance has been defined as the performance of a lawful act in an unlawful manner, i.e., where the defendant has an obligation and duty to perform an act, but performs it in an unlawful manner. As opposed to malfeasance, in cases of misfeasance, intention does matter. Let’s take an example to better understand – one Mr. X, a politician hired some caterers for a social event. The caterers were supporters of Mr. Y, a politician of the opposing party, and poisoned the food with malicious intent towards Mr. X. All the guests suffered from severe food poisoning. In this case, the caterers acted out of malice to cause harm and this, thus, forms misfeasance.

The tort of misfeasance can be traced back to 1703 in the case of Ashby v. White[11] where the Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to sue. This was the beginnings of the tort of misfeasance, specifically misfeasance in public office, i.e., when a public official uses the powers bestowed to him by law in an unlawful manner to harm others.

Another key element in establishing misfeasance in public office is malice. Misfeasance in public office is essentially an improper performance of a legal act authorized to the public official by law. In Calveley v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police[12], it was held that malice shall be present in the act performed for the defendant to be held liable for misfeasance. In this case, the plaintiff had been suspended by the Chief Constable. The plaintiff went to the court to appeal his suspension on the grounds that the suspension was done on a negligently conducted investigation. The court denied this claim, and held the suspension to not be misfeasance by the Chief Constable as there was no malice involved in the decision.

In Common Cause v. Union of India[13], it has been established that “"Misfeasance in public office" has been defined as malicious abuse of power, deliberate maladministration and unlawful acts causing injury by public officer. While actual malice, if proved, would render the defendant's action both ultra vires and tortious, it would not be necessary to establish actual malice in every claim for misfeasance in public office.”

Furthermore, in the case of Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council[14], the tort of misfeasance has been well-established and it was held that a person can allege misfeasance in public office against a local authority or government ministry. In this case, a landowner accused the local municipal council for damages caused to him by a proposed town planning which was, in fact, invalid. The invalidity of the planning which led to the damages caused to the plaintiff was held to not be misfeasance as “in the absence of malice, passing without knowledge of its invalidity a resolution which is devoid of any legal effect is not conduct that of itself is capable of amounting to such ‘misfeasance’ as is a necessary element in this tort.”[15]

The aforementioned judgements and cases have made it clear that for misfeasance to be established, malice must be present. Thus, for a plaintiff to prove that misfeasance has been committed, he must prove the malicious intent of the defendant, as opposed to malfeasance where malicious intent and ill-will is not a necessary element for proof.

 

Understanding Nonfeasance and its Distinctions From Malfeasance and Misfeasance

Nonfeasance has been defined as the failure to perform an act which the person is obliged to perform. The obligation to perform the act can arise as a legal obligation or out of a promise or anything where the defendant has a pre-existing relationship with the plaintiff.

Malfeasance and misfeasance are torts that rise out of the performance of an illegal act, however, nonfeasance is a tort which is based on the non-performance of an act that the defendants were legally obliged to perform.

To better understand it, let’s take the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti[16], a clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi fell down which led to injuries to many people and deaths of some people. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi was required to maintain it, and the failure of which ultimately led to the unfortunate accident. This can be deemed a case of nonfeasance as the Municipal Corporation was required and had a duty of care to maintain the clock tower, the failure of which duty led to the accident and, ultimately, the injuries and deaths of many people.

Therefore, the key elements of nonfeasance as established are that the defendant must hold a duty of care towards the plaintiff, that the defendant failed to perform the duty and thus, it led to damage to the plaintiff.

The main distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance has been effectively summarized in Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum[17], where the court held that “There is a distinction between misfeasance (positive action) and nonfeasance (omission). Misfeasance is wilful, reckless or heedless conduct in commission of a positive act lawfully done but with improper conduct. Non feasance means non-performance of some act which ought to be performed or omission to perform required duty or total neglect of duty. In the case of misfeasance, the defendant is the author of the source of danger to cause damage due to careless conduct, to the person/property of plaintiff. He has knowledge that the act may give rise to tort but in the case of non-feasance several factors require consideration for giving rise to actionable negligence.”

The same basis of distinction is used to differentiate between malfeasance and nonfeasance – the tort of nonfeasance is based on the non-performance of an act whereas the tort of malfeasance is the commission of an unlawful act. In nonfeasance, the defendant is required to perform an act by law, the failure of which results in damage. In malfeasance, the defendant knowingly commits an act this is unlawful in nature. A key element of nonfeasance is damage, i.e., to establish nonfeasance, the plaintiff must have suffered some damage. In malfeasance, however, damage to the plaintiff is not a key element.

 

Negligence and malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance

The torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance have all distinguishable features, nature and scope. However, the offence of negligence has often been considered to sometimes cover misfeasance, or has been thought to be similar to nonfeasance in many aspects by torts theorists.

Negligence has been defined as “when the consequences are not adverted to though a reasonable person would have foreseen them”[18]. Negligence has no association with malice or bad faith. The offence of negligence also arises when there is no duty held towards the plaintiff. The tort of nonfeasance requires the element of bad faith and malice to be established and further, it also requires that the defendant owes a duty of care towards the plaintiff. Liability for nonfeasance is not established out of gratuity, but it does arise out of gratuity for misfeasance, i.e., when a person takes on a gratuitous duty, the person is required to fulfill it properly and fully. Let’s take an example to understand – a mr. X was walking by when he sees a child drowning in the pond. Mr. X is not bound by law to jump in and save the child as he has no pre-existing relationship with the child nor does he have a legal duty. However, if he does jump in to save the child, and that action causes the child to drown and die, mr. X will be held liable for the death under misfeasance. The gratuitous undertaking of the duty to save the child will impose liability to mr. X.

Thus, the distinctions between the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance and negligence have been drawn up. The torts of malfeasance and misfeasance require the presence of actions to be done to be established and are thus distinct from negligence.

Negligence and nonfeasance also differ greatly in the need of malice in nonfeasance and the legal duty of care towards the plaintiff in nonfeasance. Nonfeasance and negligence, thus, differ greatly and should not be considered the same, nor should any of the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance be considered to come under negligence, and vice versa.

Thus, keeping in mind the natures and the distinctions between the three torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance and negligence, it can be deduced that negligence cannot fall under any of these three, and that neither of these three torts can fall under negligence.

 

Chapter 3

Critical Analysis and the Development of Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance in India, along with the Distinction of Negligence

Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are not new in the Indian legal field. Despite the origins of the three torts being in English and Australian cases, India has adopted the same definitions for all three along with a clear distinction between the three in the case of Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat[19]. The court has set clear meanings for the three in this case and has made it essential for the element of malice to be present in all the three torts. Furthermore, the judgement also mentions “The expressions ‘malfeasance’, ‘misfeasance’ and ‘non-feasance’ would, therefore, apply in those limited cases where the State or its officers are liable not only for breach of care and duty but it must be actuated with malice or bad faith.”

The torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance have thus been fully intertwined in India with malice and bad faith. For a person to prosecute a public official or even the State for any of the three torts, the person must prove the malice in the actions, or the lack of actions thereof, to hold the State liable for the damage thus caused.

Taking a look back in the history of Indian cases concerning malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, one significant case regarding the three torts is Jaldu Venkatasubba Rao v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Company of Calcutta[20], which has been cited and used in many judgements fro after this, concerning Article 31 and its scope regarding the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance outside contracts. Further cases are those where the scope of the torts is not limited to just public officials or the State, and the parties are private and individuals as well.

Up until the case of Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. V. State of Gujarat, the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance have not been limited to public officials, and the judgement given in the same case, although mentioning both malice and public offices, does not in fact limit the three torts to just public offices or officials. This case was a landmark judgement in defining and setting the scope for the three torts and has not been overruled yet. It has been cited and used multiple times, as well.

Furthermore, in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India[21], the court held that while the element of malice is a requirement in usual cases of misfeasance or malfeasance in public office, it is not required to be proved in each and every case.

Furthermore, the Indian cases and courts have set clear distinctions between negligence and the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. Negligence has been defined as “the omission to do which a reasonable man is expected to do or a prudent man is expected to do”, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke[22]. There is, thus, a clear distinction and line drawn between malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance – all of the three torts have to be intentional and out of bad faith, whereas the element of intention is not considered to be a requirement in negligence. Even though the courts consider actuated malice to be a specific key element in every case, the only exceptions that it holds are exceptional cases and even considering the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, the court did not actually find the Minister to be guilty of misfeasance in public office. 

The same judgement also sets out a newer rule concerning the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance – there must be identifiable plaintiffs or petitioners who have suffered loss and damage for a court of law to grant compensation. This further reinforces the compensatory nature of the three torts, along with the guideline that for a court to grant compensation, there must also be identifiable plaintiffs or parties that have been injured or that have suffered loss from the actions, or the lack of actions thereof, by the defendant, done out of malice. 

Another development of the tort of nonfeasance in India is that of gratuitous undertaking of duties. As mentioned above[23], nonfeasance cannot be established out of gratuity. This has been called and deemed as ethically and morally wrong by many thinkers and theorists. Taking the same example, when a person sees a person he does not know at all drowning, he does not owe the duty of care to save that person. However, the conflict of morals and ethics has been mentioned and it has been suggested to include the incidents of duties arising out of gratuity under nonfeasance.

The development of the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in India, thus, goes from being ordinary torts of the general compensatory nature, to having specific requirements of malice, identifiable plaintiffs or parties, and has been expanded to properly fit the inclusive nature of the specific torts of the same torts in public offices. These offer remedies and compensation to the aggrieved parties and have a distinguishable nature among the law of torts in India. The three torts have also been differentiated amongst themselves and with the offence of negligence, giving them a proper scope, nature and features.

 

Conclusion

The torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are all considered to be compensatory in nature. The tort law is based on two principles, so to say – a) that there must be damage and, b) the damage must be compensated. Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, all being torts, also follow the same principles, as reinforced by the Common Cause v. Union of India judgement of the Supreme Court.

The torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are fully fledged in India, with specific requirements needed to be met to establish them. The torts are seen to be essential, especially in recent times, as the aspect of misfeasance and malfeasance in public offices is considered to be especially essential to maintain and establish accountability of public officials and the State towards the public. It is also seen to be essential in viewing how the powers and authority granted to these officials have been exercised and is, thus, viewed to be significant in recent times.

Negligence has also been looked upon in the paper and has been critically examined to be different from the torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Another aspect of nonfeasance that has been examined in the paper is that of gratuitous duty, and how the courts in India, despite the overall developments of the three torts of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, have not yet brought gratuitous duty under the ambit of nonfeasance.

Finally, the researcher would like to conclude by mentioning the overall critical analysis of the three torts, of how they are looked at in India, the scope, nature and features of the same in India and the differentiation of negligence from the three torts.

 

 

Suggestions

The researcher, after conducting the research and presenting the instant paper would like to submit the following suggestions:

1. That the courts take another look upon gratuitous duty arising in nonfeasance;
2. A clearer distinction set down in judgements by the honorable courts rather than the definitions for the same.

 

References

Arya Mishra, Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance, < https://blog.ipleaders.in/malfeasance-misfeasance-nonfeasance/ >.

Mark Aronson, Misfeasance in Public Office, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2015-55 (2015) < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?Abstract_id=2652056 >.

Gerald Dworkin, Nonsense and Nonfeasance – Reaction and Reform, The Modern Law Review Vol. 23, No. 5 (1960) < https://www.jstor.org/stable/1092099 >.

Usha Ramanathan, Tort Law in India, Annual Survey of Indian Law 2001 (2001) < http://www.ielrc.org/content/a0206.pdf >.

Robert J. Sadler, Liability for Misfeasance in a Public Office (1992) < http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/sydlawrw/1992/13.pdf >.

John Murphy, Misfeasance in a Public Office: A Tort Law Misfit?, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 32, Issue 1 (2011) < https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-abstract/32/1/51/1391930 >.

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Sapre A., The Law of Torts, 28th ed. Lexisnexis (2020).

 

 

---

[1] Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1

[2] Definition of misfeasance | Dictionary.com, 2021

[3] Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1

[4] Definition of nonfeasance | Dictionary.com, 2021

[5] Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1

[6] Mark Aronson, Misfeasance in Public Office: Some Unfinished Business, SSRN Electronic Journal,

[7] Ex Parte Reed, 100 US 13 (1879)

[8] Daugherty v. Ellis, 97 S.E.2d 33 (1956)

[9] Daugherty v. Ellis, 97 S.E.2d 33 (1956)

[10] Prayaga Doss Jee Varu vs Tirumala Anandam Tillai, 1907 SCC OnLine PC 5

[11] Ashby v. White, (1703) 92 ER 126

[12] Calveley v. Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, [1989] Q.B. 136

[13] Common Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667

[14] Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council, [1981] 2 W.L.R. 693

[15] Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council

[16] Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, (1966) 3 SCR 649

[17] Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, (1997) 9 SCC 552

[18] Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Sapre, A., 2021. The Law of Torts. 28th ed. LexisNexis, p.30.

[19] Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1

[20] Jaldu Venkatasubba Rao v. Asiatic Steam Navigation Company of Calcutta, 1915 SCC OnLine Mad 52

[21] Common Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667

[22] State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke, (1995) 5 SCC 659

[23] Supra p12, ¶3