Jadoo Lal Mullick V. Kali Kishen Tagore

Damages
“Damage” means the harm or loss suffered or presumed to be suffered by a person as a result of some wrongful act of another. The sum of money awarded by the court to compensate “damage” is called “damages”. There are two types of damages: compensatory and punitive. Compensatory damages are intended to compensate the injured party for his loss or injury. Punitive damages are awarded to punish a wrongdoer. Damages are also liquidated and unliquidated. Liquidated damages are those in which the damages are prefixed i.e. the amount of compensation is already fixed and unliquidated damages are those in which the damages are not prefixed and the court decides the compensation.
Damages can also be classified as aggrevated and exemplary damages.
Kali Kishen Tagore : In this case the Plaintiff and Defendant were proprietors of land and gardens on opposite sides of a khal in which the tide in the River Hooghly flowed and by which the surface water was carried in a direction from the east to the west into the Hooghly. The Plaintiff was the proprietor on the north side, the Defendant on the south side just at the mouth of the khal. It seemed a tidal creek which is daily subject to the flow of the river; for the protection of the banks on each side of the khal, walls had been erected, one at each side of the khal, and that the Defendant, upon the wall on his side becoming somewhat dilapidated, constructed a fresh one, and the person employed person altered the direction of the wall to some degree; a portion of it he built further in towards the Defendant's land than it had been before, and another small portion he built a little further out. The plaintiff said that the Defendant's wall was an obstruction to the public navigation in the khal which belonged to the Government. The government engineer declined, to interfere, on many grounds, one of which was that the khal was not navigable, and another that there was in his opinion no obstruction.
Damnum sine injuria: actual and substantial loss without infringement of any legal right, no action
Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors. : It is a civil case where an advertisement published in the Oriya daily, The Sambad, inviting applications for selection of dealer for opening of a Retail Outlet at Banki by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Writ Petition was filed with prayer for quashing of the advertisement. Held: it cannot be said that on opening of a retail outlet at Banki by BPCL, the right of the Petitioner who was an existing retail outlet dealer of Indian Oil Corporation would be infringed. - Writ petition dismissed.
Ashwani v. State of Haryana & Ors. :It is civil case where a petition was filed for quashing public notice inviting the interested persons for auction for site of photo state machine.
Held: no earmarked space and the booth unauthorised cannot be accepted because the temporary structure in the facts and circumstances of the case for installing Photostat machine not impermissible nor any provision has been quoted in that regard - Such an argument cannot be raised by the Petitioner especially when he himself has been running his Photostat machine and Form Counter from the same site .Hence, the petition