Facts of the Case
A medical doctor issued sickness certificates to certain employees of a company, on the basis of which those employees claimed medical reimbursement and leave benefits. The company alleged that the certificates were false and fabricated, and consequently initiated criminal prosecution against the doctor.
After trial, the criminal court acquitted the doctor, finding no sufficient evidence to prove guilt. Following his acquittal, the doctor instituted a civil suit for damages against the company, alleging that the prosecution was malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, and intended to harm his professional reputation.
The central question arose whether a company, being an artificial legal person, could be held liable for the tort of malicious prosecution.
Issues in the Case
The main issues involved are:
- Whether a company can be said to have initiated prosecution with malice.
- Whether a juristic person is capable of committing the tort of malicious prosecution, which traditionally involves intention and motive.
- Whether the essential elements of malicious prosecution are satisfied in the present case.
- How the theories of corporate personality explain corporate liability in tort law.
Legal Principles Covered Supporting the Proceedings and Judgements
(a) Tort of Malicious Prosecution
Under Indian tort law, a plaintiff must prove:
- Prosecution by the defendant
- Termination in plaintiff’s favour
- Absence of reasonable and probable cause
- Malice
- Damage to reputation, liberty, or property
(b) Corporate Liability in Torts
A company is a juristic person capable of suing and being sued. Under the Doctrine of Attribution, the acts and intentions of directors, officers, and agents are attributed to the company.
(c) Theories of Corporate Personality
Fiction Theory (Savigny)
The company acts through human agents; therefore, malice can be attributed through them.
Realist Theory (Gierke)
The corporation has a real existence and collective will, making it capable of wrongful intent.
Concession Theory
Since the State grants corporate personality, it may impose liabilities, including tortious liability.
(d) Case Law
State Trading Corporation v. CTO (1963)
Recognized companies as legal persons capable of rights and liabilities.
Herniman v. Smith (1938)
Established that malice of corporate officers may be attributed to the company.
Indian courts have consistently held that companies can be liable for torts requiring intention, if such intention is traceable to persons controlling the company.
Possible Judgement (With Reason)
The company can be held liable for malicious prosecution if it is proved that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable and probable cause and with malice, attributable to its responsible officers.
Since the doctor was acquitted and suffered reputational damage, and if evidence shows that company officials acted with improper motive, the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution stand fulfilled.
Applying the Realist and Fiction theories of corporate personality, the court would likely hold that the malice of corporate agents is imputable to the company, making the company liable to pay damages.
About lawgnan
Understanding corporate liability in torts is crucial for mastering jurisprudence and law of torts. At lawgana.in, we break down complex legal theories like corporate personality and malicious prosecution into exam-ready, easy-to-understand answers. Whether you are preparing for LLB exams, judiciary services, or legal research, our structured problem-based content helps you develop strong analytical skills. Visit lawgana.in today for authoritative legal explanations, case-law based answers, and simplified jurisprudence notes designed to help you excel academically and professionally.
