Vijay used to run a grocery store. Sanjay was one of his customers. One day, Vijay and Sanjay had an argument over something. With the intention of causing loss to Vijay, Sanjay opened a grocery store right in front of V

It is not that every damage is a damage in the eyes of law. It must be a damage which the law recognizes as such. In other words, there should be a legal injury or invasion of the legal right. In the absence of an infringement of a legal right, an action does not lie. The situation asked in the question is related to damnum sine injuria . Damnum means harm, loss or damage in respect of money, comfort, health, etc. Injuria means infringement of a right conferred by law on the plaintiff. The maxim means that in a given case, a man may have suffered damage and yet have no action in tort, because the damage is not to an interest protected by the law of torts. Therefore, causing damage, however substantial to another person is not actionable in law unless there is also a violation of a legal right of the plaintiff. Common examples are, where the damage results from an act done in the exercise of legal rights. Thus, if I own a shop and you open a shop in the neighbourhood, as a result of which I lose some customers and my profits fall off, I cannot sue you for the lose in profits, because you are exercising your legal right. [ Gloucester Grammer School case, (1410) ] In view of the above, in the given situation Vijay was running a grocery store but due to some argument Sanjay also opened a grocery store right in front of his shop due to which Vijay lost some of his customers and suffered losses. Vijay cannot sue Sanjay for his losses as there is no legal damage done by Sanjay and he was exercising his legal right. Therefore, Vijay cannot recover any damages from Sanjay.