Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 99 (1.91 seconds)
Documents citing Bhim Singh vs State Of J&K on 31 August, 1984

Association Of Victims Of Uphaar ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 February, 2000

Bhim Singh Vs. State of J & K, Saheli Vs. Commissioner of Police and State of Mahrashtra Vs. Ravikant S. Patil) that the liability of the State to pay compensation cannot now be denied. In this case it was clarified that this liability to compensate in public law was different and distinct from the liability in private law for compensation in an action on tort. It was clarified by the Supreme Court, in this case, that award of compensation in a proceeding under Art. 32 or Art 226 is a remedy available in public law based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principles of sovereign immunity did not apply, even though it may have been available as a defense in private law in an action based on tort. On this point the Supreme Court has observed as follows :
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 1 - S K Mahajan - Full Document

Sri Lakshmi Agencies And Ors. vs Govt. Of A.P. Rep By Chief Secretary And ... on 19 January, 1994

The claim of compensation by the aggrieved, at Rs,l,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) for every victim basing on Sabastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (3 supra), M.K. Sarma v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. and Bhim Singh v. State of J & K (1986 ACJ 867 (SC)) were held to be not tenable. The relief was granted basing on the report of the committee of officers constituted by the State Government for that purpose. Ex-gratia payment was first sanctioned at Rs. 20,000/- but the committee has suggested the increase to Rs. 50,000/-. The High Court has directed payment of said ex-gratia sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, as suggested by the said committee. The said judgment is not on firm basis traceable to Article 21 of Indian Constitution.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.Vijayashankar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 September, 2019

1983 SCC (Cri) 798] the petitioner therein approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that though he was acquitted by the Sessions Court on 3-6-1968, he was released from jail only on 6-10-1982, after 14 years, and sought compensation for his illegal detention. This Court while recognising that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of courts, civil and criminal, raised for consideration the important question as to whether in the 159/299 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9267 of 2017 exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for payment of money, as compensation for the deprivation of a fundamental right. This Court answered the question thus while awarding compensation: (SCC pp. 147-48, para 10) “Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringement of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others too well known to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.” 160/299 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.9267 of 2017 Rudul Sah [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798] was followed in Bhim Singh v. State of J&K [(1985) 4 SCC 677 :
Madras High Court Cites 198 - Cited by 2 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Thankappan vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 27 January, 1997

In view of the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (1984) 1 SCC 339; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 82; Bhim Singh v. State of J & K (1984) Supp SCC 504; Bhim Singh v. State of J & K 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); Saheli: a Women's Resource Centre v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil 1991 ACJ 888 (SC); the liability of the State of Orissa in the present case to pay the compensation cannot be doubted and was rightly not disputed by the learned Additional Solicitor General. It would, however, be appropriate to spell out clearly the principle on which the liability of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation and the distinction between this liability and the liability in private law for payment of compensation in an action on tort. It may be mentioned straightaway that award of compensation in a proceeding under Article 32 by this Court or by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law, based on strict liability for contravention of fundamental rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as a defence in private law in an action based on tort. This is a distinction between the two remedies to be borne in mind which also indicates the basis on which compensation is awarded in such proceedings.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - K A Gafoor - Full Document

Tirupathi Bharathi vs The State Of Ap on 10 November, 2025

(See with advantage Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [(1983) 4 SCC 141 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 798] ; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India [(1984) 1 SCC 339 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 87 and (1984) 3 SCC 82 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 407] ; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K [1984 Supp SCC 504 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 60 and (1985) 4 19 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.25601 of 2024 SCC 677 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 47] ; Saheli, A Women's Resources Centre v. Commr. of Police [(1990) 1 SCC 422 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 145] .) There is indeed no express provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation for violation of a fundamental right to life, nonetheless, this Court has judicially evolved a right to compensation in cases of established unconstitutional deprivation of personal liberty or life.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Nitin Aryan @ Satish Kumar Sonwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 June, 2021

34. Following the principles of law laid down in the above­referred judgments, reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that the petitioner remained in jail as under­trial for a period of 4 years, 6 months and 7 days, whereas he has been awarded punishment of 3 years for offences under Section 420/34 and Section 120B of the IPC (separately) and both sentences to run concurrently, as such, he remained in jail in excess (one year and six months) for more than the sentence awarded by concerned trial Magistrate, on account of delay in conducting the trial, despite twice this Court while hearing bail applications on 22.4.2013 and 24.6.2014 directed the trial Magistrate to conclude the trial expeditiously, which was not taken cognizance of by the learned trial Magistrate by which the petitioner continued in jail for a period more than the actual sentence awarded violating the petitioner's right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the 31 AIR 1986 SC 494 22 Constitution of India and for which he is entitled for monetary compensation.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Harkanth vs State Of M.P. on 9 November, 2021

In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K this Court expressed the view that the police officers should have greatest regard for personal liberty of citizens as they are the custodians of law and order and, hence, they should not flout the law by stooping to bizarre acts of lawlessness. It was observed that custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties, for their duty is to protect and not to abduct.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next