Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.D.O. Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. & ... vs Timudu Oram on 28 July, 2005
In fact, in Timudu Oram case (cited
supra), there was also an inordinate delay in approaching the High Court. In
both the cases, the Supreme Court did not deal with the cases of minor children
and an irresponsible school management.
M.S. Grewal & Anr vs Deep Chand Sood & Ors on 24 August, 2001
28. Therefore, the liability of the management to compensate the parents
of the unfortunate child victims is a certainty. But the State also cannot
wriggle out its responsibility in compensating the parents. Under Article 21-A
of the Constitution, the State is bound to provide free and compulsory
education for every child upto the age of 14 years. In the present case, the
State is fulfilling its obligations by running Government Schools as well as
providing grant-in-aid to private schools. When such schools impart education,
they also participate in fulfilling its constitutional obligations imposed on
the State. Law on the subject is well settled right from Mohini Jain's case,
Unni Krishnan's case as confirmed by T.M.A.Pai's Foundation's case. Further, in
this State there is also the Tamil Nadu Compulsory Education Act, while will
punish parents if they do not send their children to Schools.
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
26. With reference to the contention that such compensation cannot be
ordered even in cases of negligence (either constructive or otherwise) by the
State or Public authorities, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. N.K.Gupta reported in 1994
(1) SCC 243, and extract the following passage found in the judgment:-
Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd vs Best Roadways Ltd on 27 March, 2000
27. The Supreme Court vide its decision reported in Nath Bros.Exaim
International Ltd V. Best Roadways Ltd. reported (2000) 4 S.C.C.553 no doubt,
has not accepted the action of the High Court in granting compensation to the
family of the victim who died by electrocution in a writ petition filed under
Art.226. It is equally true that when disputed questions of fact arises and if
there is clear denial of Tort liability, remedy under Art.226 of the
Constitution may not be proper. However, in the very same judgment, the Supreme
Court, in paragraph 10 had observed as follows:
Article 21A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Subhagwanti & Others(With Connected ... on 24 February, 1966
14. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. K.Subhagwanti
others reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1750 dealt with the case of potential
danger of structures near the Highways and the legal responsibility of the
owner. The following passage found in para:5 of the judgment is usefully
extracted below:-