Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
In this context, reference may be
made to two decisions of this Court : the first in line is the decision in
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (AIR 1993 SC 1960) wherein this
Court relying upon the decision in Rudal Sah (Rudal Sah v. State of
Bihar), (AIR 1983 SC 1086) decried the illegality and impropriety in
awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the Court's power
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution stands involved and thus
observed that it was a clear case for award of compensation to the
petitioner for custodial death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however,
that in the present context, there is no infringement of the State's
obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed to be joint
tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties stands restricted and without
4
imparting any liability on the State, we do not deem it expedient to deal
with the issue any further except noting the two decisions of this Court
as above and without expression of any opinion in regard thereto."
Rudal Sah vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 January, 2012
In this context, reference may be
made to two decisions of this Court : the first in line is the decision in
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (AIR 1993 SC 1960) wherein this
Court relying upon the decision in Rudal Sah (Rudal Sah v. State of
Bihar), (AIR 1983 SC 1086) decried the illegality and impropriety in
awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the Court's power
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution stands involved and thus
observed that it was a clear case for award of compensation to the
petitioner for custodial death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however,
that in the present context, there is no infringement of the State's
obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed to be joint
tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties stands restricted and without
4
imparting any liability on the State, we do not deem it expedient to deal
with the issue any further except noting the two decisions of this Court
as above and without expression of any opinion in regard thereto."
Ramesh Singh Pawar vs M.P. Electricity Board And Ors. on 5 April, 2004
In this connection, we would like to profitably quote a paragraph
from a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramesh
Singh Pawar v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others, AIR 2005
MP 2. It is held as follows:
Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 1989
16. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many
subsequent decisions in England and decisions of the apex Court are a
legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Charan
Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 and a Division Bench in
Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR
1987 SC 1690 had followed with approval the principle in Rylands
(supra).
Gujarat State Road Transport ... vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Another on 11 May, 1987
16. The rule of strict liability has been approved and followed in many
subsequent decisions in England and decisions of the apex Court are a
legion to that effect. A Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Charan
Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 and a Division Bench in
Gujarat State Road Transport Corpn. V. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai, AIR
1987 SC 1690 had followed with approval the principle in Rylands
(supra).
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
The same principle was reiterated in Kaushnuma Begum v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 485.
M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors on 12 January, 2002
In M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar and others, AIR 2002 SC
551, one Jogendra Singh, a workman in a factory, was returning from
his factory on the night of 23.8.1997 riding on a bicycle. There was rain
and hence the road was partially inundated with water. The cyclist did
not notice the live wire on the road and hence he rode the vehicle over
the wire which twitched and snatched him and he was instantaneously
electrocuted. He fell down and died within minutes. When the action
was brought by his widow and minor son, a plea was taken by the Board
that one Hari Gaikwad had taken a wire from the main supply line in
order to siphon the energy for his own use and the said act of pilferage
was done clandestinely without even the notice of the Board and that
the line got unfastened from the hook and it fell on the road over which
the cycle ridden by the deceased slided resulting in the instantaneous
electrocution. In paragraph 7, the apex Court held as follows: