Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.36 seconds)Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shyamsunder Trivedi And Ors on 9 May, 1995
Having examined its earlier judgments as reported in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC); State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); SAHELI, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039, the Supreme Court noted that "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" yet found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows:
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
Having examined its earlier judgments as reported in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC); State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); SAHELI, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039, the Supreme Court noted that "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" yet found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows:
Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union Of India And Others on 24 November, 1983
Having examined its earlier judgments as reported in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC); State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); SAHELI, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039, the Supreme Court noted that "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" yet found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows:
Bhim Singh vs State Of J&K on 31 August, 1984
Having examined its earlier judgments as reported in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC); State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); SAHELI, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039, the Supreme Court noted that "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" yet found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows:
Saheli, A Women'S Resources Centre, ... vs Commissioner Of Police, Delhi Police ... on 14 December, 1989
Having examined its earlier judgments as reported in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC); State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); SAHELI, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039, the Supreme Court noted that "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" yet found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows:
Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 29 September, 1964
Having examined its earlier judgments as reported in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993 ACJ 787 (SC); State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141; Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCC 339; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, 1986 ACJ 867 (SC); SAHELI, A Women's Resource Centre v. Commr. of Police, Delhi, 1990 ACJ 345 (SC); and Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039, the Supreme Court noted that "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" yet found a way out for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty as follows:
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
Following State of Haryana v. Bhajan-lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are directed to register a case on the basis of the F.I.R. Annexure 6 lodged by the petitioner No. 2 Narayan Choudhury and submit the progress report of the investigation by 5th of each month.