Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)M.P. Electricity Board vs Shail Kumari And Ors on 12 January, 2002
"11. ...........................It was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity
Board vs. Shail Kumari and Ors. that the
liability of the Electricity Board under Law of
Torts to compensate for the injuries suffered
cannot be denied on the basis that the
Electricity Board has taken all safety measures
since the liability of the Department is strict
liability, relying upon the renowned and
celebrated case on the issue, viz., Rylands vs.
Fletcher 1868 (3) HL 330: 1861-73 All ER
Rep. 1. The Supreme Court has held as
follows:
M.C. Mehta & Anr. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1986
This rule was evolved in the case of M.C. Mehta vs.
Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 1086). However, with regard to
'strict liability' as in the present case various High Courts in
the country have dealt with the same which are briefly
illustrated herein below:
Taskinuddin & Ors. vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 11 September, 2013
In the judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 passed
in WP(C) 5812 of 2011, in the case of Taskinuddin & Ors.
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., the Delhi High Court
while quoting extensively from various judgments had
observed as under:
Lilly Stanislaus vs The Chairman on 11 February, 2008
The Madras High Court in the case of Lily
Stanislaus vs. The Chairman, (2008) 3 MLJ 160 while
following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.P Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari & Ors. AIR 2002
SC 551 held in para 11 as follows:
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bimla Devi And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 25 September, 2019
In the judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed in
LPA No. 1749 of 2014, in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. The
State of Haryana it was observed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court as follows:
1