Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
10. If the claim of the petitioners in this case is with regard to the payment of compensation, this Court would not have hesitated for a moment to award the same in view of the unequivocal pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera's case (1993 Cri LJ 2899) and D. K. Basu's case (1997 Cri LJ 743). Though the petitioner in O. P. No. 21142/98 has prayed for payment of compensation, the relatives of the deceased Varghese do not want any compensation. This Court is now confronted with the counter affidavit filed by the additional 5th respondent who swears that he killed Varghese by shooting. The above counter affidavit states that the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit are voluntarily made without any inducements, threats or coercions or promises from any source. It further says that the deponent is well aware that any disclosures are likely to be used against him in any subsequent judicial proceedings or trial for the offence of murder. The deponent swears that he is fully aware of the repercussions and consequences of the contents of the affidavit. The incident is described in the affidavit in the following words of the deponent:
Khatri And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 January, 1981
18. This view finds support from the decisions of this Court in the Bhagulpur blinding cases : Khatri (11) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627 : AIR 1981 SC 928 : 1981 Cri LJ 470 and Khatri (IV) v. State of Bihar (1981) 2 SCC 493 : AIR 1981 SC 1068 : 1981 Cri LJ 597, wherein it was said that the Court is not helpless to grant relief in a case of violation of the right to life and personal liberty; and it should be prepared 'to forge new tools and devise new remedies' for the purpose or vindicating these precious fundamental rights. It was also indicated that the procedure suitable in the facts of the case must be adopted for conducting the inquiry, needed to ascertain the necessary facts, for granting the relief, as the available mode of redress, for enforcement of the guaranteed fundamental rights.
Union Carbide Corporation Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1991
More recently in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584 : AIR 1992 SC 248, Misra C.J. stated that we have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to a rise in future...there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of liability... to the same effect are the observations of Venkatachaliah J. (as he then was), who rendered the leading judgment in the Bhopal gas case, with regard to the Court's power to grant relief.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1