Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (2.92 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M.S. Grewal & Anr vs Deep Chand Sood & Ors on 24 August, 2001
In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, (2001) 8 SCC 151, the apex
Court observed as under :
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 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 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
8
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 deceaseds slided resulting in the instantaneous electrocution. In
paragraph 7, the apex Court held as follows: