Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.93 seconds)
J.K. Traders, Hyd. vs State Of A.P. And Others on 28 August, 2000 cites

Sri Lakshmi Agencies And Ors. vs Govt. Of A.P. Rep By Chief Secretary And ... on 19 January, 1994

In Mis. Sri Lakshmi Agencies v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, , which was relied on by the learned Additional Advocate-General, the issue that was considered by the learned single Judge was "is the Public remedy law available to the terrorist acts of the private individuals and whether the State is liable to pay compensation for such tortuous acts of the private individuals". Mr. Vangaveeti Mohanaranga Rao, Former Sitting Member of A.P. Legislative Assembly was murdered by the opposite faction in the early hours of 26-12-1988. When the news of the said murder spread, there was sudden eruption of violence and immediately curfew was imposed in the concerned areas restricting the possible outbreak of arson and in some parts lootings took place and the public property was damaged. Government granted various benefits including grant of ex-gratia. But, however, a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for claiming compensation. The writ was filed on the principle ground that the State Government and its officers or the Central Government that on account of large scale lootings, the petitioner suffered heavy damages on account of the negligence of the State and its officers. Thus, their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(e) and (g) and 21 were violated. The learned Judge held that no distinction can be drawn between the act of servant of the Government in discharge of the statutory functions or otherwise if the servant of the Government has committed any act infringing the fundamental rights of the citizens, the State is not immune from the liability. The learned Judge considered the matter on merits of the case as to find out whether there was any negligence or lethargy on the part of the State or its officers. He observed as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983

"The police officers ..... acted deliberately and mala fide and the Magistrate and the Sub-Judge aided them either by colluding with them or by their casual attitude. We do not have any doubt that Shri Bhim Singh was not produced either before the Magistrate on 11th or before the Sub-Judge on 13th though he was arrested in the early hours of the morning of 10th. There certainly was a gross violation of Shri Bhim Singh's constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(2)... We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any Order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two months from today......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 430 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union Of India And Others on 24 November, 1983

"The police officers ..... acted deliberately and mala fide and the Magistrate and the Sub-Judge aided them either by colluding with them or by their casual attitude. We do not have any doubt that Shri Bhim Singh was not produced either before the Magistrate on 11th or before the Sub-Judge on 13th though he was arrested in the early hours of the morning of 10th. There certainly was a gross violation of Shri Bhim Singh's constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22(2)... We have no doubt that the constitutional rights of Shri Bhim Singh were violated with impunity. Since he is now not in detention, there is no need to make any Order to set him at liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise is now established by the decisions of this Court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, and Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of Rs.50,000/- within two months from today......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 141 - D A Desai - Full Document

Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, , it was held by the Supreme Court that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has a power to award the compensation for the wrong done due to the public breach by the State of not protecting the Rights and Lives of the people. Paras 40, 41 and 44 of the said judgment are relevant, which are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 2221 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next