Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.62 seconds)
The State Of Tamil Nadu Through The ... vs M.N. Shansudeen And Ors. on 22 July, 1980 cites

Kashmiri Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 September, 1969

17. Though the learned counsel on either side referred to a large number of decisions, dealing generally with the State's immunity in respect of its sovereign functions, we do not think it necessary to deal with them in detail, as the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the principle of law relating to the said plea of immunity in Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) M.L.J. (Crl.) 571 : (1965) 2 S.C.J. 318; A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 1039. As we are of the view that on the facts of this case, the transporting of the patient to the hospital can be done even by private individuals also and that when it is not the case of the State that the transport of the patients can only be done by the Government in their vehicles, it cannot be said that the work of transporting a person, who had been stabbed, to the hospital is a sovereign function. As a welfare State it may undertake many ameliorative measures, but that cannot make every such work undertaken by the State a sovereign function. As pointed out in the various decisions referred to above, if an act is to be taken as an act done in the course of the exercise of a sovereign function, it should be one, which cannot be expected to be performed by any private individual but which the State alone is authorised to perform. In this case, it cannot be said that the transport of the person who had been stabbed, in the van to the hospital is a sovereign function at all. For one thing there is no statutory rule or Government order imposing on the State a duty of carrying patients from one place to another in Government vehicles, and preventing others doing those acts. Having regard to these circumstances, we are not inclined to uphold the legal plea raised by the learned Government Pleader that the State is immune from the liability in respect of the accident caused by the driver of the Fire Service Ambulance van, by his rash and negligent driving.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - G K Mitter - Full Document

Thangarajan (Minor) By Father And Next ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By Its ... on 20 December, 1973

11. The (earned Government Pleader refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the decisions of the Madras High Court in The Highways Department of South Arcot v. Vedanthachariar and in Thangarajan v. Union of India and also to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bakshi Amrik Singh v. Union of India (1974) A. C. J. (P. and H.) 105 as supporting his stand. In the first case above referred to, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of seizure of gold and silver suspected to have been stolen, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and of the disposal of the property seized, has found that after the seizure, the gold and silver seized were entrusted to certain police personnel, who secreted the same and became scarce. Ultimately, when the person from whom the gold and silver had been seized claimed the return of the articles seized a plea was taken that the articles are not available for return. At that stage, a charge of negligence was made as against the police officers, who seized the gold and silver, in entrusting the same after seizure to a person without properly ensuring for their safe custody, and they were asked to make good the loss for the negligent performance of their duties. It is in those circumstances, the State of Uttar Pradesh maintaining the police force raised the plea that the State is not liable for the tortious acts of its servants committed in exercise of the statutory functions delegated to them by the Government. Dealing with this plea of immunity, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the act of negligence was committed by the police officers while dealing with the property of the person arrested in that case, which they had seized in exercise of their statutory powers that the power to arrest a person, to search him and to seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified officers by statute that in that last analysis, they are powers which can be properly characterised as sovereign powers; and so the act which gave rise to the claim for damages in that case had been committed by the employee of the State in the course of its employment but that the employment in question being of the category which can claim the special characteristic of sovereign power, the claim could not be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Amrik Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 April, 1980

11. The (earned Government Pleader refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the decisions of the Madras High Court in The Highways Department of South Arcot v. Vedanthachariar and in Thangarajan v. Union of India and also to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bakshi Amrik Singh v. Union of India (1974) A. C. J. (P. and H.) 105 as supporting his stand. In the first case above referred to, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of seizure of gold and silver suspected to have been stolen, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and of the disposal of the property seized, has found that after the seizure, the gold and silver seized were entrusted to certain police personnel, who secreted the same and became scarce. Ultimately, when the person from whom the gold and silver had been seized claimed the return of the articles seized a plea was taken that the articles are not available for return. At that stage, a charge of negligence was made as against the police officers, who seized the gold and silver, in entrusting the same after seizure to a person without properly ensuring for their safe custody, and they were asked to make good the loss for the negligent performance of their duties. It is in those circumstances, the State of Uttar Pradesh maintaining the police force raised the plea that the State is not liable for the tortious acts of its servants committed in exercise of the statutory functions delegated to them by the Government. Dealing with this plea of immunity, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the act of negligence was committed by the police officers while dealing with the property of the person arrested in that case, which they had seized in exercise of their statutory powers that the power to arrest a person, to search him and to seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified officers by statute that in that last analysis, they are powers which can be properly characterised as sovereign powers; and so the act which gave rise to the claim for damages in that case had been committed by the employee of the State in the course of its employment but that the employment in question being of the category which can claim the special characteristic of sovereign power, the claim could not be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 95 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Shyam Sunder And Othes vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 March, 1974

12. However, it is seen the Supreme Court has dealt with this question once again in Shyam Sundar v. State of Rajasthan . In that case, the question was whether the State could claim immunity in respect of an accident in which a truck engaged in famine relief work was involved. It was contended that the famine work is a sovereign function of the State and therefore it is entitled to plead immunity in respect of the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 129 - K K Mathew - Full Document

The Highways Department Of South Arcot, ... vs Vedanthachariar And Ors. on 19 July, 1971

11. The (earned Government Pleader refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the decisions of the Madras High Court in The Highways Department of South Arcot v. Vedanthachariar and in Thangarajan v. Union of India and also to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bakshi Amrik Singh v. Union of India (1974) A. C. J. (P. and H.) 105 as supporting his stand. In the first case above referred to, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case of seizure of gold and silver suspected to have been stolen, under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and of the disposal of the property seized, has found that after the seizure, the gold and silver seized were entrusted to certain police personnel, who secreted the same and became scarce. Ultimately, when the person from whom the gold and silver had been seized claimed the return of the articles seized a plea was taken that the articles are not available for return. At that stage, a charge of negligence was made as against the police officers, who seized the gold and silver, in entrusting the same after seizure to a person without properly ensuring for their safe custody, and they were asked to make good the loss for the negligent performance of their duties. It is in those circumstances, the State of Uttar Pradesh maintaining the police force raised the plea that the State is not liable for the tortious acts of its servants committed in exercise of the statutory functions delegated to them by the Government. Dealing with this plea of immunity, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the act of negligence was committed by the police officers while dealing with the property of the person arrested in that case, which they had seized in exercise of their statutory powers that the power to arrest a person, to search him and to seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified officers by statute that in that last analysis, they are powers which can be properly characterised as sovereign powers; and so the act which gave rise to the claim for damages in that case had been committed by the employee of the State in the course of its employment but that the employment in question being of the category which can claim the special characteristic of sovereign power, the claim could not be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Union Of India vs Jasso And Ors. on 13 November, 1961

14. This is the view taken in some of the earlier decisions also. The earliest one is a decision in Union of India v. Smt. Jasso . In this case coal was carried by a military truck from a place to the Army Unit Headquarters building at Simla driven by an army driver. On the way, the vehicle met with an accident and the accident resulted in the death of one Rakha Ram. His dependants instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000 against the Union of India, alleging that the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the military vehicle by its driver and that therefore, the Union of India was liable to pay the damages caused by the rashness and negligence by its employee. The Union of India raised the plea that the military truck was used in the course of the exercise of the sovereign functions and therefore, the State is entitled to claim immunity in respect of the said accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Full Bench of that Court took the view that there is a great and clear distinction between acts done in exercise of what are usually called sovereign powers and acts done in the conduct of undertakings which may as well be carried on by private individuals, that applying that test, the transport of coal from some depot or store to the Headquarters building of the Army at Simla could be undertaken even by a contractor or by a private individual and that the mere fact that the Government had chosen to undertake the transport by its army truck and the driver of the vehicle was a military employee, cannot make any difference to the liability of the Government for damages for the tortious acts of the driver. In this view, the Full Bench rejected the plea based on the State's immunity for the acts done in the course of exercise of sovereign functions by an employee of the Government.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - A N Grover - Full Document
1