Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2011
In Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P. , the Court was
dealing with the issue of delayed trial and the
humiliation faced by the appellant therein. A
Division Bench of the High Court in intra-court
appeal had granted compensation of Rs.70,000/-.
This Court, while dealing with the quantum of
compensation, highlighted the suffering and
humiliation caused to the appellant and enhanced
the compensation.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Sube Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 February, 2006
In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, the three-
Judge Bench, after referring to the earlier decisions,
has opined: (SCC pp.198-99, para 38)
"38. It is thus now well settled that the
award of compensation against the State is
an appropriate and effective remedy for
redress of an established infringement of a
fundamental right under Article 21, by a
public servant. The quantum of
compensation will, however, depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case.
Award of such compensation (by way of
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 03:04:31 :::
CriWP358-2002.odt
-36-
public law remedy) will not come in the
way of the aggrieved person claiming
additional compensation in a civil court, in
the enforcement of the private law remedy
in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal
court ordering compensation under Section
357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
Section 56 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra & Anr.Etc.Etc. vs Sagar Balu Ubhe on 21 April, 2014
In The State of Maharashtra v. Shri. Sagar Balu Ubhe (supra)
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division
Bench of this Court by referring the principles evolved in D.K.
Basu's case and also by referring other cases wherein the principles
laid down in D. K. Basu's case are followed, in para 28 has made
the following observations:
Sandeep Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 29 July, 2019
26. Learned APP has placed reliance in the case of Sandeep
Kumar v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (supra), wherein, the
Delhi High Court has dealt with the questions regarding the
procedure to be followed by the police of one State, when they go
to some other State or Union Territory, to effect an arrest while
investigating a complaint or a First Information Report disclosing a
cognizable offence. In the habeas corpus petition, the Delhi High
Court decided to constitute a Committee to conduct an enquiry into
the matter and in particular the legality of the actions of the police
attached to certain police stations. In para 15, the Delhi High Court
has referred the suggestions given by the said Committee. Para 15
to the extent of the clauses which are relevant for the present
discussion are reproduced herein below: