Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)
Jambeswar Naik And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 30 September, 2021
cites
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 45 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Nilabati Behera Alias Lalit Behera ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 24 March, 1993
19.1 In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (supra), the
Supreme Court explained the principle on which the liability
of the State arises in such cases for payment of compensation
and the distinction between this liability and the liability in
private law for payment of compensation in action on tort.
The Court said:
Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab.Attar Singhv.State Of ... on 5 December, 1952
In Darshan v. Union of India 1999 (79) DLT 432 the
Delhi Court was dealing with a claim by the widow and
minor children of a bus driver who had fallen into an open
manhole and died of drowning. On the facts of the case, it
was held that it was a case of res ipsa loquitur, and therefore
compensation could be awarded under Article 226. The
Court:
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983
18. The liability of the State to provide reparation for
constitutional torts arising from acts of omission and
Page 10 of 20
commission of state entities has been recognised by the
Supreme Court of India and the High Courts in a series of
decisions beginning with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar AIR
1983 SC 1086 followed by Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita
Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960; Consumer
Education and Research Centre v. Union of India AIR
1995 SC 922 and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v.
State of West Bengal AIR 1996 SC 2426.
Consumer Education & Research Centre ... vs Union Of India & Others on 27 January, 1995
18. The liability of the State to provide reparation for
constitutional torts arising from acts of omission and
Page 10 of 20
commission of state entities has been recognised by the
Supreme Court of India and the High Courts in a series of
decisions beginning with Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar AIR
1983 SC 1086 followed by Smt. Nilabati Behera @ Lalita
Behera v. State of Orissa AIR 1993 SC 1960; Consumer
Education and Research Centre v. Union of India AIR
1995 SC 922 and Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v.
State of West Bengal AIR 1996 SC 2426.
K Ajit Babu And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1997
20. The dictum in Nilabati Behera has been consistently
applied in later cases, the prominent among which is D.K.
Basu v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 610. Therefore,
applying these principles, and considering the fact that there
is no dispute as to how and in what circumstances the two
children died, there is no difficulty in this Court holding the
State officials liable for the death of the two helpless little
children of the two Petitioners, and requiring the state
authorities to pay compensation for violation of the
fundamental right to life of the two children.