Q: Explain State Vs. Article 21 in law of tort ?

Ans:

1. Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, 1978

The passport authority declined to give passport to menaka gandhi and case went in favour of menaka gandhi.

2. Rudul Shah V. State of Bihar, 1983.

The accused completed the 14 years of punishment and he was dentented more than his period. A writ of habeas corpus was filed and the state had to give the compensation.

3. Saheli V. Commissioner of police, 1990.

Child died in police custody due to torture and the state was liable to pay compensation.

4. Kumari V. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992

Child died by falling in uncovered water and the state was held liable to pay compensation.

5. Nilabati Behra Vs. State of Orissa, 1993.

Nilabati behra's son Suman behra aged, 22 years died in police custody and the state was held liable to pay compensation.
The prayer made in the petition is for award of compensation to the petitioner, the mother of Suman Behera, for contravention of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more