Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Another area of tort that developed in India which differs from the UK is the notion of constitutional torts. Creating constitutional torts is a public law remedy for violations of rights, generally by agents of the state, and is implicitly premised on the strict liability principle. [ 63 ]
Kasturilal Ralia Ram V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375 : is a Landmark case on Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortious acts of its servants. Owen Diaz vs. Tesla, 137 million dollars in damages to a Tesla, Inc. employee who faced racial harassment. [1] [2]
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India or EWS Reservation Case. 2022 The legality of the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution, which provides reservation in educational institutes as well as in jobs for the economically weaker sections, was upheld. Supriyo v. Union of India: 2023 The right to marry is a statutory right, not a constitutional right.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
In India, as in the majority of common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof in tort cases is the balance of probabilities as opposed to the reasonable doubt standard used in criminal cases or the preponderance of the evidence standard used in American tort litigation, although the latter is extremely similar in practice to the balance of ...
Union of India, in Indian tort law is a unique outgrowth of the doctrine of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities. Under this principle of absolute liability, an enterprise is absolutely liable without exceptions to compensate everyone affected by any accident resulting from the operation of hazardous activity.
"Justice Khanna was right in holding that the recognition of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution does not denude the existence of that right, apart from it nor can there be a fatuous assumption that in adopting the Constitution the people of India surrendered the most precious aspects of the human persona, namely, life ...
Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged or taken away by the amending procedure in Art. 368 of the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution is 'law' within the meaning of Art. 13(2) and is therefore subject to Part III of the Constitution. Decision by: K. Subba Rao (Chief Justice) with J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri, J.M. Shelat, C.A. Vaidiyalingam