Rule On Issue 1 Not explicitly stated: Section 2 1 of the Act provides that the Crown shall be subject to all those liabilities, in tort, to which it would be subject if it were a private person of full age and capacity, in respect of torts committed by its servants or agents, subject to the other provisions of the Act.
Free for one month and pay only if you like it. Ever since the days of the Fast India Company, the Sovereign was held liable to be sued in tort or in contract and the English Common law immunity as it existed in England before the enactment of Crown Proceedings Act,never operated in India.
The Court also pointed out that the liability of the Secretary of State was in no sense a personal liability, but had to be satisfied out of the revenues of India.
The old and archaic concept of sovereignty thus does not survive. In answer to this contention, it was pointed out by the Court that the Company would not have been liable for any act done by its officers or soldiers in carrying on hostility or in seizing property as prize property or while engaged in military or naval action.
But the appellant refused to take delivery of the stock because of deterioration in quality. All these rules were not complied with. In its respect, the present set up of the Government is analogous to the position of the East India Company, which functioned not only as a Government with sovereign powers, as a delegate of the British Government, but also carried on trade and commerce, as also public transport like railways, posts and telegraphs and road transport business.
Therefore, the State of Rajasthan would be liable for a negligent act of its employee performed in the course of employment. In India, ever since the time of the East India Company, the sovereign has been held liable to be sued in tort or in contract, and the Common Law immunity never operated in India.
The relevant provisions for determining the extent of that liability were not those contained in Arts. There was nothing in this case to indicate that State of Rajasthan would not have been liable for a similar act on the eve of the constitution.
A suit for damages was filed by Mr. CJWanchoo, K. In our opinion, the State is in no better position insofar as it supplies cars and keeps drivers for its civil service.
We are further of opinion that East India Company were not sovereigns, and, therefore, could not claim all the exemption of a sovereign; and that they were not the public servants of Government, and, therefore, did not fall under the principle of the cases with regard to the liabilities of such persons; but they were a Company to whom sovereign powers were delegated, and who traded on their own account and for their own account and for their own benefit, and were engaged in transactions partly for the purposes of Government, and partly on their own account, which without any delegation of sovereign rights, might be carried on by private individuals.
State of Bihar v. Thus, it can be said that now sovereignty lies with the people and no-one whatsoever may be can say that he is immuned from the liability and thus, suit for damages for negligence of officers of the State in discharging the statutory duties is maintainable.
Some states, such as China, afford foreign states absolute immunity, while the majority of nations, including the United States, have adopted a more restrictive approach that immunizes foreign states from suit in connection with sovereign acts but leaves them subject to suit in connection with commercial acts.
But in view of the fact that both the Courts below have agreed in finding that the first defendant was rash and negligent in driving the jeep car resulting in the accident and the ultimate death of Jagdishlal, it is no more necessary to advert to all the questions raised by way of answer to the suit, except the one on which the appeal has been pressed before us.
There was a further accession of territory by the agreement contained in Appendix XLI, on May 10,with the result that the initial United State of Rajasthan with an area of 16, sq.
What was the extent of liability of East India Company for the tortious acts of its servants committed in course of their employment as such?. State of Rajasthan vs Mst Vidhyawati: Case Analysis. State of Rajasthan vs Mst Vidhyawati: Case Analysis. were all reviewed by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Destruction of Public and Private Properties v State of A.P. and Ors () 5 SCC State of Rajasthan v Vidhyawati AIR SC Bench: 5 judge -BP Sinha, Hidayatullah, Shah, Kapur, Mudholkar Facts The respondent 1's husband and father of minor respondent 2 was knocked down by a Government jeep car rashly and negligently driven by an employee of the State of Rajasthan, while being taken from the repair shop to the Collector's residence, and subsequently died in hospital.
The State of Rajasthan applied for and obtained the necessary certificate 'that the case fulfils the requirements of Art. (1)(c) of the Constitution of India'. The High Court rightly observed that an important point of law of general public importance, namely, the extent of.
The learned Advocate-General for the State of Rajasthan argued that the second part of the article has reference to the extent of the liability of a State to be sued, and that, therefore, we have to determine the question of the liability of the State in this case in terms of the Article.
JUDGES The Hon'ble the chief justice Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha. The Hon'ble Justice J.L Kapur. The Hon'ble Justice M. Hidayatullah. The Hon'ble Justice J.C Shah.
state of rajasthan v vidhyawati. Topics: Common law, Law, Supreme Court of the United States Pages: 6 ( words) Published: September 30, INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT ON LEGAL REASONING SKILLS State of Rajasthan vs.
Vidhyawati and Kasturilal vs. State of U.P. 8/13/State of rajasthan v vidhyawati