Skip to main content

Case commenState of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy.t

 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy:

 This case was a recent case the judgment was passed on April 26, 2000; the judgment was delivered by the D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.Ahmad.

The facts of case is S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Challa Chinnappa Reddy and his son Challa Ramkrishna Reddy were involved in Criminal Case, while they were in jail some persons entered the premises of Sub-jail and hurled bombs into the cell where they are kept by the police as a result of which Challa Chinnappa Reddy sustained grievous injuries and died subsequently. His son Challa Ramakrishna Reddy who was also lodged on the same jail however, escaped with some injuries. Ramakrishna Reddy and his four other brothers as also his mother filed a suit against the State of Andhra Pradesh government claiming of Rs. 10 lakhs as damages on account of the negligence of the defendant which had resulted in the death of Challa Chinnappa Reddy.

 The state asserted that it was not liable for any damages. "It is totally erroneous to allege that the stated occurrence occurred as a result of the defendant's and his subordinates' malfeasance and misfeasance in securing the Sub-Jail premises," it said. It was claimed that the Talk Office, Sub-Treasury, and Sub-Jail are all housed in the same building, and that all three structures are properly guarded. "The police-guards are exclusively responsible for keeping the prisoners from fleeing from the Sub-Jail," said the Sub-Jail guards, "and there was no lapse or negligence on their part." "This defendant is also unaware that prior to the abovementioned occurrence, local circumstances suggested a threat to Chinnappa Reddy's life, and the higher authorities were informed of the same and requested to give sufficient guard and security......"

 The judgement was given that The learned Subordinate Judge held, on a consideration of the material placed before him, that the suit is not bad for non-jointer of necessary parties; that there was no negligence on the part of the officials in guarding the jail, and that even if there was any negligence, the State is not liable to pay any damages/compensation, since guarding of jails is a sovereign function of State. It was also held that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed, with costs. The trial Court held the suit as barred, applying Article 72 of the Limitation Act, whereas the contention of the plaintiff-appellants is that the said Article has no application, and that the Article applicable is 113. Article 72 provides a period of one year, whereas Article 113, which is residuary in nature, provides a year period of limitation.

This case is related to Article 300 which stated that the Lawsuits and legal proceedings The Governor of India may sue or be sued in the name of the Union, and the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the name of the State, and may sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the same cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or Indian States, subject to any provisions made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre
Post a Comment
Read more

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected
Post a Comment
Read more

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct
Post a Comment
Read more