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

Understanding Counterclaims: A Comprehensive Guide

  Understanding Counterclaims: A Comprehensive Guide In legal proceedings, a counterclaim is a vital tool that allows defendants to assert their own claims against the plaintiff. This strategic maneuver not only defends against the plaintiff's allegations but also enables defendants to seek their own relief. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the intricacies of counterclaims, exploring their purpose, procedures, and implications in various legal contexts. Introduction to Counterclaims Definition A counterclaim is a legal claim brought by a defendant against the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's initial complaint. It serves as a means for defendants to assert their own rights, defenses, or causes of action arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. Purpose The primary purpose of a counterclaim is to allow defendants to present their side of the story and seek appropriate remedies or relief. By filing a counterclaim, defendants ca...
7 comments
Read more

Title: Legal Recourse Against Electronic Harassment, Including V2K: Understanding Options and Rights

  Title: Legal Recourse Against Electronic Harassment, Including V2K: Understanding Options and Rights Electronic harassment, including technologies like Voice-to-Skull (V2K) and other forms of electronic harassment, can inflict significant psychological and emotional harm on individuals. Victims of such harassment often wonder if there are legal avenues available to seek redress and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. While navigating legal action in cases of electronic harassment can be complex, understanding available options and rights is crucial. Here's a detailed exploration of the possibility of taking legal action against individuals engaged in electronic harassment: Understanding Electronic Harassment (0-7 days) : Electronic harassment encompasses a range of behaviors involving the use of electronic devices or technologies to inflict harm, including V2K, electronic surveillance, cyberstalking, and cyberbullying. V2K, in particular, refers to the transmission o...
13 comments
Read more

Understanding the Key Differences: Original Jurisdiction vs. Exclusive Jurisdiction

  When it comes to the complex world of legal systems, it's essential to grasp the nuances of legal terminology and concepts. Two such concepts that often cause confusion are "original jurisdiction" and "exclusive jurisdiction." In this comprehensive guide, we will unravel the intricacies of these terms, explaining what they mean and highlighting the key differences between them. By the end of this article, you'll have a clear understanding of these legal concepts and be better equipped to navigate the legal landscape. Heading 1: Defining Original Jurisdiction Original jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, often involving issues of fact and law. In other words, it's where a legal dispute begins. This jurisdiction is typically vested in trial courts, both at the federal and state levels. Original jurisdiction cases are initiated by the filing of a complaint, and the court is responsible for assessing the eviden...
1 comment
Read more