Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Rajkot Municipal Corporation VS Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum...
Checking relevance for Sushil Ansal VS State Through CBI...
Sushil Ansal VS State Through CBI - 2014 2 Supreme 134 : In ARC (Accidental Death) proceedings against officers, the society must establish: (1) a duty owed by the officer to the victim; (2) a breach of that duty (i.e., negligence); (3) a causal link (causa causans) between the breach and the loss; and (4) that the negligence was gross. This is established under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, which requires proof of gross negligence and that the negligent act was the immediate or proximate cause (causa causans) of death. The doctrine of causa causans requires that the negligent act be the last link in the chain of causation, without which the death would not have occurred. The duty to ensure safety arises from the occupier’s responsibility under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and is not limited to owners but extends to those with sufficient control over premises. The burden of proof includes showing that the breach was not merely a remote or contributory cause but the effective, real cause of the death. This principle is supported by the Uphaar Cinema Tragedy case, where the Ansal brothers were convicted under Section 304A for gross negligence in failing to ensure safety, including inadequate exits and lack of emergency systems, which were found to be the causa causans of the deaths. Citations: (2005) 6 SCC 1; (1972) 3 SCC 18; AIR 1965 SC 1616; (2005) 8 SCC 89; (1970) 3 SCC 904; (1972) 3 SCC 525; (1968) 3 All ER 79; (1947) KB 901; (1953) 2 All ER 1185; [1999] CrimLR 582; (1943) AC 448; (1902) 4 Bom LR 679; ILR (1881) 3 All 776; 1968 Mah. L.J. 423 (SC); 1968 (3) SCR 766; 1969 ACJ 70; [1947] AC 156; 169 English Reports (C.C.) 1517; (1902) 19 TLR 37; ILR XVI All. 472; 1905 PR 22(Cr); 1941) 2 KB 343; 1958 (2) QBD 245; 1873 VIII Q.B. 161; 1948 AC 549; 1977 (1) All E.R. 813; 1992) 1 SCC 225; (1996) 6 SCC 129; (2012) 8 SCC 450; (1969) 3 SCC 166; (2012) 2 SCC 648; (2011) 6 SCC 216; (2001) 2 SCC 577; (1990) 4 SCC 731; (2004) 7 SCC 257; (2005) 10 SCC 420; AIR 2006 SC 48; 1991 Supp (1) SCC 510; (1995) 3 SCC 351; (2013) 6 SCC 770; (2007) 6 SCC 528.Checking relevance for Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority Of India VS Aam Aadmi Lokmanch...
Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority Of India VS Aam Aadmi Lokmanch - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 445 : In the context of an ARC (Alternate Remedial Claim) or environmental liability proceedings against officers, the society must establish: (1) a duty of care owed by the officer to the plaintiff or the public; (2) the officer''''s authority to perform the relevant act or omission; (3) a breach of that duty through negligence or failure to act; and (4) a causal link between the breach and the loss or damage suffered. This framework is derived from the principles of statutory duty and tortious liability, particularly as articulated in the case of Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, (1997) 9 SCC 552. The Court emphasized that for a breach of statutory duty to give rise to tortious liability, the plaintiff must prove: (a) the injury suffered lies within the ambit of the statute; (b) the statutory duty imposes a liability for civil action; (c) the statutory duty was not fulfilled; and (d) the breach caused the injury. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish these elements on a balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the duty may be owed to the public at large, and in such cases, enforcement may not be through private damages but through criminal prosecution, injunction, or public interest litigation. This confirms that in proceedings against officers, the claimant must establish duty, authority, negligence, and causal link to loss.Checking relevance for Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay VS Laxman Iyer...
Checking relevance for Tejrav Uttamrav Ranit VS State Of Gujarat...
Tejrav Uttamrav Ranit VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1167 : The legal document confirms that in ARC (presumably referring to criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings against officers, particularly in the context of negligence-related offenses), the prosecution must establish: (1) a duty of care owed by the officer; (2) a breach of that duty (i.e., negligence or rashness); (3) a causal link between the breach and the resulting loss or injury. This is supported by the court''''s emphasis on the need to prove ''''criminal rashness and negligence'''' under IPC Sections 279 and 304A, and the requirement to establish the ''''degree of negligence and rashness to amount to criminal negligence.'''' The judgment further clarifies that the causal link must be proximate—i.e., the act or omission must be the ''''immediate cause'''' (causa causans) or ''''last link in the chain of causation''''—and must not be broken by an efficient intervening cause. The court cites Sushil Ansal v. State (2014) 6 SCC 173, which defines ''''causa causans'''' as the real effective cause of damage, and emphasizes that the injury must be a reasonably probable consequence of the wrongful act. This directly supports the user''''s statement that the society must establish duty, authority, negligence, and a causal link to loss.Checking relevance for Sumathi VS State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chekkanoorani Police Station...
Checking relevance for Tularam Bhatpahri, S/o Late Latel Ram Bhatpahri VS State of Chhattisgarh...
Checking relevance for Arvind Kesharwani S/o Shri Taranath Kesharwani VS State of Chhattisgarh...
Checking relevance for S. Shahul VS State Rep. , by The Inspector of Police Chennai...
Checking relevance for Rekha P. Thapar vs State of Maharashtra...
Rekha P. Thapar vs State of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4027 : In ARC (Administrative Review Committee) proceedings against officers, the society (or claimant) must establish: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) negligence on the part of the defendant; and (4) a causal link between the breach and the loss suffered. This framework is derived from the principle that in negligence claims, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a duty, its breach, and a causal connection between the breach and the damage, using the ''''but for'''' test to establish factual causation. The court emphasized that the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant''''s negligence was an essential pre-condition of the damage. This standard is supported by the judgment in Tri-Sure India and references to McWilliams v. Sir William Arrol and Co. Ltd. and Karak Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Burden, which affirm that liability arises only if the defendant''''s negligence was a factual cause of the harm. Additionally, the court reiterated that the standard of care is that of the ordinary skilled person exercising ordinary competence, not the highest expertise.Checking relevance for S. Saraswathi VS Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Dairying)...
S. Saraswathi VS Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Dairying) - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 528 : In ARC (Administrative Review Committee) or Surcharge proceedings against officers of a co-operative society under the Co-operative Societies Act, the society must establish: (1) a duty owed by the officer; (2) a breach of that duty through wilful negligence (not mere negligence); (3) that the wilful negligence was the proximate cause of the loss; and (4) that the conduct amounted to an actionable wrong in a deliberate and reprehensible manner, with reckless callousness and supine indifference, not arising from accident or inadvertence. Mere negligence, even if gross, is insufficient to initiate such proceedings. The burden lies on the society to prove wilful negligence, which involves conscious disregard of duty, intentional failure to perform manifest duties, and reckless disregard of probable consequences, not mere carelessness or inattention. This principle is supported by the Supreme Court of India in Sathyamangalam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited vs. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society (1980) 2 MLJ 17, and reaffirmed in S.Ramadevi vs. The Special Officer, Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills (2016-4-L.W 452).
