Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SINGH V/S
UNION OF
INDIA
ENGLISH ASSIGNMENT
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
FACULTY OF LAW
B.A LL.B.(HONS)
SAMREEN KHAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project however it
would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and
organisations. I would like to extent my sincere
thanks to all of them.
SAMREEN KHAN
B.A.LL.B.(HONS)
1st year
1st semester
BATCH:2013-18
INTRODUCTION
In Baxi Amrik Singh v. Union Of India, on 14th
May1967,there was an accident between a military truck
and a car on the Mall Road in Ambala Cantt. Due to the
negligent and rash driving by the truck driver, Sepoy Man
Singh,who was also an army employee, Amrik Singh, an
occupant of the car, received serious injuries.
Subsequently, he bought an action against the Union Of
India to recover compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/-.
The Union Of India, apart from pleading that there was no
fault on the part of the Military driver, averred that the
driver was acting in exercise of the sovereign power of
the Union Government at the time of accident in so far as
he was detained for checking Army personnel on duty
throughout that day, and therefore there was no liability
of the Union of India to pay compensation. The Full Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after discussing in
detail the various authorities on the point, came to the
conclusion that the checking of the Army personnel on
duty was the function intimately connected with the Army
discipline and it could only be performed by the member
of the Armed Force and that too by such a member of
Index Note: ( A ) Court Fees Art (1870), Section 12 (ii) Appeal against decision of Trial Court on question of valuation
Appeal dismissed on the ground that memorandum of appeal was
insufficiently stamped Deficiency of court-fee occasioning because
of failure of trial court to determine precise amount of proper courtfee payable by appellant high court in second appeal can allow the
appellant to make good the deficiency.(AIR 1973 Punj 58, foll.case
law Discussed) (X-Ref:- civil P.C. (1908), Section 149, Section 100).
(Para 7)
Cases Referred:
Chronological Paras
Paul
v.
Jai
Bhan
6
AIR 1961 Punj 426 = 1961 Cur LJ
(Part 1-G), 16, Tarlok Singh v. Daljit Kaur
5
AIR 1959 Punj 387 = ILR (1958)
Punj
5
Atma
Singh
v.
Mohan
Lal
Chand
v.
Mohan
Lal
5
H.L. Sarin, with M. L. Sarin, for Appellant; Y. P. Gandhi
(for No. 3) and N. K. Sodhi (for No.1), for Respondents.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
JUDGEMENT
It is not necessary to advert to the facts and the merits of
the case in the regular second appeal. The plaintiffappellant had brought a suit seeking a declaration that
the sale by public auction of the suit property situated in
the hussain- pura suburb of the Amritsar town was invalid, without jurisdiction and therefore not binding on
the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was contested and on the
pleading of the parties apart from others the following
issue No. 1 which was treated as preliminary was
framed:-
Appeal allowed.
PRESS RELEASE
Rash driving by Army Personnel caused
Accident