Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dolly Varshney Vs. Director General Health Services

Dolly Varshney vs Director General Health Services

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 22, 1991
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/689575

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Writ Petition No. 4114 of 1990 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8869 of 1991
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dolly Varshney

Advocate M.C. Dhingra,; Rajeev Sharma and; P.K. Bahl, Advs

Respondent

Director General Health Services

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
44(1991)DLT275

Excerpt

- p.n. nag, j.(1) the petitioner has filed a writ petition, being c w 4114 of 1990, seeking a writ of mandamus to allocate a seat in any one of the medical colleges in delhi/new delhi or in the king george medical collect lucknow and in this writ petition the petitioner has filed the present application, cm 869/91, whereby it has been prayed that the petitioner should be allowed provisional admission in the vacant seat reserved in medical college medicines or any other expense. already a sum of rs. 500.00 on account of expenses and rs. 3,000.00 by way of general damages had been awarded in favor of the appellant. the photograph proved by the father as pw5 during proceedings in the claim petition of the child, which i have perused on the case record, does not show any disfigurement or the face or any other permanent facial injury. (2) learned counsel for respondent no. 4 rightly argued that the teeth were milk teeth. at the time of accident, the age of the child was 5' years and in the normal course he would have got the teeth. (3) the court directed the counsel for the appellant to produce him in court to satisfy as to whether there was any permanent scar or effect of the injuries left but inspire of time being taken, firstly of one month, then five days and then yesterday, the appellant has not been produced. in view of this, an adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant that there is nothing to show by way of permanent facial defect or injury or even scar. (4) for all these reasons. i do not think that there is any case for entertaining the appeal for enhancement of the compensation when the appellant could not be produced in court inspire of directions given by the court. (5) the appellant has not prosecuted the appeal diligently because according to ms. deep mala, the appellant was not found available at the address given and he had not intimated his change of address. (6) for all these reasons i do not find any merit in this appeal. the same is accordin

Full Judgment

P.N. Nag, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed a writ petition, being C W 4114 of 1990, seeking a writ of mandamus to allocate a seat in any one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi/New Delhi or in the King George Medical Collect Lucknow and in this writ petition the petitioner has filed the present application, Cm 869/91, whereby it has been prayed that the petitioner should be allowed provisional admission in the vacant seat reserved in Medical College medicines or any other expense. Already a sum of Rs. 500.00 on account of expenses and Rs. 3,000.00 by way of general damages had been awarded in favor of the appellant. The photograph proved by the father as PW5 during proceedings in the claim petition of the child, which I have perused on the case record, does not show any disfigurement or the face or any other permanent facial injury.

(2) Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 rightly argued that the teeth were milk teeth. At the time of accident, the age of the child was 5' years and in the normal course he would have got the teeth.

(3) The Court directed the counsel for the appellant to produce him in Court to satisfy as to whether there was any permanent scar or effect of the injuries left but inspire of time being taken, firstly of one month, then five days and then yesterday, the appellant has not been produced. In view of this, an adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant that there is nothing to show by way of permanent facial defect or injury or even scar.

(4) For all these reasons. I do not think that there is any case for entertaining the appeal for enhancement of the compensation when the appellant could not be produced in Court inspire of directions given by the Court.

(5) The appellant has not prosecuted the appeal diligently because according to Ms. Deep Mala, the appellant was not found available at the address given and he had not intimated his change of address.

(6) For all these reasons I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial