Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
V.K. Gupta, Member(Judicial): 1. This appeal by the appellant/OP of complaint case No.846/2006 is directed against the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by District Forum(New Delhi), directing the appellant to refund Rs.3300/- as fee, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. 2. In nut-shell the brief facts are that on 08.06.2006 a baby was born and the doctors directed the complainant for specific tests to ascertain the genitalai of the baby. The doctor further suggested following case. (i) Sodium, serum (ii) Potassium, serum (iii) Buccal simear/Barr Bodie (iv) Chromosome (Karyctype) 3. The baby was borne at Ram Chand Memorial Nursing Home, which advised that the tests to be conducted by the appellant/OP. Consequently on 09.06.2006 the baby was taken to the laboratory of the appellant for aforesaid tests which charged Rs.3300/-. Respondent/complainant was asking for the report and every time it was directed that the report will be given on 29.06.2006. On this date t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-06-2013
1. The appellants Kamlesh Singh, Suresh Singh and Sukhlal Singh have been convicted for having committed offence under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC vide judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.729 of 2002 and vide order dated 18.9.2006, each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in case of default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. However, they were acquitted for the offence under section 120-B IPC. 2. Another co-accused Kapil Deo Singh was, however, acquitted by the trial court for the offence under section 302 IPC and against the order of acquittal, criminal revision no.5840 of 2006 has been filed on behalf of one Rajendra Singh. Appellant Kamlesh Singh has also challenged his detention in jail by means of habeas corpus writ petition no.11028 of 2007 with a further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-05-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:5. 3-2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH H.C.P.No.2514 of 2012 Susila .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Secretary to Government Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The District Magistrate and The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.3. The Additional Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room NO.270, Krish Bhavan New Delhi-110 001. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in CMP No.14/PBMMSEC Act/2012 (F3) dated 16.11.2012 against petitioner's husband Thiru.Arumugam, son of Rajendran, aged 34 years who is confined at Central Prison, Salem and set aside the same and d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Crl. Appeal not D-456-DB of 2009 Date of Decision: March 04, 2013 Vikas Kumar Kaushal ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent (ii) Crl. Appeal not D-500-DB of 2009 Sourav Kapoor ...Appellant VERSUS The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH 1 To be referred to the Reporters or not?.2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Present: Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. **** INDERJIT SINGH, J.This judgment shall dispose of two connected criminal appeals i.e. CRA not D-456-DB of 2009 and CRA not D-500-DB of 2009 arising out of the same judgment/order dated 31.03.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, convicting and sentencing the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Crl. Appeal not D-456-DB of 2009 & connected appeal -2- a fine of ` 2,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-04-2013
RFA No.1224 of 2013(O&M) & ORS.[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 RFA No.1224 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision:04. 03.2013 The State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and another..Appellants Versus Rampal son of Shri Bhuley son of Shri Jawahar, resident of village Badoli, District Faridabad and others..Respondents 2 RFA No.1225 of 2013 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another ..Appellants Versus Satbir @ Balbodh s/o Sh. Jai Ram s/o Giani and others..Respondents 3 RFA No.1226 of 2013 (O&M) The State of Haryana & another ..Appellants Versus M/s Jaismin Buildtech PVT.LTD.and another ..Respondents 4 RFA No.1227 of 2013 (O&M) The State of Haryana & another ..Appellants Versus M/s Super Belts PVT.Ltd..Respondent 5 RFA No.1228 of 2013 (O&M) State of Haryana & another ..Appellants Versus Smt. Vandana w/o S.P.Singh and others ..Respondents RFA No.1224 of 2013(O&M) & ORS.[2].6 RFA No.1229 of 2013 (O&M) State of Haryana ..Appellant Versus Rakesh son of Shri Bh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-01-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :01. 03.2013 Coram THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.14421 o1. M.Thilagavathi 2. M.Prathiba, Minor, rep. by her Mother & Natural Guardian M.Thilagavathi. .. Petitioners .. Vs ..1. Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health Department, Secretariat, Chennai.2. Tamilnadu State Aids Control Society, rep. by its Managing Director/Chairman, 417, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai.3. Corporation of Chennai, Aids Prevention & Control Society, rep. by its Chairman/ Managing Director, Thiru-vi-ka Road, Mylapore, Chennai.4. M/s.Shashi Advertising Agency 100, Montieth Road, I Floor, Queens Court, Egmore, Chennai. (R-4 impleaded as per Court order dt. 11.04.2011 in M.P.No.1/2011) ...Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to forbear them from displaying the petitioners' photographs in their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-01-2013
O.A.No.835 to 837 of 2012 in C.S.No.649of 2012 VINOD K.SHARMA, J.The prayer made in each of the applications reads as under: O.A.No.835 of 2012: This application has been filed for interim injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, partner, associate, officer, representative, servant from passing of their services as that of the applicants/plaintiffs' by using the mark "SOWKHYA" or the applicants/ plaintiffs' trade mark "SOUKYA" or any other similar trade mark pending disposal of the suit. O.A.No.836 of 2012: This application has been filed for interim injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, partner, associate, officer, representative, servant from infringing the applicants/plaintiffs registered Trade Mark "SOUKYA under registration Nos.904710 and 1419160 in class 5 & 42 respectively of the applicants/plaintiff by manufacturing, use, advertisement, sale, offering for sale, exposing for sale of the trademark SOWKHYA or any other de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
Decided on : Feb-27-2013
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. These appeals arise out of charges laid against the appellants, one of whom, Man Haron Monis, is said, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, to have written letters[1] to parents and relatives of soldiers killed on active service in Afghanistan which were critical of Australia's involvement in that country and reflected upon the part played in it by the deceased soldiers. The other appellant, Amirah Droudis, is said to have aided and abetted him in relation to a number of those letters. The appellants were charged under s 471.12 of the Criminal Code (Cth) ("the Code"), which prohibits the use of a postal or similar service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, "offensive". 2. The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-26-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :26. 02.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.2068 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 K.Sathyaseelan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, rep by its Member Secretary, No.807,P.T.Lee Chengalvarayan Naicker Maaligai, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Dharmapurai District, Dharmapuri. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records from the second respondent, quash the order of the second respondent dated 08.01.2013 bearing Na.Ka.No.13100/2012/A3 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade II Constable for the year 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.P. - - - - ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-26-2013
Cr.W.P.1922 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.W.P.1922 of 2012 Date of decision:26.2.2013 Gajjan Singh .petitioner vs State of Punjab and ors ..respondent Present Mr.CS Rana, Advocate. Mr.AS Jattana, Addl.A.G.Punjab M.M.S.BEDI,J. Parole has been declined to the petitioner vide order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that in view of the Memo issued by ADGP, Intelligence, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 20.3.2012, there are chances of petitioner again indulging in the business of smuggling in case released on parole, hampering the efforts of the Govt. to control drug menace in the society. In the reply filed, it has been informed that during the pendency of this petition, the wife of the petitioner had again submitted an application for release of the petitioner on parole. SSP, Fatehagar Sahib, Respondent No.3, recommended for four weeks parole to her husband. The wife of the petitioner had also given an assurance that her husband would live ...
Tag this Judgment!