Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Dec-29-1995
Reported in : AIR1996J& K67
Nazki, J.1. There is much ado about nothing. These four appeals have been filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this court and are directed against the order rejecting the applicant's application for framing additional issues. Some facts are necessary in order to resolve controversy. Disputes arose between Irrigation Department and the respondent, these disputes were referred to an arbitrator who gave four awards. Awards were filed in this court, State filed objections to the award. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter was pending framed four issues. After the framing of the issues, an application was made by the appellant State in each case for framing additional issues and for recasting of the issues framed. The application was resisted by the respondent and the learned single Judge rejected the application. Against this rejection for framing of additional issues and for recasting of issues already framed, this appeal has been filed under Clause 12 of Letters Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-13-1995
Reported in : AIR1996SC550; 1996(1)BLJR281; (1996)98BOMLR343; [1996]86CompCas806(SC); 1996(1)CTC119; (1995)2GLR1806; JT1995(8)SC119; 1996(6)KarLJ689; (1996)112PLR1; 1995(6)SCALE273; (199
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 18497/93 and 21755/94. Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 18445-73/94.2. These appeals, special leave petitions and the Writ Petition raise a common question, viz., whether and, if so, in what circumstances, a medical practitioner can be regarded as rendering 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Connected with this question is the question whether the service rendered at a hospital/nursing home can be regarded as 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. These questions have been considered by various High Courts as well as by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission').3. In Dr. A.S. Chandra v. Union of India : 1992(1)ALT713 , a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that service rendered for consideration by private medical practitioners, private hospitals and nursing homes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-23-1995
Reported in : 1995IAD(Delhi)1434; AIR1995Delhi293; 58(1995)DLT162; 1995(33)DRJ121
ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. The question for consideration by the Full Bench is whether aLetters Patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this court is maintainable in view of the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The reference has arisen on the basis of an objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent questioning the maintainability of the present appeal. Reliance was placed on two judgments of Division Benches of this Court in L.P.A. No. 97 of 1980 (Basant Kumar v. UOI) and L.P.A. 148 of 1988 (Jugti (deceased) through LRs. v. UOI). These judgments are based on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 30-7-1987 in Civil Appeals No. 1663 to 1668 of 1982 Baljit Singh etc. v. State of Haryana, holding that a Letters Patent appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of a single Judge of the Court. It is noted in the referring order dated 22-8-1994 that the said Supreme Court decision arising in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-26-1995
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co. - 514 U.S. 645 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS ET AL. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 93-1408. Argued January 18, 1995-Decided April 26, 1995* A New York statute requires hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients insured by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, and also subjects certain health maintenance organizations (HMO's) to surcharges. Several commercial insurers and their trade associations filed actions against state officials, claiming that 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)-under which state laws that "relate to" any covered employee benefit plan are superseded-pre-empts the imposition of surcharges on bills of patients whose commercial insurance coverage is purc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-1995
Reported in : 1995(35)DRJ11
Devinder Gupta, J. (1) On 26th May, 1995 while issuing summons to the defendants, the plaintiffs' application for an order of injunction was considered. Defendants were restrained by an ex parte order from interfering, selling or offering for sale to any party in India, Steam Leak Detection Equipment, which might be similar in technical specifications to the plaintiff's Acoustic Steam Leak Detection System registered under Indian Patent No.162647. Defendant has now applied for vacation of the order of injunction. I heard learned counsel for the parties at length, after notice of application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been given to the plaintiffs. (2) PLAINTIFFS' case is that plaintiff No.1 company is engaged in the manufacture, marketing and installation of highly sophisticated automatic steam leak detection equipment and is also the exclusive licensee of Indian Patent No.162647 dated 12th February, 1985, which is equivalent to European Patent No.0108556, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-31-1995
Reported in : 1996ACJ447; 1996(3)WLC674
A.P. Ravani, J.1. The expression 'an appeal' occurring in Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and now in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) has given rise to these matters before the Full Bench. Does the expression 'an appeal' connote number of appeals available to an aggrieved person or is it used as requirement of grammar of English language to write the correct language? This, in short, is the question to be examined and decided by the Full Bench in both these appeals. The special appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). In both these special appeals, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.8.1993 referred the following question to a larger Bench:Whether a special appeal lies under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a judgment of the learned single Judge under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-16-1995
Reported in : (1996)IMLJ465
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. When the L.P.A. came up for hearing before this Court on March 8, 1995, Writ Petition No. 11680 of 1993 was directed to be posted along with L.P.A. Accordingly, both the matters are posted together and the learned counsel appearing on both sides in both the matters are heard. 2. As the decision in the writ petition will have a bearing on the L.P.A., we first take up the writ petition for consideration. 3. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Madras-17 (first respondent) bearing R.C. No. 2057/92/C-4, dated February 25, 1993 and also the order dated April 28, 1993 passed by the Special Officer. The Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kanchecpuram (second respondent), insofar as they relate to the denial of backwages. 4. The first respondent has passed the aforesaid impugned order in the purported, exercise of his powers under Sec. 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative-Societies Act, 1983 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-16-1995
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ465
K.A. Swami, J.1. When the L.P.A. came up for hearing before this Court on 8.3.1995, Writ Petition No. 11680 of 1993 was directed to be posted along with L.P.A. Accordingly, both the matters are posted together and the learned Counsel appearing on both sides in both the matters are heard.2. As the decision in the writ petition will have a bearing on the L.P.A., we first take up the writ petition for consideration.3. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Madras-17 (first respondent) bearing R.C. No. 2057/92/C-4, dated 25.2.1993 and also the order dated 28.4.1993 passed by the Special Officer, The Kancheepuram Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Kancheepuraam (second respondent), insofar as they relate to the denial of back wages.4. The first respondent has passed the aforesaid impugned order in the purported, exercise of his powers under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-11-1995
Reported in : 1995(80)ELT3(SC); JT1995(7)SC260; 1995(5)SCALE683; (1995)6SCC536; [1995]Supp4SCR214
S.B. Majmudar. J. The Principal Appraiser (Exports), Collectorate of Customs & Central Excise, Customs House, Cochin-3, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Customs & Central Excise House, Madras and the Union of India represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, New Delhi have preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowing writ petition of the respondent on 24th November 1972. A few relevant facts to highlight the grievance of the appellants are required to be mentioned at the outset. Respondent at the relevant time carried on the business of export of coir yarn and ropes at Calicut in the State of Kerala. In July 1966 the respondent presented before the customs authorities at the port of Cochin, shipping bills for three lots of coir yarn booked to be shipped on board the S.S. Neils Maersk. The said shipping bills were for getting entry outwards for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-10-1995
Reported in : (1995)111PLR445
G.C. Garg, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 4993 of 1985; 126, 127, 128, 202, 232, 427 and 2975 of 1980; 5248, 5249, 5363, 5364, 5365, 5366, 5367, 5368 and 1569 of 1982; 189 of 1983; 661 and 4943 of 1984 and 5771 of 1987. Petitioners in this bunch of twenty-one writ petitions are registered dealers within the meaning of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'Punjab Act'). The main controversy raised in these writ petitions is common, namely, whether sugarcane purchased by the petitioners directly from the growers thereof is subject to levy of purchase tax under the Punjab Act.2. The petitioners are the Sugar Mills and are engaged in the manufacture of sugar. They purchase sugar-cane, an agricultural produce from the growers thereof directly, Gunny bags purchased by the petitioners are used as packing material for sugar and are sold with sugar. Some other stores are also purchased which are required to carry on the business. Unserviceable stores a...
Tag this Judgment!