Court : Supreme Court of India
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 : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2086 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10924 of 2013) Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. Appellants VERSUS Enercon GMBH & Anr. ...Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.2087 OF2014(Arising out of SLP (C) No.10906 of 2013) JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. Leave granted.2. These civil appeals have been filed against the order and judgment dated 5th October, 2012, passed by the Bombay High Court in CWP Nos.7804 of 2009 and 7636 of 2009. The Bombay High Court by the impugned order dismissed both the aforesaid Civil Writ Petitions.3. Appellants No.2 and 3 (members of the Mehra family) and the Respondent No.1 (a company incorporated under the laws of Germany, having its registered office at Aurich, Germany) entered into a joint venture business by setting up the Appellant No.1-Company Enercon (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as EIL), in 1994. EIL, having its registered office at Daman, was to manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000LC1(SC); (2000)3GLR2548; JT2000(7)SC151; 2000(4)SCALE713; (2000)5SCC573; [2000]Supp1SCR86; 2001(1)LC181(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. In trade mark cases, the tension is between protectionism on the one hand and allowing competition on the other. In the late nineteenth century where law was regarded as a science, the legal formalists laid down principles and legal rules, treating trade mark as 'property'. In the beginning of this century, legal realists laid emphasis on pragmatic considerations of economic policies and 'real world results' and the 'likelihood of confusion'. Of late, the tension between protectionism and competition has increased. (See Vol. 59 'Law and Contemporary Problems, 1996, No. 2 P.5 at p. 14) (A Personal Note on Trade Mark etc. by Milton Handler).3. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in A.F.O. No. 203 of 1999 dated 24.8.1999, by which the High Court of Gujarat allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant and set aside the temporary injunction which was initially granted on 25.2.99 and which was confirm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023NSC857 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7175 OF2021CPL ASHISH KUMAR CHAUHAN (RETD.) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMANDING OFFICER & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. The present civil appeal challenges an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi1 (hereafter, Commission). The application by CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (hereafter, appellant) for compensation was dismissed by the Commission. The Commanding Officer, 171 Military Hospital is arrayed as the first Respondent; the Medical Officer at the 171 Military Hospital (171 MH) is the second respondent; the Principal Director, Directorate of Air Veterans is impleaded as the third respondent; the Commanding Officer of the South Western Air Command (Gandhinagar HQ) is arrayed as fourth respondent, and the Senior Medical Officer at the said Military facility is impleaded as the fifth respondent. The first, second and fifth 1 In Consumer Compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 IN RE: DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES DURING PANDEMIC. 1 ORDER This order has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis: A Introduction B Outline of the Disaster Management Act C Medical Infrastructure C.1 Submissions in UOIs Affidavits C.2 National Policy for Admission in Hospitals D Oxygen allocation and availability E Vaccines E.1 Vaccine capacity and disbursal E.2 Vaccine pricing F Potentiality of Compulsory Licensing for vaccines and essential drugs G Supply of Essential Drugs G.1 Submissions in the Central Governments Affidavits G.2 Recommendations G.3 Black Marketing H Recommendations for augmenting healthcare workforce I Epilogue J Conclusion 2 PART A A Introduction 1 The genesis of this suo motu writ petition is in an order dated 22 April 2021. This Court took note of the unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the country, follow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC637; [1966]2SCR102
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave arises from an application made by the respondent Puniya in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jhalawar under s. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (No. 8 of 1890) (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the custody of his daughter Mt. Chitra. To this application, the respondent had impleaded the two appellants, Gulab Bai and her husband Onkar Lal. The respondent is a Kumhar by caste, whereas the appellants are Jat. The respondents' case was that the minor Chitra who was about 11 years of age at the date of the application, had been living with the appellants for the last 4 or 5 years with his consent. Whilst the minor girl was living with the appellants, she used to come to spend some time with the respondent and his wife; but for some time past, the appellants did not allow Chitra to visit her parents. That is why the respondent thought it necessary to move the Court for an order under s. 25 of the Act. 2. The claim thus made b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVI L APPEA L No.4049 O F2020(arising out of SLP (C) No.15293/2020 Diary No.19638 of 2020) DR. AKB SADBHAVANA MISSION SCHOOL OF HOMOEO PHARMACY ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AYUSH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHO K BHUSHAN, J.The application seeking permission to file special leave petition is allowed. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission School of Homeo Pharmacy aggrieved by the part of Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court dated 21.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.9459 of 2020. The appellant, who was not party in the writ petition feeling aggrieved by 2 certain directions issued by the High Court have come up in this appeal.3. We need to notice the contents and prayers of the writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by respondent No.4 (proforma respondent). The writ petition was filed by respondent No.4, an Advocate pray...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1295; 2003(10)SCALE14; (2004)1SCC712
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. W.P. (C) No. 276/2001 filed on June 22, 2002, lays challenge to the constitutional validity of the Indian Council of World Affairs Ordinance, 2001 (No. 3 of 2001), promulgated by the President of India on May 8, 2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution of India, During the pendency of this petition the Ordinance came to be replaced by an Act of Parliament, namely, the Indian Council of World Affairs Act, 2001 (Act No. 29 of 2001), which came into force w.e.f. September 1, 2000. On 19.10.2001 W.P.(C) No. 543/2001 was filed laying challenge to the constitutional validity of this Act. Both the petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and respectively allege the Ordinance and the Act to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c) and 300A of the Constitution. Factual backdrop: 2. In the year 1943, the Indian Council of World Affairs was formed by about 50 distinguished eminent public per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1973SC1461; (1973)4SCC225; [1973]SuppSCR1
..... article 31(2) as substituted. section 3 of the amendment act, 1971, introduces a new article 31c, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in article 79, no law giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing the principles mentioned in article 39(b) or (c) shall be ..... interpretation. they will help a clearer perception of the distinction between 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled' constitutions, which in turn has an important bearing on the patent distinction between laws made in the exercise of constituent power and those made in the exercise of ordinary legislative power conferred by the constitution. in ..... not on the ground that what was awarded as a result of the application of those principles was not just or fair compensation. 2213. in r.c. cooper v. union [1970] 3 s.c.r. 530, (the bank nationalisation case), the judgment in shantilal mangaldas's case, was in substance overruled by a bench of 11 judges by a majority ..... valid.1921. i would also have the petitions disposed of in the light of decisions given above. i make no order as to costs incurred by parties for this stage of hearing s.n. dwivedi, j.1922. i concur with the conclusions reached by brother ray ..... lines, and in particular, to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.150. article 49 deals with protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance. article 50 directs that the state shall take .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1444; (1979)2SCC511; [1979]2SCR757
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. These two appeals on certificate arise out of a common judgment and decree, dated January 18, 1966, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad. The facts material to these appeals may be set out as under:2. M/s. Hindustan Metal Industries, respondent herein, (hereinafter called the plantiff) is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing brass and German silver utensils at Mirzapur. M/s. Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam, appellant herein, (hereinafter called the defendant) is a concern carrying on the business of manufacturing dishes and utensils in Mirzapur.3. On August 8, 1953, the plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction and damages, preceded by a notice, served on the defendant on September 9, 1952, in the Court of the District Judge, Allahabad, within whose jurisdiction Mirzapur is situated, with these allegations:4. The old method of manufacturing utensils, partciularly shallow dishes, was to turn scrap and polish them on som...
Tag this Judgment!