Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2423; JT1998(5)SC40; 1998(4)SCALE161; (1998)6SCC131; [1998]3SCR740
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Leave granted.2. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has put a question mark on the authority of the Medical Council of India (for short, the 'Medical Council') - the appellant - in its judgment dated July 16, 1997 to fix intake for admission of students to various medical colleges in the State of Karnataka. Medical Council is aggrieved by. that part of the impugned judgment where the Division Bench held that prior to insertion of Sections 10A, 10B, and 10C in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Medical Council Act') by the Amending Act 31 of 1993 neither the Central Government nor the Medical Council could fix the admission capacity in the medical colleges in the State and that this authority to determine the admission capacity in the medical colleges vested in State by virtue of two State enactments, namely, Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, 'Karnataka Universities Act') and Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-1998
Reported in : AIR1999SC22; JT1998(7)SC243; 1998(5)SCALE655; (1998)8SCC1; [1998]Supp2SCR359
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.2. WHIRLPOOL, true to their name have created a WHIRLPOOL of litigation in this country. Based, as they are, the United States of America, they started the gyrating movement by applying for registration of their Trade Mark 'WHIRLPOOL' to the Registrar of the Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, which has since been replaced by the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 19S8 and which for the sake of brevity, shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'. The Trade Mark was duly registered and a Certificate of Registration was issued on 31st of July, 1957 which was renewed twice, in 1962 for a period of seven years and again for seven years with effect from 22.2.70. Since further renewal was not obtained after 1977, it was removed from the Register but the appellants continued to publicise their Trade Mark 'WHIRLPOOL' as also the company name through publications Which had wide circulation in this country and thus managed to maintain their reputatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-08-1998
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)457; AIR1999SC468; JT1998(7)SC78; 1998(5)SCALE501; (1998)7SCC579; [1998]Supp2SCR143
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These cases raise questions of general importance and practical significance - questions relating not only to the right to practise medical profession but also to the right to life which includes health and well-being of a person. The controversy in these cases was triggered off by the issuance of declarations by the State Governments under Clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short 'the Drugs Rules') which defines 'Registered Medical Practitioner'. Under such declarations, notified Vaids/Hakims claim right to prescribe Allopathic drugs covered by the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Drugs Act'). Furthermore, Vaids/Hakims who have obtained degrees in integrated courses claim right to practise allopathic system of medicine.2. In exercise of the power under Clause (iii) of Rule 2(ee) the State of Punjab issued Notification No. 9874-THBTT-67/34526 dated 29.10.1967 declaring all the Vaids/Hakims who had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-01-1998
Reported in : 1998IXAD(SC)193; AIR1999SC252; JT1998(8)SC278; 1998(6)SCALE361; (1999)1SCC666; [1998]Supp3SCR241
Srinivasan, J.1. These two appeals have been filed Under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated the 27th day of September 1991 in Election Petition No. 15 of 1990. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 1991 is the first respondent in the other appeal and the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4379 of 1991 is the first respondent in the former appeal. The parties will be referred to in this judgment in accordance with their ranking in Civil Appeal No. 4272 of 1991.2. The appellant was the successful candidate in the election held in November 1989 to 101 Nagamangala Assembly Constituency in the State of Karnataka having polled 48654 votes as against 17165 votes polled by the first respondent. The appellant contested the election as an independent candidate while the first respondent represented the Congress-I Party. The election was challenged by the first...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-21-1998
Reported in : AIR1999SC495; JT1998(7)SC626; 1998(6)SCALE230; 1999(1)LC232(SC)
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Infringement of 'Suspended Right to marry' cannot be legally compensated by damages either in Torts or common law, is our answer to the problem raised in this appeal which is based on the peculiar facts of its own. 2. The appellant after obtaining the Degree of MBBS in 1987 from Jawaharlal institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, completed his internship and junior residence at the same college. In June, 1990 he joined the Nagaland State Medical and Health Service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I. Thereafter, the appellant joined the MD Pharmacology Course though the continued in the Nagaland State Service on the condition that he would resume his duties after completing the MD Course. In September, 1991 the appellant joined the further Course of Diploma in Ophthalmology which he completed in April, 1993. In August, 1993 he resumed his duties in the Nagaland State Health Service as Assistant Surgeon Grade-I. 3. One Itokhu Yepthomi wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-20-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2330; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)640; JT1998(3)SC468; 1998(3)SCALE165; (1998)5SCC310; [1998]2SCR1032
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ' WTCC' is the appellant in these appeals. WTCC is a foreign company registered in Monrovia, Liberia. It is the owner of a vessel m.t. 'New World'. The vessel is registered in Hong Kong. On 21st of December, 1994, New World was involved in a collision with a vessel m.v. 'YA Mawlaya' in international waters 200 nautical miles off the coast of Portugal. YA Mawlaya is a vessel registered in Cyprus. It is owned by M/S. Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Kara Mara'), a company registered in Cyprus. The said company is referred to variously in these proceedings as despondent owner/chartered of YA Mawlaya. On 20th October, 1994, Kara Mara sold the vessel YA Mawlaya to Vestman Shipping Company Ltd., a company registered in Cyprus. Kara Mara thereafter became bare boat charterers of YA Mawlaya. Prior to the sale of the said vessel, Kara Mara had entered into a mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-08-1998
Reported in : (1999)2GLR1669; JT1998(7)SC121; 1998(5)SCALE490; (1999)1SCC330; [1998]Supp2SCR187; 1999(1)LC60(SC)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 3021 of 1997.2. Appellant responded to an advertisement issued by the High Court of Delhi inviting applications from candidates who have practiced as advocate for recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service claiming that she had put in experience for not less than seven years as an advocate at the time of filing the application. In 1982 Mrs. Sushma Suri passed the examination of Advocate on Record conducted by Supreme Court of India and in 1986 she was appointed as Assistant Government Advocate. Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Additional Government Advocate in the Supreme Court of India. When she was not called for interview, she filed a petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court relying on a Division Bench decision of the same court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1961 of 1987 in Oma Shanker Sharma v. Delhi Administration and Anr., decided on 13.1.1988 as affirmed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-18-1998
Reported in : AIR1999SC719; JT1998(9)SC62; 1998(6)SCALE620; (1999)2SCC253; [1998]Supp3SCR622; [1999]112STC609(SC)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-Association which is doing the business of transporting goods within and outside the State of Tripura, is aggrieved by the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dismissing writ Appeal challenging the constitutional validity of the Tripura Sales Tax [11th Amendment] Rules, 1994, (for short 'the Rules') and Sections 29, 32 and 36A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, (for shot 'the Act') including notifications dated 23rd September, 1994 and 15th October, 1994. By means of the aforesaid 11th Amendment, Sub-rule (3) has been inserted after Sub-rule (2) of Rule 46-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976, (for short 'Principal Rules'), Sub-rule (IA) has been inserted after sub-rule 63-A (1), Sub-rule (2) in Rule 63A has been substitution in place of old Sub-rule (2) of the principal Rules and Rule 64A has been substituted for the old sub-rule 64A. The resultant effect of such amendment is that the appellant, who are working as Transporters in Tripu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-17-1998
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)70; AIR1998SC1767; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)118; 1998(3)CTC413; (1998)3GLR1862; JT1998(3)SC223; 1998(2)MPLJ1; 1998(II)OLR(SC)70; 1998(2)SCALE772; (1998)4SCC1; [1998]2SCR
G.N. Ray, J.1. In all these matters a common question arises for decision as to whether in a single cadre post reservation for the backward classes, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes can be made either directly or by applying rotation of roster point. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on the question of such reservation in a single cadre post.2. The learned counsel for the parties in all these matters have agreed that the question of law as to the constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post is to be decided by the Constitution Bench and thereafter the cases will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits in accordance with decision rendered by this Bench. Therefore, the question of constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post either directly or by rotation of roster point has been considered by us and we have not taken into consideration other contentions raised in these matters.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-31-1998
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)574; AIR1998SC3012; JT1998(6)SC181; 1998(5)SCALE12; (1999)1SCC141; [1998]Supp1SCR188
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal arising out of certain proceedings initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-landlord filed a petition Under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act seeking for the possession of the house by evicting the appellant as he required the same for his bona fide need and occupation. The appellant before us filed his written statement contending that the landlord has alternate accommodation at Subzi Mandi and he has deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to make out a case for the eviction of the respondent and this fact of availability of the said premises in subzi Mandi had not disclosed in the petition.2. In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller a finding was recorded by him as to the bona fide requirement of the respondent in the following terms:-'If the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner on the ground floor of the ...
Tag this Judgment!