advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
sushil kumar
The suggestion is well taken and accepted by all the interested parties represented by learned counsel, and, accordingly, we modify paragraph 14 of the said judgment dated 20th July, 2012, by including the words “AND THE SCAORA” after the words “OTHER THAN THE SCBA” appearing at lines 3 and 4 of the paragraph and also after the same words appearing in line 11 of the said paragraph. Let the said paragraph be modified and read accordingly. As far as the other prayer made on behalf of the applicant is concerned, with regard to the number of filings in a year, as indicated in paragraph 9 of the judgment, we are convinced that since all advocates and members of the SCBA will be covered by the number of entries into the Supreme Court High Security Zone by the Proximity Card, the same does not require any modification at this stage.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A.NO.6 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003 & 3402 OF 2003 SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS B.D. KAUSHIK ETC. Respondent(s) O R D E R I.A.No.6 has been filed on behalf of the Supreme Court … Continue reading
Medical negligence- when the complainant went for abdominal treatment, the doctor while injecting saline through intravenous transfusion, she damaged the vain of the complainant which resulted into septic, and finally removal of her fore arm and as such damage awarded due to the fault of doctor. both forms confirmed and their lord ships dismissed this revision of the doctor=2. Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that her condition was due to the damage to the vain and resultant septicemia caused by negligence in the process of intravenous transfusion of saline and blood administered to the Complainant during her treatment by the revision petitioner. The complaint petition gives details of not only the medical consequences of the alleged negligence, but also resultant financial cost to the Complainant. For this, a total compensation of Rs.3.46 lakhs, was sought against which Rs.2.75 lakhs has been awarded. “Here in the present case, we also find that the chain of incident and circumstances under which the complication took place to the patient started under the care of appellant-doctor, on the basis of which there is only one inference of negligence of the appellant is drawn. Therefore, the respondent do not require to provide any further opinion of expert on the subject. The Complainant has succeeded to make out a case of negligence whereas the appellant failed to prove her innocence.”
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4094 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 18.8.2011 in First Appeal No.921/2006 of the State Commission, Bihar) Dr. Amita Srivastava W/o Dr. B.K.Srivastava Mohalla: Dahiyawan District Saran at Chapra, Bihar ……….Petitioner Versus Smt. Poonam Devi W/o Dev Nath Prasad Village Rampur, District Saran at Chapra, Bihar ………Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. … Continue reading
BAIL TO SURESH KALMADI =The Petitioner Suresh Kalmadi has been in custody for over eight months and Petitioner V.K. Verma for ten months. There is no allegation BAIL APPLNs. 1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 18 of 18 that the Petitioners are likely to flee from justice and will not be available for the trial. The allegations against the Petitioners are of having committed economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State Exchequer by adopting the policy of single vendor and ensuring that the contract is awarded only to STL. Whether it was a case of exercise of discretion for ensuring the best quality or a case of culpability will be decided during the course of trial. There is no allegation of money trial to the Petitioners. There is no evidence of the Petitioners threatening the witnesses or interfering with evidence during investigation or trial. There is no allegation that any other FIR has been registered against the Petitioners. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to bail to the Petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Petitioners will not leave the Country without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
BAILAPPLNs. 1692/2011 & 1515/2011 Page 1 of 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 10th January, 2012 Decided on: 19th January, 2012 + BAIL APPLN. 1692 OF 2011 SURESH KALMADI ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Hitesh Jain, … Continue reading
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 9-Application for interim measures by court-Unregistered partnership firm in liquor trade-Application by one of the partners for appointment of receiver to take charge of business of the firm-Trial court dismissing the application on the ground that name of the applicant does not figure in the register of firms as partner of the firm-High Court allowed the application holding that s.69(3) of the Partnership Act is not attracted to an application u/s 9 of the Act-High Court further directed that the partners who were running the business would run the business as receivers till 31.12..2003 and from 1.1.2004 to 31.3.2004 the applicant and two other partners of his group would run the business as receivers s.9-Unregistered partnership firm-Application by one of the partners for directions to appoint receiver-Maintainability of- s. 9- “party “-Invoking s. 9-An application u/s. 9 is not a suit- ‘Parity’ is defined in s. 2(1 )(h) to mean a party to an arbitration agreement-So right conferred by s.9 is on a party to an arbitration agreement-Right conferred by s. 9 cannot be said to be one arising out of a contract-Filing of an application u/s 9 by a party by virtue of its being a party to.an arbitration agreement is for securing a relief which the court has power to grant before, during, or after arbitral proceedings by virtue of s.9 of the Act-The relief sought for in an application u/s 9 is neither in a suit nor a right arising from a contract-Party invoking s.9 may not have actually commenced arbitral proceedings but must be able to satisfy the court that the arbitral proceedings are actually contemplated or manifestly intended. =2004 AIR 1433, 2004(1 )SCR404 , 2004(3 )SCC155 , 2004(1 )SCALE297 , 2004(2 )JT352 =Held, order passed by court should fall within the meaning of expression ‘an interim measure of protection’ as distinguished from an alt time of permanent protection-It is a serious matter to appoint a receiver on a running business-This is not a case of oppression of minority by majority-A better course would have been to allow the conduct of the business continuing in the hands of the persons who were doing so but at the same time issuing such directions and/or devising such arrangement as would protect and take care of the interest of those who are not actually running the business-Purpose of enacting s. 9 is to provide ‘interim measures of protection’-Though order of High Court appointing a receiver on the partnership business is maintained, the rest of the order is set aside- Directions given inter alia, for running the business by the group of partners who were running it prior to interim order of High Court under their control but as receivers, and for appointment of an official as observer- Interim order-Partnership Act, I932-s.69(3). Held, Court u/s 9 is only formulating interim measures so as to protect the right under adjudication before the arbitral tribunal from being frustrated-Prima facie, the bar enacted by s. 69 of Partnership Act does not affect the maintainability of an application under s.9 of the Act-s. 69 of Partnership Act has no bearing on the right of a party to an arbitration clause to file an application under s.9 of the Act. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Ms. NEPC India Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 565, relied on. Kamal Pushpa Enterprises v. DR Construction Company, AIR (2000) SC 2676; Jagdish Chandra v. Kajaria Traders (Ind.) Ltd., AIR (1964) SC 1882 and Delhi Development Authority v. Kochhar Construction Work and Anr., [1998] 8 SCC 559, referred to. M/s. Shreeram Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Yasin Khan and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 476, cited. Words and phrases: Word ‘before’ in s. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Connotation of. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 132 and 131 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.A. No.2484 of 2003. Harish N. Salve, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibaii, P. Chidambaram, R.F. Nariman, Vivek Tankha, Rohit Arya, C. Mukhopadhyaii, Manu Nair, Ms. Shalini, Rakesh K. Khanna, Aseem Mehrotra, Kanahaya Singh, Rajeev Singh, Rajesh Prasad Singh, Akshay Arora, P.K. Bansal, Pankaj Kr. Singh, K.L. Janjani and Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the appearing parties.
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 131-132 of 2004 PETITIONER: FIRM ASHOK TRADERS AND ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT: GURUMUKH DAS SALUJA AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2004(1)SCR 404 The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted in both the SLPs. The dispute is among 12 … Continue reading
journalist shivani murder case – R.K. sharma acquitted=Once the link between Pradeep Sharma and the other appellants, insofar as the crime is concerned, is snapped, there is serious doubt about the involvement of the others. Although the motive behind Pradeep Sharma killing Shivani Bhatnagar is unclear and has not been established, we have already found, on the basis of other overwhelming scientific and circumstantial evidence, that Pradeep Sharma was the person who killed Shivani Bhatnagar. Did he act alone? Did he act at the behest of RK Sharma and the other appellants or did he act at the instance of someone else? These are questions which we cannot answer on the basis of the material before us. The quality of evidence before us is not of a high caliber. The key document Ex.PW135/28 is riddled with so many problems that it cannot be relied upon. Judges, like other human beings, also have suspicions but, judges, unlike others who are free to arrive at their own conclusions, cannot and do not convict on the basis of mere suspicion. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are afraid that the prosecution, in our view, has failed to do so insofar as appellants RK Sharma, Shri Bhagwan Sharma and Satya Prakash are concerned. The prosecution, however, succeeded in proving its case insofar as Pradeep Sharma is concerned. Consequently, Pradeep Sharma’s conviction under section 302 IPC stands confirmed and so does the sentence awarded to him. The other three appellants, namely, RK Sharma, Shri Bhagwan Sharma and Satya Prakash get the benefit of doubt and they stand acquitted of all charges.
CRL.A. Nos.357/08, 486/08, 396/08, 338/08, 751/09 & 752/09 Page 1 of 84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 12.10.2011 + CRL.A. 357/2008 RAVI KANT SHARMA … Appellant – versus – STATE … Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr Sushil Kumar, Sr. … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 