Skip to main content

Interim payments in the clinical negligence context

Putting to rest controversy hovering around the entitlement of both husband and wife to allotment of separate residential sites, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that expression “applicant” included “spouse”.
The judgment is significant as it means term applicant would cover wife, even if the application for allotment is submitted by the husband alone and vice-versa. Either the husband, or the wife, can be allotted a dwelling unit and not both in terms of specific eligibility condition.
The ruling came in a case where the allotment to wife was cancelled as her husband too was an allottee. The court was told only husband, wife or dependent family members could be allotted a plot in a particular urban estate as per eligibility clause 11 of the brochure-cum-application form.
The Bench ruled: “We were only required to interpret clause 11… and as we have concluded, on its true and purposive construction, the expression `applicant’ would include and represent; his/her spouse, notwithstanding whether he/she is financially independent or not”.
The ruling by Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Arun Palli came on a petition filed by Manju S. Gupta in 1998.
She was seeking the quashing of order dated August 17, 1992, passed by HUDA Estate Officer vide which residential site allotted to her was resumed.
The wife’s claim was that applicants not owning a residential house or plot in Gurgaon Urban Estate in his or her name, or in the name of their dependent family members, were eligible to apply. She and her husband were not financially dependent on the other; both were income tax assessee and running their separate businesses.
The Bench was told Haryana Urban Development Authority, in 1984, invited applications for allotment of residential sites in Sector 22, Gurgaon.
The petitioner and her husband had filed separate applications and were declared successful in the draw of lots. Later, the couple was asked to clarify their entitlement to retain separate plots. They were later told to surrender one of the plots.
Dismissing the plea, the Bench ruled: “Next to food and clothing, housing is the basic necessity of mankind….In wake of an ever widening gulf between rising population and depleting housing infrastructure stocks, we are impelled to construe clause 11 contextually. And, therefore, the expression applicant shall also include and represent a spouse for they are intertwined for the purposes of allotment of house sites.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a