Skip to main content

Rule stayed by HC cannot be used selectively in other States

W.P.Nos.39022 and 36735 of 2015
Dr.T.Rajakumari vs The Government of Tamil Nadu,

ONCE a High Court strikes down the provisions of a Central Act, the same cannot be selectively applied in other States. Thus there is no question of applicability of the provisions struck down by the High Court as of now until and unless the Supreme Court sets aside the judgment or stays the operation of the judgment, the first Bench of the Madras High Court has asserted.

The Bench of Chief Justice SK Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan was on Wednesday disposing of a PIL from Dr T Rajakumari and three other doctors seeking to declare the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques  (Six months training) Rules, 2014 as beyond the scope of the Act 57 of 1995 and inconsistent with the Medical Council of India Act and Regulations.

The Bench said the Delhi High Court by an order dated February 17. 2016 had declared certain provisions of the Central Act, including sec. 3(3)(1)(b), as ultra vires the PNDT Act to the extent it required a person desirous of setting up a genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre to undergo six months training. The matter was now pending before the Supreme Court.

“In view of this, it is accepted that the law would be finally laid down by the Supreme Court and thus, there is no point in keeping this PIL pending and whatever the declaration of law by the Supreme Court would be equally applied. The only question is what would happen till the Supreme Court examines the issue. If the Apex Court had stayed or would stay the operation of the Delhi High Court judgment, then only the provisions struck down by the Delhi High Court, will come into operation,” the Bench said and disposed of the PIL.

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 ...

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...

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...