Govt. doctors plan protest to press charter of demands

Govt. doctors plan protest to press charter of demands

The Hindu Bureau

Chennai  25.11.2024

The Service Doctors and Postgraduates Association will go on mass casual leave for a day in the third week of December to press their charter of demands.

Its members said they wanted to be treated with dignity as professionals during meetings between government doctors and bureaucrats.

The association demanded that the National Health Mission in-charge “express regret for his derogatory remarks against doctors”.

It wanted the government to replace bureaucrats posted in NHM, TN Health Systems Project, TANSACS and similar bodies with senior government doctors in the cadre of directors.

The association also underscored its demand that the government implement security measures for health professionals.

The association will join hands with other doctors’ organisations in this regard.

NEWS TODAY 24.11.2024

 

₹30L penalty for vacating seat in govt medical college challenged in HC

₹30L penalty for vacating seat in govt medical college challenged in HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 24.11.2024

Jabalpur : Challenging the govt's decision to impose a penalty of Rs 30 lakh for vacating a PG seat from a govt medical college, the student, who vacated the seat, moved a petition before the high court, claiming that he vacated the seat due to rag ging and harsh duties. Hearing the petition, the division bench of Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Anuradha Shukla issued a notice to the respondents seeking a response. 

The petition, filed on behalf of Dr Raj Kumar Ahirwar, a resident of Sihora, stated that he belongs to the SC category. He was selected in the NEET exam 2022 and was allotted a PG paediatrics seat at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. At the time of admission, he also signed a seatleaving bond. From Nov 2022 to Jan 2023, he allegedly faced ragging at the college. Additionally, he was ma de to work continuously for 48 hours as a junior doctor. Distressed by the harassment, he left the seat in Jan 2023. Due to the seat-leaving bond, the college administration charged him a penalty of Rs 30 lakh to return his original documents. Advocate Aditya Sanghi represented the petitioner.

Con man poses as govt officer, cheats three of ₹7L Identified Himself As Chairman Of Dept Of Science, R&D

Con man poses as govt officer, cheats three of ₹7L Identified Himself As Chairman Of Dept Of Science, R&D 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 24.11.2024

Ahmedabad : The Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) launched a search for Mehul Shah, a resident of Wankaner, who allegedly posed as a senior govt official and cheated three individuals out of Rs 7 lakh. Shah’s victims include a car rental company owner, a bouncer, and a painter, all lured by promises of lucrative deals or govt jobs. Pratik Shah, a car rental company owner, filed the complaint after being defrauded by Mehul Shah. The scam began on Sep 6, when Shah contacted Pratik, claiming to be a senior govt officer. He hired an SUV for Rs 3,500 per day, stating it was needed for daily office use. Shah subsequently insisted on modifications to the vehicle, including a siren, red light, white curtains, and a “Government of India” plate, presenting forged documents supposedly signed by a senior govt official. Pratik complied, even getting approvals from the RTO and police.

 Mehul also told him that he was a trustee at a university in the Asarwa area. He went on to hire two buses, purportedly to transport students on a picnic to Mount Abu, and rented additional vehicles for his relatives. In October, Mehul claimed that he got a promotion in the revenue department and requested a higher-end SUV. He agreed to Pratik’s quotation of Rs 7,000 per day, despite owing him substantial unpaid dues. To secure the arrangement, Mehul issued a work order forged with a signature as the chairman of the Department of Science and Research Development. The agreement was for three years. When Pratik demanded Rs 90,000 in unpaid bills, Shah provided a blank cheque, which bounced  due to insufficient funds. Shah then ceased all communication, and Pratik realised that he was defrauded. Pratik was cheated of Rs 1.6 lakh in total. 

Bouncer paid ₹3L to secure son’s job Pratik’s driver, Alpesh Padhiyar, revealed that Shah had requested a bouncer for security services. Alpesh referred his acquaintance, Vinod Bhambhi, whom Mehul lured with a govt clerk job for his son Vatsal at a fictitious ‘Asarwa University.’ He demanded Rs 3 lakh for the job from Bhambhi, who paid him to secure the job for his son. Shah handed Bhambhi a forged appointment letter on the letterhead of the District Education Officer (DEO), Ahmedabad City. However, when Bhambhi approached DEO RM Chaudhary for verification, the letter was confirmed to be fake. The complaint states that Mehul Shah did not even spare a man hired for painting work at the university, claiming he had purchased the institution. Shah duped Sipai of Rs 2.4 lakh by not paying for the painting work. TNN

Order for bank to refund cyberfraud victim reversed

Order for bank to refund cyberfraud victim reversed 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 24.11.2024

Ahmedabad : A city sessions court overturned a magistrate’s order issued to Punjab National Bank’s (PNB’s) Ernakulam branch in Kerala, regarding the transfer of Rs 7.70 lakh from a cyberfraud account to cybercrime victim Yamini Porval, a resident of the Satellite area here. 

She was defrauded of Rs 26.96 lakh allegedly by cybercrooks. PNB contested the magistrate’s order as there was no balance in the cyberfraud account. Additionally, the bank faced multiple court orders from different states demanding payments from the same account to other cybercrime victims. The account, which fraudulently obtained funds, was found to be empty when the crime came to light. 

Porval reported to the cybercrime cell about losing over Rs 26 lakh from her accounts. While no FIR was registered immediately, investigators traced Rs 7.70 lakh transferred to the PNB account in Ernakulam. The police subsequently froze the account under CrPC section 102. After part of her sum was traced in the PNB account, Porval filed an application before a magisterial court at Gheekanta here to recover Rs 7.70 lakh from PNB, with the police raising no objections to the transfer. 

On Dec 9, 2023, the magistrate ordered that the money be transferred to Porval with specific conditions. However, PNB appealed against this order, arguing that they weren’t notified by the court before passing the order, and that the account held zero balance. The bank also highlighted multiple claims from cybercrime victims across states, with different courts ordering refunds from the same account. The bank expressed its inability to comply due to insufficient funds in the alleged cyber fraud account. 

The sessions court, upon hearing PNB’s appeal, cancelled the magistrate’s order, stating, “It would be unjust and improper to compel the bank to transfer the amount to one claimant while other claimants remain unaddressed, especially when the account balance does not support the payment.”  While directing the magistrate to hear Porval’s case again, the court instructed the trial court to obtain PNB’s comprehensive report on all claims against the fraudulent account. The magistrate has been ordered to hear PNB before issuing directions, and the bank has been restrained from disbursing funds until the magistrate’s final decision on distribution.

Aadhar Card Not Proof Of Age, But An Identity Document: Madhya Pradesh HC Reiterates, Directs State To Clarify To All Concerned Authorities

Aadhar Card Not Proof Of Age, But An Identity Document: Madhya Pradesh HC Reiterates, Directs State To Clarify To All Concerned Authorities

Siddhi Nigam

13 Nov 2024 1:55 PM

While reiterating that Aadhar cards cannot be relied upon as a proof of its holder's age, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the state government to clarify to all concerned authorities that the Aadhar Card is merely an identity document.

In doing so the high court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Saroj and Others Vs. IFFCOTOKIO General Insurance Company and Others (2024) which held that the Aadhar Card is not the document of age. The matter before the high court pertained to use of Aadhaar card as a definitive proof of age to claim benefits under the Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna.

A single judge bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia stated that not only the Supreme court but also the High Courts and even circulars issued by various government Departments have clarified that Aadhar card is not the proof of age.

“...Similarly, different High Courts including the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in different cases have held that Aadhar Card is not a document of age," it added.

It thereafter said, "Let a copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh for issuing notices to all the concerned authorities with regard to the legal sanctity of Aadhar Card thereby clarifying that Aadhar Card is not the document of age but it is merely a document of identity".

In this case, the petitioner Sunita Sahu, applied for Mukhyamantri Jan Kalyan (Sambal) Yojna, 2018 after her husband's death due to electrocution. Her claim was denied since her husband's age exceeded the scheme's age limit which is 64 years as per the official records. The petitioner contended that her husband's age should be determined based on the date of birth mentioned on his Aadhar card, which if accepted would qualify her to benefit from the scheme.

The court observed that the Panchayat in Narsinghpur district did not commit any mistake by holding that the age of deceased husband of petitioner was more than 64 and hence not eligible for the benefits. The petitioner had also filed an appeal before SDO, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur against order February 22 and it is pending therefore the court asked that the, Appellate Authority may be directed regarding the same as well.

The court had asked the petitioner's counsel to address that if the State government has formulated a scheme considering aadhar card as a document of age and can that scheme be given precedence over the Supreme Court's judgement.

“It was fairly conceded that the scheme, which is an executive instruction cannot prevail over the judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court… The UIDAI by its circular No.08/2023 has clarified that Aadhar Card can be used to establish identity. It is not per se proof of date of birth," it noted.

It further observed that the provisions of the Yojna made it clear that age of deceased labourer would be considered on the basis of date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card, is contrary to very purpose of Aadhar Card and therefore, it cannot be approved.

"Be that whatever it may be. But one thing is clear that since Aadhar Card is not the proof of age of holder of Aadhar Card, therefore, Janpad Panchayat Babai Chichali, District Narsinghpur did not commit any mistake by holding that on the basis of all other relevant documents, the age of deceased husband of petitioner was more than 64 years and has rightly ignored the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card of the deceased," the high court said.

The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that since she has also filed an appeal before SDO, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur against the February order and the same is pending therefore the Appellate Authority may be directed to decide the same.

“this Court has already held that Aadhar Card is not the document of age and it is a document of identity (Biometric, IRIS), then no useful purpose would served by directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal thereby giving an opportunity to take a different view specifically when the judgment passed by this Court is binding on all the tribunals functioning within the State of Madhya Pradesh," it said while dismissing the petition.

Before parting the high court called for circulation of its order to all Collectors within the State so that they may circulate to all the authorities functioning under them.

Case title: Smt. Sunita Bai Sahu Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 32191 of 2024

During Divorce Proceedings, Wife Entitled To Enjoy Same Life Amenities She Was Enjoying In Matrimonial Home : Supreme Court

During Divorce Proceedings, Wife Entitled To Enjoy Same Life Amenities She Was Enjoying In Matrimonial Home : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

20 Nov 2024 11:45 AM

While awarding Rs.1.75 Lakhs as monthly interim maintenance to a wife during the divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court observed that the wife is entitled to the same standard of living during the divorce proceedings as what she enjoyed during the marriage.

“The appellant (wife) was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home.”, the Court observed.

The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale also noted that the wife was not working as she had sacrified her employment after marriage. It restored the Family Court's order to the Husband to grant Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) monthly maintenance to the wife during the divorce proceedings.

The appellant/wife and respondent/husband married on September 15, 2008, as per Christian customs. The husband had a son from a previous marriage, and there were no children from the current marriage.

The husband filed for divorce in 2019, citing incompatibility and cruelty. During divorce proceedings, the appellant/wife sought interim maintenance of ₹2,50,000 per month. She claimed the husband's significant income from medical practice, property rentals, and business ventures.

The Family Court ordered the respondent (husband) to grant Rs. 1,75,000/- maintenance to the wife during the divorce proceedings.

The High Court, however, reduced the maintenance amount to Rs. 80,000/-.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court observed that the High Court had not fully considered evidence about the husband's income and property holdings.

“We find that the High Court has erred in reducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month. The High Court has considered only two sources of income for the respondent. Firstly, the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand only) that he earns from working as a Cardiologist at the Hospital. Secondly, the rent amount he and his mother receive from a property, of which the High Court has stated that he receives half the amount only. However, the High Court has not dealt with the findings of the Family Court wherein the respondent is said to own a number of worthful properties and the fact that he is the only legal heir of his father. The Family Court found that the respondent is accruing all the incomes from the properties owned by his mother. The High Court has not dealt with the aspect of the number of properties owned by the respondent and looked at the rental income from one property.”, the court observed.

The court laid emphasis on the wife's right to maintain her matrimonial standard of living during the divorce process. In other words, the maintenance awards must reflect the dependent spouse's accustomed lifestyle and the earning spouse's financial capability.

“Consequently, we allow the appeal of the appellant wife and set aside the order of the Madras High Court dated 01.12.2022 and restore the order of the Family Court. The respondent husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only) per month as interim maintenance as per the order of the Family Court dated 14.06.2022.”, the court ordered.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul J Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mrs. Sudershani Ray, Adv. Mrs. Drishti Mittal, Adv. Mr. Parth Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.s., AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Sudershani Ray, Adv. Mrs. Drishti Mittal, Adv. Mr. Parth Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Mr. Suvidutt M.s., AOR Ms. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Ms. Shristi Borthakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul J Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Ranjay Kumar Dubey, AOR

Case Title: DR. RAJIV VERGHESE VERSUS ROSE CHAKKRAMMANKKIL FRANCIS, C.A. No. 012546 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 902