SC Allows 10 Students To Pursue MBBS Course In Malabar Medical College [Read Judgment] | Live Law

SC Allows 10 Students To Pursue MBBS Course In Malabar Medical College [Read Judgment] | Live Law: In a relief to 10 MBBS students, whose admissions were canceled, the Supreme Court allowed them to pursue the course, by setting aside the orders of Kerala High Court and Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC). The students, who had successfully cleared NEET, although obtained the demand drafts from banks pertaining to the fee for admission prior …

Madras high court deprecates action of MBBS student 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.
 
Published Apr 22, 2018, 4:04 am IST

A medical seat is a precious seat and it is a life time ambition for many students.

Madras high court

Chennai: “Sympathy, which was unduly shown to the petitioner by this court is taken advantage of, by the petitioner, who has approached this court, without any justification, which needs to deprecated and condemned,” Madras high court while dismissing a petition from a third year MBBS girl student, challenging tuition fee of Rs 3 lakh for the academic year 2017-2018.

A medical seat is a precious seat and it is a life time ambition for many students. Having got the seat under government quota in a private medical college, the petitioner migrated to Coimbatore Medical College from Karpaga Vinayaka Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kancheepuram, by virtue of orders passed by this court, which is only based on sympathy. She has again approached this court, said Justice N. Kirubakaran while dismissing the petition filed by P. Ramya.

Ramya underwent the first year course in KVIMSRC in 2014 and thereafter filed a petition seeking for migration. A single judge taking into consideration the availability of two seats in Coimbatore Medical College and Stanley Medical College directed the authorities to pass an order of migration in her favour from private medical college to Coimbatore Medical College. Accordingly, she was accommodated and has been pursuing medical course and she was in the third year. For the third year, a sum of Rs 3 lakh has been demanded towards tuition fee. Challenging the same, she filed the petition.

In the conditional transfer order it has been stated that she should pay fees fixed by the fee committee for the remaining years. The impugned order has been passed based on the transfer order, but also the admission into private medical college under government quota, which cannot be challenged at any point of time, till the course was over, the judge added.

The judge said, “this court regrets for the sympathy shown to the petitioner, which is being taken advantage of by the petitioner unjustifiably. The petition is nothing but abuse of process of law, contrary to the conditional migration order passed by the government in her favour. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. Though, the present petition is an abuse of process of court and an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh has to be imposed on the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner is a student, this court is not imposing any cost”.

Include maternity leave period for award of incentive marks, says Madras High Court

By Express News Service | Published: 22nd April 2018 04:24 AM |

 
Madras High Court (File | EPS)

CHENNAI: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that the maternity leave period availed of by woman government doctors also should be included as in-service and incentive marks should be extended to them in admission in PG medical courses. “The intention of the government to grant maternity leave and other benefits to protect the interest of the women and the foetus should not be lightly ignored. When the intention is to give the benefits to the women, the same intention should not take away the consequential benefits given to in-service women candidates by way of incentive marks.

Moreover, the object of giving incentive marks is to encourage the doctors who render service in the remote area or hilly area or difficult areas,” a Bench of Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and M Dhandapani said.The Bench was disposing of a batch of writ petitions from P Sowmya and 25 others seeking to declare clause 9(a)(i) of the prospectus issued by the authorities concerned for selection of candidates for postgraduate degree and diploma courses for 2018-19 session in government medical colleges, government seats in self-financing medical colleges and seats in Rajah Muthiah Medical College (Annamalai University) in Chidambaram as unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental right enshrined under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently, direct them to accept their applications and scrutinise them along with other applications.

Accepting the arguments of senior advocate P Wilson and advocate V Subramanian, the Bench on April 11 said any service rule or clause should satisfy not only the public policy, but also the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, as held by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Central Inland Water Transport vs Brojo Nath Ganguly case.“We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners are entitled to incentive marks and the respondents are directed to take into consideration the period of maternity leave as the service period for the purpose of awarding incentive marks.

“However, the incentive marks shall be calculated for the period of maternity leave, on the basis of the performance of the in-service candidates during their service in the rest of the period,” the Bench said.

The Bench also added that admittedly, the intention of the government to give incentive marks to in-service candidates for their services rendered in remote areas, is a noble one.

Tamil Nadu: Irked tenant clubs house owner to death in Tiruvallur

By Express News Service | Published: 23rd April 2018 02:15 AM |



Image for representational purpose only.

CHENNAI: A 40-year-old mason, who had rented a house in Thirumazhisai Ilangai Amman Street in Tiruvallur, allegedly killed his house owner on Saturday for pestering him to pay rent. Police said M Devaraj (40) was staying as a tenant in the house of E Vadivelu (47), who lived a few yards away. Vadivelu had frequently been pulling up Devaraj for not having paid rent for four months.

After Devaraj left for work on Saturday, the house owner cut off power supply. Returning from work, the tenant picked a quarrel with Vadivelu and hit him with an iron rod. The house owner died on the spot. Velladu Police registered a case and arrested Devaraj. Further investigation is on.

Drunken brawl

A 46-year-old man died after he was pushed down on the road by his friend after a heated exchange of words near Whites Road on Saturday. Police said R Harikrishnan, a resident of Royapettah, and two of his friends M Ashok (24) and Y Karthik (30) were consuming liquor when they started fighting over some money that was due to Harikrishnan. In the melee, Ashok punched Harikrishnan in the face. As the latter started running out, Ashok chased him and pushed him down on the road.

“Hari was badly wounded and admitted in the Royapettah GH, where he died,” said a police officer. Subsequently, the police arrested Ashok and Karthik and remanded them in judicial custody.
Ads by Kiosked

Have you deducted TDS on the rent paid? 

Tenants have to deduct TDS if the rent exceeds a certain limit. Shubham Agrawal & Vinay Dwivedi tell you how to go about it.

WHO SHOULD DEDUCT TAX   23.04.2018

Individuals and HUFs who are not required to get their financials audited and are paying rent of more than ₹50,000 per month have to deduct 5% of the rent paid in a financial year as tax.

WHEN TO DEDUCT TAX

Tax is to be deducted in March, the last month of the financial year. But if the property is being vacated before the end of the financial year, tax is to be deducted in the last month of the tenancy. The last date for March compliance without interest or penalty is 30 April.

TDS DEPOSIT DEADLINE AND FORM TO FILL

You have to pay tax online via Form 26QC which is a challan-cumpayment form within 30 days from the end of the month in which the tax is deducted. For instance, if tax is deducted in March, the last day to deposit the tax and file 26QC will be 30 April 2018.

HOW TO DEPOSIT THE TAX

The first step is to fill Form 26QC, available at www.tin-NSDL.com. You will have to furnish details such as your and the landlord’s PAN, email ID and phone number; address of the property, the amount of tax deducted, etc. There are options for filling multiple PAN in case the property is owned by several people or is leased by multiple tenants. Multiple Form 26QC will have to be filed if there are multiple landlords. After furnishing Form 26QC details, the ‘Etax payment immediately’ option will allow you to deposit the TDS with the taxman via Net banking, debit or credit cards. You can make the payments at a later date by opting for the ‘e-payment on subsequent date’ option. You may also visit any authorised bank’s branch to deposit the TDS once you have filled the Form 26QC. You are required to furnish the TDS certificate—Form 16C—to the landlord within 15 days of the last permissible date of filing Form 26QC. For instance, if you submit 26QC and deposit the tax on 30 April, then the last date of furnishing Form 16C to the landlord would be 15 May. Form 16C is available at www.tdscpc.gov.in and you can download it in 3-7 days after depositing the tax.

WHAT IF YOU DON’T COMPLY?

1. You may be liable to pay interest at the rate of 1% per month, if there is delay in deducting the tax. The penalty is 1.5% per month, if the tax has been deducted but there is delay in depositing it.

2. Delay in filing of Form 26QC may invite a late fee of ₹200 per day. For delay in issuing Form 16C, the penalty is ₹100 per day.

3. If Form 26QC is not filed before the one year from the due date, a penalty ranging from ₹10,000 to ₹1 lakh could be levied on you.

2 teachers cleared in sex abuse case
Acquitted By Court After 5-Year Trial

Srikkanth.D@timesgroup.com 23.04.2018.

Chennai: After a trial lasting five years, a mahila court acquitted two teachers of Chengalpet Government Girls’ Higher Secondary School, 50km from the city, of the charge of sexually abusing schoolchildren between 2011 and 2013.

The court examined charges of sexual abuse that the police had booked the teachers under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) for, along with charges of criminal intimidation for allegedly threatening the students to reduce marks in practical exams if they complained about the abuse, before giving them a clean chit.

One of the accused teachers was a recipient of the state government’s ‘Nallasiriyar’ award.

Sessions judge P Velmurugan of the Chengalpet mahila court found the two teachers G Nagaraj, 57, and GPugazhendi, 52, not guilty of the charges.

Picking several holes in the prosecution’s case, the sessions judge observed, “If the teachers had actually [been involved] in abuse from 2011 till 2013, the students would have complained to their parents then and there and not have waited for two years.”

The judge chided the police for not including,with the charges of the complainants, statements from other students. The judge concluded that the students’ class teacher, Mythili, had implicated the teachers in a false case.

In 2013, when the accusations first came to light, protests erupted outside the school and an FIR was registered on January 21, 2013. Nagaraj and Pugazhendi — chemistry and physics teachers respectively — had been accused of inappropriate behaviour. The school education department temporarily suspended both teachers before eventually reinstating them.

The teachers surrendered before the Madras high court in April 2013 and received bail. Meanwhile, two teachers, Jayaseela,who taught mathematics, and Saraswathi, a science teacher, appeared in the trial court to depose on behalf of the accused teachers.

According to their statements, Viswanathan, who had served as the headmaster in the same school since 2011, was suspended in 2012 after students and teachers protested against him. “Viswanathan believed that the two teachers were responsible for his suspension and said he would take revenge on them,” Jayaseela’s statement said.

One of the students who had complained against the teachers turned hostile and informed the judge that their class teacher had influenced them on Viswanathan’s directions. Of eight students who filed a complaint with the Chengalpet police, four turned hostile, leading to the teachers being acquitted of the charges.

Cancelled ticket: Travel portal to pay patron ₹63K

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 23.04.2018

Chennai: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (north) on Sunday directed online travel services facilitator MakeMyTrip to pay a sum of ₹63,000 as compensation to a customer whose ticket was cancelled mistakenly by the firm.

V Natraj, of Coimbatore, moved the forum seeking compensation from the website for deficiency in services. Natraj and his friendPramothhadbooked flightticketson July 29,2015 through the Chennai office of the company, to travel from Chennai to New Delhi on August 28 and was charged₹12,098 for the same.

However,Pramoth’stravel plan had to be dropped due to personal reasons and a day before their scheduled flight, Natraj cancelled his friend’s ticket through MakeMyTrip’s website, according to the petition. MakeMyTrip, however,cancelledNatraj’s ticket instead, and refunded a sum of ₹3,799 after collecting a penalty, the petitioner stated, adding that he learned of the cancellation of histicketonly on the day of travel through the airlines’ customer care. Following this,hehadtobook a ticket again on August 28, spending ₹8,994, Natraj claimed.

On July 14, 2016, Natraj movedtheconsumer forum seeking a compensation from the travel company for the inconvenience.

MakeMyTrip, in their counter petition, said that for proper adjudication of the matter, it is imperative that the concerned airlines also be impleaded to file their version of the incident. While accepting the petitioner’s claim that his ticketwaserroneously cancelled instead of his friend’s, the company stated thatthewrong cancellation was done by the airlines and that they had processed a full refund and the same was confirmed by airlines via an email on October 2, 2016.

The consumer forum bench said, “The opposite parties themselves admitting the wrongful cancellation of the complainant’s ticket instead of his friend’s, proves that they have committed deficiency,” the forum said.

The forum directed the company to pay a sum of ₹50,000 as compensation, apart from refunding the last minute ticket amount of ₹8,299 and a sum of ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.