SUPREME COURT

• CIVIL LAWS

Medical Council of India Vs. Manas Ranjan Behera and Ors. Decided on 26.10.2009 MANU/SC/1772/2009

Admissions in Medical and dental colleges - Non adherance to time schedule - Impugned order by the High Court condoned the delay

In Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that all the parties shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as regards admission to students in the Medical and Dental colleges. In view of these directions, the High Court should not have passed the impugned Order, however, in the instant case students were eligible and because of unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed time limit. Delay hence condoned in giving admission to them as a one-time measure.

HIGH COURTS

• FAMILY/CIVIL LAWS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Rajiv Dinesh Gadkari through P.A. Depamala Gadkari Vs. Smt. Nilangi Rajiv Gadkari (Decided on 16.10.2009) MANU/MH/1218/2009

Vakalatnama - Power of attorney to "act" on behalf of the principal - Duty of the Family Court under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 - Advocate may argue the case on behalf of the appellant - Advocate cannot have any personal knowledge about the factual aspects.

In matrimonial cases where cruelty and other allegations during the matrimonial life is in issue, Advocate may only argue the case on behalf of the appellant, but the Advocate cannot have any personal knowledge about the factual aspects regarding cruelty and other allegations during the matrimonial life between the appellant and the respondent. As per provisions of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is concerned, no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner. Court may however give permission in the interest of justice for taking assistance of a legal expert. Held, the appellant cannot be permitted to give his evidence through his power of attorney. In fact, it is the duty of the Family Court under Section 9 of the Act to make efforts for settlement. The power of attorney does not give the attorney holder the right to give evidence regarding the facts which are only within the personal knowledge of either of the husband or wife.

• TRUSTS AND SOCIETIES

MADRAS HIGH COURT

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Credit), Chairman-Common Cadre Authority Vs. G. Manoharan and Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank rep. by its Special Officer (Decided on 21.10.2009) MANU/TN/2827/2009

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - Section 80, 81,82 and 83 - No continuance of disciplinary proceedings after the age of superannuation - Before retirement respondent received a charge memo issued by the Bank stating three charges - withholding terminal benefits till the outcome of the enquiry.

A Registrar is empowered by the provisions mentioned above. If it appears that any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has made any payment which is not in accordance with this Act. However the power of the Registrar is also curtailed after a certain period as such action to repay or restore the money cannot be commenced after the expiry of seven years from the date of the Act or omission. 

• SERVICE

MADRAS HIGH COURT

M. Selvaraj, R. Vijayan, P. Chellappan and K. Thangadurai Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest (FR SB) Department and The District Forest Officer, Kanyakumari Division (Decided on 23.10.2009) MANU/TN/2832/2009

Srict liability for contravention of fundamental rights - Petitioners challenging Government Order and also the charge memo framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Order of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) awarding monetary compensation

It is a settled proposition in most of the jurisdictions, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is the appropriate and indeed an effective remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. Based on the principle of strict liability the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified by the wrongdoer.