Latest news with #SudhanshuDhulia
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
SC orders Army Medical College to pay stipend arrears to 2022 MBBS interns
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the Delhi-based Army College of Medical Sciences to pay arrears of ₹25,000 per month to MBBS interns from the 2022 batch, saying they deserved it as a "matter of right". SC orders Army Medical College to pay stipend arrears to 2022 MBBS interns A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar passed the order while hearing a petition filed by medical graduate Abhishek Yadav and others through lawyer Tanvi Dubey. The top court observed that despite a September 2023 order mandating a stipend of Rs. 25,000 per month for interns starting October 2023, the previous batch had been left uncompensated. At the outset, Justice Dhulia questioned senior advocate R Balasubramanian, appearing for ACMS, as to why the 2022 interns had not been paid, even after nearly three years. "Why will you pay a stipend? They deserve it as a matter of right," the judge said. Justice Kumar also strongly criticized the stand of the ACMS and said, "You make them work for 18 hours, 19 hours, and you don't want to pay them a stipend?" Balasubramanian contended that the college is managed by a private society and does not receive government funding. The bench remained unconvinced and said, "These students have worked for the college. They must be paid." It proceeded to record a statement of Balasubramanian that the Army College would extend the same ₹25,000 stipend to all interns, including the 2022 batch. Citing previous orders passed by a three-judge bench, it ordered that similarly placed students should not be denied benefits. "We are of the opinion that the same benefit ought to be given to the previous batch as well... We direct that interns of 2022, who had done their internship with Army Medical College, also be paid an amount of Rs. 25,000 per month. Let the same be calculated and paid within eight weeks," the bench ordered. Dubey also brought to the attention of the court the plight of the foreign medical graduates and said that it is a case of bonded labour if they do not get the stipend. The bench asked as to why after rigorous hours the students are yet not paid stipend. It also directed that the matter pertaining to foreign medical graduates be also listed urgently for final arguments. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
United News of India
6 hours ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC quashes FIR against Bengaluru landowners, flags BDA's collusion in land return
New Delhi, Aug 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all criminal proceedings against four Bengaluru landowners accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy in a 2015 land transaction. However, the Court yesterday strongly criticised the conduct of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), observing that it colluded with private parties to return acquired land back into private hands, compromising public interest. A Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted, 'Though the court has allowed the present appeal, the judicial conscience of the Court is ill at ease. The interest of the common citizens, especially of Bengaluru, has been compromised due to various extraneous considerations, including by acts of omission and commission by statutory bodies.' The case stemmed from a complaint filed by one Keerthiraj Shetty, who had entered into an agreement to sell 6 acres of land in Bhoopasandra village, Bangalore North, with the accused on November 30, 2015. Shetty alleged that while the accused received a substantial payment and executed a general power of attorney, they later revoked it and transferred the land internally without completing the sale deed in his favour. Following this, an FIR was registered at Sanjay Nagar Police Station on October 5, 2023, leading to a chargesheet under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). Cognizance was taken by the magistrate on August 30, 2024. The Karnataka High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR, prompting the present appeal. The Supreme Court found no criminal offence made out in the case. On the charge of breach of trust, it held that the land belonged to the accused and they retained legal ownership, rendering the application of Section 406 inapplicable. Regarding the cheating charge, the Court observed that there was no dishonest intention at the start of the transaction. The complainant himself admitted that cheating allegations arose only after the property's market value increased, negating any claim of initial inducement. 'We do not find any criminal aspect in the allegations ex-facie,' the Court concluded, stating the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, the FIR, chargesheet, and cognizance order were quashed. Even one co-accused who had not filed an appeal was granted relief, as all accused stood on the same footing. Despite quashing the criminal case, the Court raised serious concerns about how the BDA handled the land's return to private ownership. The land was originally acquired by the BDA in 1978 and 1982. A de-notification in 1992 was challenged and quashed in 1996, and the Supreme Court upheld that quashing in 2015. Yet, in 2015, the present appellants filed fresh writ petitions claiming the acquisition had lapsed. These were allowed by a single judge in 2016, and although the BDA initially filed appeals, it later withdrew them. Calling this sequence of events 'deeply troubling,' the Court said, 'The action of the BDA in not pursuing the appeal(s) filed by itself is the second phase where the course of justice was thwarted. We have no hesitation in saying so, what could only be termed as collusive litigation between the BDA and the appellants.' Though the Court considered invoking Article 142 to undo the 2016 High Court order, it refrained, noting that the BDA has already filed a related appeal in the Supreme Court. It directed that no third-party rights shall be created or acted upon concerning the property until that appeal is resolved. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shoeb Alam, along with a legal team from Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, represented the petitioners. Advocates Mahesh Thakur, Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Vedika Singh, and D.L. Chidananda appeared for the respondents. UNI SNG AAB
Indian Express
a day ago
- Automotive
- Indian Express
SC finds driver who suddenly braked on highway primarily liable for 2017 accident, enhances compensation to victim
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that those driving on highways should give warning signals to vehicles behind them if they intend to stop midway, while holding a car driver, who had not done so, guilty of contributory negligence, which led to a motorcyclist losing his left leg in a road accident in Tamil Nadu in 2017. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar made the remarks while enhancing the compensation payable to S Mohammed Hakkim, who was a third-year Engineering student in Coimbatore at the time of the accident. The accident happened on January 7, 2017, when Hakkim was riding on a motorcycle with his friend on the pillion. A car that was ahead of them suddenly applied the brakes, and Hakkim's motorcycle crashed into the car and fell towards the right side of the road. A bus drove over him, and his left leg had to be amputated during treatment. The top court held that Hakkim had a role in the accident by not maintaining the necessary distance, but held that the 'root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver.' 'The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, the car driver is not liable. On the other hand, the car driver admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct,' the SC said in its judgment. 'But at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver. The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle. On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected, and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution,' the court said. Liability for negligence The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) fixed the compensation at Rs 91.62 lakh, but reduced it to Rs 73.29 lakh after attributing 20 per cent contributory negligence to Hakkim. MACT ordered the insurer of the bus to pay the amount, while exonerating the car insurer of all liabilities. On appeal, the Madras High Court held that since the accident occurred due to the car driver suddenly applying the brakes, he should also be made liable. The high court fixed the liability of the car driver, the bus driver, and Hakkim as 40 per cent, 30 per cent, and 30 per cent, respectively. The court also reduced the compensation payable to the motorcyclist from Rs 73.29 lakh to Rs 58.53 lakh along with interest. The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation, and directed that Hakkim be paid Rs. 91.39 lakh along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 'Since both the offending vehicles (car as well as the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by them, ie, respondent no. 3 (car insurer) to the extent of 50% and respondent no.1 (bus insurer) to the extent of 30%, respectively.' The court directed that the amount be paid to him within four weeks of the order.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
Person tailgating liable for accident if it occurs, says SC
NEW DELHI: Apply emergency brakes or trail a moving vehicle too closely at your own risk as Supreme Court has said that using brakes all of a sudden in the middle of a road or not maintaining sufficient distance from a running vehicle make a person liable for an accident if it occurs. While adjudicating a motor accident claim in an accident involving a bike, a car and a bus in which bike rider collided with the four wheeler and was hit by a truck after falling down resulting in 100% physical disability, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar found fault with all three who were driving vehicles. The court said that the car driver was at fault for suddenly applying brakes in the middle of the road and the biker also committed a mistake as he was not maintaining safe distance from the car and also the bus driver whose negligence resulted in grievous injury and led to the amputation of a leg of the biker's. The court rejected the plea of the car insurer which contended that the biker had hit the moving car from behind and the car driver was not liable. The car owner had said that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation at that time, a justification which was rejected by the court. Examining the role of all three drivers, the court said that the biker, who was an engineering student and lost his one leg, was also liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver and bus driver are liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30% respectively. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Prettiest Icons In The History The Noodle Box Undo The tribunal had exonerated the car driver and determined the negligence of the biker and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. The court awarded a compensation of Rs 1.14 crore to the biker but deducted 20% from it due to his contributory role in the accident. It said that since both the offending vehicles (car as well as the bus) were insured at the time of the accident, the liability for the negligence of the car driver and bus driver shall be borne by the insurer.
News18
2 days ago
- News18
SC Holds Driver Partly Liable For Sudden Braking, Awards Over Rs 90 Lakh To Injured Motorcyclist
Last Updated: Apportioning 50% negligence to the car driver, the court awarded over Rs 91 lakh to a motorcyclist who suffered amputation after colliding with the car and being run over by a bus The Supreme Court has held that sudden braking on a highway without any warning or indication amounts to negligence, making a car driver 50 per cent liable in a road accident involving a motorcyclist who suffered a leg amputation. The judgment was delivered on July 29 in the S Mohammed Hakkim vs National Insurance Co Ltd & Ors by a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar. The case concerned a motor accident that occurred on January 7, 2017. The appellant, then a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a pillion rider when he collided into the rear of a car that had suddenly applied brakes. As a result of the impact, he fell on the road and was run over by a bus that was trailing the motorcycle. The injuries led to the amputation of the appellant's left leg from the waist. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had originally awarded compensation of Rs 91.62 lakh, reducing it to Rs 73.29 lakh after assigning 20 per cent contributory negligence to the appellant. On appeal, the Madras High Court altered the apportionment of liability to 40 per cent for the car driver, 30 per cent for the bus driver, and 30 per cent for the appellant, and further reduced the compensation to Rs 58.53 lakh. In its judgment, the Supreme Court found the high court's modification of contributory negligence unsupported by evidence and restored the tribunal's original finding that the appellant was 20 per cent negligent. The court held that the car driver, who suddenly braked due to his wife experiencing vomiting during pregnancy, had not given any prior warning or indication. The bench noted that high speed is normal on highways, and drivers intending to stop must signal their intention to avoid risk to trailing vehicles. The absence of such precaution, the court observed, was the root cause of the accident. The court held the liability to be distributed as 50 per cent for the car driver, 30 per cent for the bus driver, and 20 per cent for the appellant. It enhanced the compensation to Rs 91.39 lakh with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. In determining the compensation, the court revised the notional income of the appellant from Rs 15,000 per month (as fixed by the tribunal and high court) to Rs 20,000, considering his academic background and potential career. It also restored attendant charges of Rs 18 lakh as originally awarded by the tribunal, noting that the high court had reduced it to Rs 5 lakh without giving adequate reasoning. The court observed that amputation from the waist would necessitate lifelong assistance for routine functions. Additionally, it enhanced the compensation for loss of marital prospects from Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. The court directed that since both the car and bus involved in the accident were insured at the time, their respective insurers would bear the liability to the extent of 50 per cent and 30 per cent. The remaining 20 per cent, reflecting the contributory negligence of the appellant, would be deducted from the total award. The final amount was ordered to be disbursed within four weeks from the date of judgment. The tribunal had earlier relied on Rule 23 of the Road Regulation Rules, 1989, to determine the appellant's contributory negligence for failing to maintain a safe distance and for not holding a valid licence. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment but emphasised that the primary cause of the accident remained the abrupt and unindicated stop by the car driver. First Published: July 30, 2025, 16:38 IST News india SC Holds Driver Partly Liable For Sudden Braking, Awards Over Rs 90 Lakh To Injured Motorcyclist Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
