The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear the following matters from January 28th, 2020.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy -Curative Petition
UNION OF INDIA M/S. UNION CARBIDE CORPN
This pertains to a curative petition filed by the Centre in 2011 for additional compensation for Bhopal gas tragedy victims from US-based Union Carbide Company( which is now owned by Dow Chemicals).
The petition filed in December 2010 seeks additional compensation of Rs.7413 crores, seeking re-examination of the apex court's February 14, 1989 judgement by which the compensation was fixed at US$ 470 million (Rs 750 crore) and subsequent orders of February 15 and May 4 determining the mode of payment and settlement. According to Central Government, the earlier settlement was based on incorrect assumptions on the number of deaths, injuries and losses, and has not taken into account the subsequent environmental degradation. The settlement was based on the earlier figure of 3,000 deaths and 70,000 injury cases; the curative petition has put the death numbers at 5,295 and injury figure at 527,894. has sought.
Consumer Cases: Commencing Point of Limitation Of 30 Days To File Version By Opposite Party?
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD v. HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT LTD
In these cases, the issue referred is: What is the commencing point of the limitation of 30 days stipulated in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. ?The referring bench opined that the declaration made in JJ Merchant's case that the period of 30 days is to be reckoned from the date of the receipt of the notice of the admission of the complaint by the ADJUDICATORY BODY has no basis in the text of the Act. According to the bench, the insistence upon the filing of the statement within 30 days from the receipt of such notice may not serve any useful purpose when there is no prospect of the matter being taken up by the ADJUDICATORY BODY immediately on filing of the written statement
Whether State Can Legislate On Manner And Method Of Making Admissions To PG Medical Courses?
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
The three judge bench has doubted the judgment rendered by a Coordinate bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh Chauhan. The main issue in this writ petitions was whether a State is denuded of its power to legislate on the manner and method of making admissions to post-graduate medical courses. The referring order observed that Dinesh Singh Chauhan did not consider the entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule, more particularly Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List.
The petitions seek a declaration that Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (more particularly, Regulation 9(iv) and 9(vii), does not take away the power of the States under Entry 25, List III to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to Degree Course. Alternatively, it prays that, if Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Regulations, 2000 is understood to not allow for States to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to Degree Courses, declare by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ/order/direction, Regulation 9 (more particularly, Regulations 9(iv) and 9 (vii) as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The bench had earlier declined interim relief sought by the petitioners.