Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Hospitals Private Limited, ... vs State Human Rights Commission, ... on 13 March, 2003

M.Loganathan vs V.R.Eswaramoorthy on 22 April, 2010

7.On consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the petition has to be allowed. The specific contention before the Division Bench [Santhosh Hospitals Private Limited v. State Human Rights Commission & others 2005 (2) MWN (Cr.) 46 (DB)] was that the Act dealt only with violation of human rights by public servants and not by others. On consideration of such contention, the Division Bench has held in paragraph 24 as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - C T Selvam - Full Document

K.Dhamodharan vs R.V.Narbabi on 10 November, 2006

15. The cumulative reading of Section 12(a) and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Section 2(c) of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1997 would reveal that the State Commission has the authority to deal with a complaint as against a public servant. The Division Bench of our High Court in Santosh Hospitals Private Limited v. State Human Rights Commission 2005(3) M.L.J. 406 has chosen to set aside the proceedings taken by the State Human Rights Commission as against a private individual. The Division Bench has categorically held that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 contemplates initiation of proceedings by the State Human Rights Commission only as against a public servant and not against a private individual.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Mr Mohammed Munthazer on 4 March, 2013

Having held so it also held that the insurance company is required to deposit the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and recovery of the same from the owner of the offending vehicle if it's a case of breach of policy conditions by relying upon the Judgment of this court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, represented by Administrative Officer Vs M.R.Shanthamma and others reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka 1484.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sunder Lal vs Sobitha Raj on 28 June, 2018

5.The issue is no longer res integra. A similar issue has already been decided by this Court in Santhosh Hospitals Private Limited represented by its Administrative Officer, S.Chakravarthi, Chennai Vs State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu represented by its Registrar, Chennai and others, reported in (2005) 3 M.L.J. 406. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners are public servants. Therefore, the respondent ought to have prosecuted the petitioners only before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document
1