Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing S.Samson vs Authorization Committee For on 29 April, 2008

Sudha Mathesan vs The Authorisation Committee ... on 30 May, 2024

22.The Madras High Court in S.Samson Vs. Authorisation Committee 2008 SCC Online Mad 317 held that the Authorisation Committee must give a cogent and convincing reasoning for concluding that there exists financial bonding between the recipient and the donor. The reasons must be valid and acceptable. An opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties concerned. The matter has to be looked into with the avowed object of helping the needy whose life is in danger. The authorities concerned while exercising the power under the Act must look into the issue in a manner so as to save the life of a person and the matter should not be looked into from a technical point of view. It was further declared that since organ donation is aimed to give immediate relief to the needy person whose life is in peril, time is the essence in a matter of this nature. The Authorisation Committees should not sit over the applications. They must decide speedily.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Sudha Mathesan vs The Authorisation Committee ... on 30 May, 2024

22.The Madras High Court in S.Samson Vs. Authorisation Committee 2008 SCC Online Mad 317 held that the Authorisation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/26 Committee must give a cogent and convincing reasoning for concluding that there exists financial bonding between the recipient and the donor. The reasons must be valid and acceptable. An opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties concerned. The matter has to be looked into with the avowed object of helping the needy whose life is in danger. The authorities concerned while exercising the power under the Act must look into the issue in a manner so as to save the life of a person and the matter should not be looked into from a technical point of view. It was further declared that since organ donation is aimed to give immediate relief to the needy person whose life is in peril, time is the essence in a matter of this nature. The Authorisation Committees should not sit over the applications. They must decide speedily.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Muhmmed Rasheed vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025

24. The Madras High Court in S.Samson v. Authorisation Committee (2008 SCC OnLine Mad. 317) has succinctly held that the Authorisation Committee must give a cogent and convincing reasoning for concluding that there exists financial bonding between the recipient and the donor. The reasons must be valid and acceptable. An opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties concerned. The matter must be looked into with the avowed object of helping people in need whose lives are in danger. While exercising power under the Act, the authorities concerned must look into the issue in a manner that saves a person's life, and not from a technical point of view.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document

V.Periasamy vs The Chairman on 29 August, 2025

22. The Madras High Court in S.Samson Vs. Authorisation Committee 2008 SCC Online Mad 317 held that the Authorisation Committee must give a cogent and convincing reasoning for concluding that there exists financial bonding between the recipient and the donor. The reasons must be valid and acceptable. An opportunity of hearing should be given to the parties concerned. The matter has to be looked into with the avowed object of helping the needy whose life is in danger. The authorities concerned while exercising the power under the Act must look into the issue in a manner so as to save the life of a person and the matter should not be looked into from a technical point of view. It was further declared that since organ donation is aimed to give immediate relief to the needy person whose life is in peril, time is the essence in a matter of this nature. The Authorisation Committees should not sit over the applications. They must decide speedily."
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

Sulthan vs The Principal Secretary To Government ... on 30 May, 2019

7.The Madras High Court in the decision reported in (2008) 4 MLJ 1044 (S.Samson V. Authorization Committee for implementation of Human Organ Transplantation, rep. by its Chairman, Chennai) while remitting to the Authorization Committee indicated that the Authorization Committee while http://www.judis.nic.in 6 re-examining the issue in detail must follow the provisions of the Act, not only in letter but also in spirit, taking cognizance of the fact that the patient is already undergoing dialysis and is need of immediate transplantation of kidney. The case on hand is similar. The child in question is aged about 13 years. The petitioner's counsel would point out that she is undergoing dialysis for more than five months. Unless transplantation is made immediately, the child may not survive. Considering the urgency in the matter, the second respondent is called upon to take a decision in the matter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall produce before the committee the donor also. The committee shall take note of the fact that the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities have categorically certified that the donor is a relative and that she had on her own volition offered to donate her kidney. As already observed by this Court that there is absolutely no scope for any financial consideration in this case, in view of the economic background of the writ petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

J.Rajkumar vs The Authorisation Committee ... on 31 May, 2024

In the decision reported in 2008 MLJ (4) 1044 (S.Samson Vs. Authorisation Committee for Implementation of Human Organ Transplantation), it was held that opportunity of personal hearing must be given. There is a reason for this. If an adverse order is passed, an element of disqualification is attached to the donor. The rights of the patient are at stake. That is why, it is necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice. If any doubt crosses the minds of the members of the committee, the applicants must be put on notice and given an opportunity to explain. In this case, the reason assigned is cryptic. It does not shed any light. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain the so-call contradiction noticed by the committee. There has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

J.Rajkumar vs The Authorisation Committee ... on 31 May, 2024

In the decision reported in 2008 MLJ (4) 1044 (S.Samson Vs. Authorisation Committee for Implementation of Human Organ Transplantation), it was held that opportunity of personal hearing must be given. There is a reason for this. If an adverse order is passed, an element of disqualification is attached to the donor. The rights of the patient are at stake. That is why, it is necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice. If any doubt crosses the minds of the members of the committee, the applicants must be put on notice and given an opportunity to explain. In this case, the reason https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 assigned is cryptic. It does not shed any light. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain the so-call contradiction noticed by the committee. There has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document
1