The Practice, Advocates and Consultants is a full service law firm run and managed by its proprietor Anupam Tripathi who has been providing dedicated and professional legal advice, support and representation to its domestic, NRI and Foreign based clients in cases of bitter marriages, painful separation, acrimonious divorces, annulment of marriage, divorce by mutual consent, divorce by mutual consent through videoconference, criminal complaints u/s 498A, 403,406 IPC, Cases u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, child custody battles, petitions for maintenance and child support, Alimony matters etc. He also provides advice on pre divorce planning and strategies helping clients protect their wealth and property from becoming targets of exaggerated alimony and maintenance suits and further in preventing harassment and difficulties that clients may face in the event of cases filed against them by their estranged spouse u/s 489A/ 406 of IPC read with sec 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The firm not only handles such cases before the District Courts having original jurisdiction in such matters but also represent clients in related matters i.e. CM (M) Appeals and Sec 482 Crpc petitions before the High Court and in SLP’s and Transfer Petitions before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Besides being an expert at handling cases of family law and divorce, The Firm has an equally good record in handling cases of consumer law, contractual disputes, service matters, civil suits and cases of recovery of money, cases of landlord and tenant disputes, will and succession matters interalia various other matters of general practice. Some such cases have received vide media publicity as well on account of their far reaching impact. Some such cases have been won against Multi billion dollar MNC’s such as HP, McDonalds, Reliance Infocom, Tata Teleservices, LG Electronics to name a few. Firm’s Proprietor
Anupam Tripathi has appeared on a large number of Live Chat shows on Radio 104.8 FM addressing a live audience in New Delhi advising them on consumer issues, matrimonial disputes and connected problems. He has also appeared on TV shows of similar nature on various TV News channels addressing live audience in matters of consumer disputes, divorce cases and the like.Firm’s Proprietor Anupam Tripathi has advised and represented more than 200 clients. He currently on the panel of lawyers representing IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd, Visesh Infotecnics Ltd, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library, He has advised and represented reputed companies such as Technology Conservation Group Of USA, System America Ltd., AMB IT India Ltd., IBSF Promo's and Events, Bachaat Retail Ltd., Credit Solutions Ltd., ML Sons Jewelers Ltd., Gold Plus Glass Ltd., Surefin Financial Consultant Ltd., Vyas Gianneti Creative Pvt. Ltd., and Page 3 personalities such as Vir Sanghvi and Charisse Gates, to name a few. He has a close network ofconsultants throughout North India and in the U.S.A and offers to his clients comprehensive 24 hour, 365 days a year legal services, support, advise and solutions including representation before Supreme Court Of India, Company Law Board, National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, MRTP Commission, High Courts, District Courts, District Forums and all other Fora.The Firm’s proprietor is available to meet his clients on Saturday’s and Sundays as well if such request for appointment is made by the client. Some of the matters and cases that the Firm specializes in and has vast experience and expertise in handling on a regular basis include among other:
Civil Suits for recovery/Suits for wrongful termination/ Suits for breach of contract/ Suits for damages and compensation/Suits for mandatory injunctions/Suits for declaration/ Other miscellaneous civil suits before District Courts and before High Court.
CM Main Appeals and Sec. 482 CrPC Petitions before High Court.
SLP’s and Transfer Petitions before Supreme Court of India.
Divorce by mutual consent petitions.
Divorce petitions.
Child Custody petitions.
Consumer Complaints.
498A/ 406 IPC or connected Complaints.
Trademark Registration.
Landlord- Tenancy Disputes.
Will Drafting and Registration Matters.
Marriage and Marriage Registration matters.
'THE PRACTICE' philosophy is to handle each client's case with the utmost attention to detail and to leave no avenue of prosecution or defense unexplored. It is only through assiduous representation that the firm confidently and competently advises its vast number of clients. The firm also explores alternative methods of dispute resolution such as arbitration, mediation and negotiation when it is in the client's best interest. A cutting edge electronic case management system allows the firm to handle numerous records, documents, files and case records efficiently and cost effectively for its clients.Our object is the representation of the interests of both national and international clients in specialized areas, providing them with professional, timely and personalized legal services with quality, efficiency, honesty and confidentiality. Our firm encourages the personal and professional development of each one of its members. Our work contributes to promote the rule of law, making a reality the values of justice, freedom, liberty and security. We commit being long-term partners with our clients on a day-to-day basis, year after year. As a firm, we place the highest value on building close working relationships with our clients. To accomplish this purpose, we offer lawyers who are culturally attuned to the business demands and legal requirements, who have excellent legal skills, and who are totally committed to our client service ethics. Our clients appreciate that this commitment is what really sets us apart. Our success is a result of the assertive approach we take to problem solving and is reflected by the caliber of clients we attract and the speedy results we get. Our mission is to change the way the legal system works in our society, and pave the way for a better tomorrow. We mean speedy and effective justice for all. With us on your side, you can not only count on getting favorable results but also speedy ones.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
Dispute Resolution: The Firm’s practice covers all aspects of civil/corporate and commercial dispute resolution, including negotiation/ discussions and mediation for speedy settlement of disputes out of Court. Such litigation practice is carried out in Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, District Court of Delhi at Tis Hazari, Patiala House Courts, Rohini Court Complex, Karkardooma Courts, Consumer Courts, MRTP Commission, CLB, ITAT, and ITO among other Courts, Tribunals and Fora.
Negotiation, discussions and Mediation: The Firm handles all matters of dispute on the civil/ corporate and commercial side which are first and foremost tried to be settled out of Court in a speedy fashion by way of aggressive negotiation/ discussions and mediation. The firm takes great pride in having had notable success in achieving this objective on behalf of its clients.
Drafting and Consulting: All matters of legal drafting such as suits/petitions/notices/consumer complaints/ agreements/ memorandum of understanding/ partnership Deed and other deeds/ joint venture agreements/ applications/ bonds/ wills/ letter of intents/declarations/warranty deeds/power of attorneys etc. are handled by “THE PRACTICE”. The Firm actively provides consultation and opinions to its clients on various legal topics and practice areas.
Civil Suits for recovery/Suits for wrongful termination/ Suits for breach of contract/ Suits for damages and compensation/Suits for mandatory injunctions/Suits for declaration/ Other miscellaneous civil suits before District Courts and before High Court.
CM Main Appeals and Sec. 482 Crpc Petitions before High Court.
SLP’s and Transfer Petitions before Supreme Court of India.
Divorce by mutual consent petitions.
Divorce petitions.
Child Custody petitions.
Consumer Complaints.
498A/ 406 IPC or connected Complaints.
Trademark Registration.
Landlord- Tenancy Disputes.
Will Drafting and Registration Matters.
Marriage and Marriage Registration matters.
Intellectual Property and Information Technology: The Firm regularly carries out activities such as drafting, conveyancing and vetting of agreements relating to confidential information/ non competition/ software development agreements/ agreements for sale of technical know how/ license for use of copy right/ agreements relating to protection of designs/ trademarks/ patents/ and know how for its clients. Consultation and opinions relating to queries on various branches of intellectual property and information technology is also carried out by “THE PRACTICE”. Litigation and negotiation in matters of passing off/ suits for damages and compensation for intellectual property rights violations/ information technology related violations etc is also actively carried out by the Firm.
Taxation: The Firm’s practice covers representation before officers at ITO in various tax related matters and litigation at ITAT in tax matters. Consulting and drafting of opinions relating to tax based queries is carried out by the Firm for its clients on a regular basis.
Public Interest Litigation: All matters of public interest litigation at the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India based on various issues such as environment/ public welfare/ education/ quality of life and living, etc and all other vital issues of public interest are actively carried out by “THE PRACTICE.”
MEMBERS PROFILE
Anupam Tripathi
Proprietor
Anupam Tripathi is the founder & Proprietor of “THE PRACTICE”. He practices before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and the District Courts of Delhi. He also appears and argues cases in the Consumer Courts including the National Commission and the State Commission.. He was admitted to the Bar in July 2004 after having graduated in first class from I.L.S, Law College, Pune. He topped Pune University in Constitutional law and is also a gold medallist in Moot Court Competitions. He is the former national champion of the Surana and Surana Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition, 2003 and has also represented India at the World Stage of this event at the Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition, 2003 in Florida, U.S.A. He is also the proud recipient of a scholarship in LLM Program in International Law and Business awarded by the Stetson College of Law. Besides his BSL and LLB degrees he also holds Diploma’s in Human Rights (DHR) and in Consumer Protection Laws (DCPL).He is a former Associate of AZB & Partners, Delhi where he was working on the transactional/ consulting side. He has also been an Associate of Associated Law Advisers, Delhi on the litigation/trial side. He has close associations with Vikram Kapoor & Co, Delhi on the litigation/ trial side as well as consulting side. His associations are not just restricted to Indian shores but also extend to foreign-based Firm’s such as Fernando Perez III, an Immigration and international business Law Firm, having its office in Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S.A. He has also had the prior experience of interning with reputed firms such as KR Chawla & Co, Delhi, Bhasin & Co, Delhi, Ajay Bahl & Co, Delhi wherein he gained a good blend of experience in both litigation and transactional side of law.
Anupam has been providing dedicated and professional legal advice, support and representation to his domestic, NRI and Foreign based clients in cases of bitter marriages, painful separation, acrimonious divorces, annulment of marriage, divorce by mutual consent, divorce by mutual consent through videoconference, criminal complaints u/s 498A, 403,406 IPC, Cases u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, child custody battles, petitions for maintenance and child support, Alimony matters etc. He also provide advice on pre divorce planning and strategies helping clients protect their wealth and property from becoming targets of exaggerated alimony and maintenance suits and further in preventing harassment and difficulties that clients may face in the event of cases filed against them by their estranged spouse u/s 489A/ 406 of IPC read with sec 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He not only handle such cases before the District Courts having original jurisdiction in such matters but also argues and represent clients in related matters i.e. CM (M) Appeals and Sec 482 Crpc petitions before the High Court and in SLP’s and Transfer Petitons before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Besides being an expert at handling cases of family law and divorce, Anupam has an equally good record in handling cases of consumer law, contractual disputes, service matters, civil suits and cases of recovery of money, cases of landlord and tenant disputes, will and succession matters interalia various other matters of general practice. Some such cases have received vide media publicity as well on account of their far reaching impact. Some such cases have been won against Multi billion dollar MNC’s such as HP, McDonalds, Reliance Infocom, Tata Teleservices, LG Electronics to name a few. On account of his expertise and experience in consumer law, He has had the privilege of appearing on a large number of Live Chat shows on Radio 104.8 FM addressing a live audience in New Delhi advising them on such consumer issues and problems. He has similarly appeared on TV shows of similar nature on various TV News channels addressing live audience in matters of consumer disputes and the like.He brings to the table, more than half a decade of experience in setting up from scratch - a successful law office and a popular brand name, namely The Practice and managing a team of close to 20 lawyers with experience of having advised and represented more than 200 clients.
Anupam is currently on the panel of lawyers representing IRB Infrastructure Developers Ltd, Nehru Memorial Museum & Library and is also being considered for the panel of Government of India in Supreme Court and for the panel of Income Tax Department in CAT and in Delhi High Court. Anupam has advised and represented reputed companies such as Technology Conservation Group Of USA, System America Ltd., AMB IT India Ltd., IBSF Promo's and Events, Bachaat Retail Ltd., Credit Solutions Ltd., ML Sons Jewelers Ltd., Gold Plus Glass Ltd., Surefin Financial Consultant Ltd., Vyas Gianneti Creative Pvt. Ltd., and Page 3 personalities such as Vir Sanghvi and Charisse Gates, to name a few. He has a close network ofconsultants throughout North India and in the U.S.A and offers to his clients comprehensive 24 hour, 365 days a year legal services, support, advise and solutions including representation before Supreme Court Of India, Company Law Board, National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, MRTP Commission, High Courts, District Courts, District Forums and all other Fora.
Anusha Singh
Legal Trainee
Anusha currently pursuing LL.M. (final year) from Faculty of Law, Delhi University is an alumni of Lady Sri Ram College For Women. Anusha has done extensive research in intellectual property Laws and Corporate Finance and Management. She has more than 40 publications on burning legal issues in numerous national dailies to her credit. A recipient of ‘Best Student In Political Science Award’ by Sheila Dixit, Chief Minister of Delhi, she has also interned with the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Anusha has been an important member associated with the firm and adds great value to its existing practice, making her an invaluable asset to the Firm.
Apurva Verma
Legal Trainee
Apurva, is a graduate LL.B from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. She has leadership skills, positive outlook, excellent communication and interpersonal skills. She has been a recipient of “Best Advocate Of the year” by Law School, BHU in the year 2009.Apurva has been a very keen and accomplished debater in her college and Law School days. She brings a lot of value to the Firm since her association, making her a precious asset to the firm.
D.P Tripathi Sr. Consultant
Mr. D.P Tripathi is a former Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing and also former Secretary, Ministry of Railways. He is a law graduate from Allahabad University, enrolled with the Bar since February 2003. He is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Mr. DP Tripathi is also a legal Advisor, Tetra Pack industries. “THE PRACTICE” uses his rich and vast experience and expertise in various matters pertaining to Company Laws, Railways, CAT, Consumer laws interalia practice areas.
SC Tripathi Sr. Consultant
Mr. SC Tripathi is a former Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum. He is a law graduate from Allahabad University, enrolled with the Bar since January 2006. “THE PRACTICE” uses his rich and vast experience and expertise in various matters pertaining to Foreign Policies, Finance, Petroleum Laws, Administrative Laws, CAT, interalia practice areas.
Vijay Bahadur Singh Sr. Consultant
Mr. Vijay Bahdur Singh is a Senior Advocate, Allahabad High Court handling company related matters for the past more than 45 years. “THE PRACTICE” uses his rich and vast experience and expertise in various matters pertaining to Company Laws.
Vikram Kapoor Sr. Consultant
Admitted to the Bar in 1972, he has been handling matters pertaining to Taxation, Customs and Excise, Sales Tax and Income Tax for the last 35 years, besides all types of civil litigation at all levels. He handles various intricate issues pertaining to these fields of law in various Courts and Tribunals in Delhi including the High Court of Delhi, The Sales Tax Tribunal, the Income Tax Tribunal and CEGAT. He has successfully handled search and seizure matters. He is also well adept in handling matters on the criminal side, such as 498 A IPC matters, 406 IPC matters, Matters of criminal defamation, Fraud, cheating etc. THE PRACTICE uses his expertise, guidance and experience from time to time depending on case to case.He was elected as the Secretary Income-Tax Bar Association for the year 1979-1980. He was also the President of the Sales-Tax Bar Association from 1993-1994. Vikram Kapoor is a member of the Delhi High Court Bar Association and Supreme Court of India.
MPS Bindra Sr. Consultant
Mr. Bindra was admitted to the Bar in 1979. He has been successfully handling matters pertaining to Civil, Criminal, Revenue, Motor Accident Claims, Labor laws and Industrial Disputes for the last 30 years before District courts of Chandigarh and Panchkula. He has been representing several nationalized banks such as Punjab and Sind Bank, Central Bank of India and Co-Operative Banks. He has been rendering Legal Assistance to ‘Prudential Capital Marketing limited’. THE PRACTICE uses his expertise, and experience from time to time in matters and cases of its clients pending in Panchkula, Mohali and Chandigarh.
Pankaj Kapoor Consultant
Pankaj is a graduate, LL.B. (Hons.) from Amity Law School, I.P. University, Delhi. He also holds Diploma in Cyber Laws. Admitted to the Bar in 2005, Pankaj is handling criminal and civil matters in various Courts. His areas of specialization are Corporate Law and Intellectual Property Rights Law. He has opined on several issues/handled assignments pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights Law, Infrastructure Laws, Banking, Company Law, Cyber Law and other corporate matters pertaining to Takeovers, Mergers, Amalgamation etc. He has extensively drafted Agreements/ Contracts and has been handling matters pertaining to Banking Laws, Negotiable Instruments, Suits for Partition, Possession, Recovery of Debts, Injunctions, Insurance etc. He handles litigation in various Courts and Tribunals in and around Delhi. He is also a member of Delhi High Court Bar Association.Neelofer Syed Consultant Neelofer Syed, is an Attorney at Law is currently associated with Fernando Perez III, an Immigration and International Business Law Firm based in Florida. She completed her studies in the United States on scholarship at Stetson College of Law in Florida where she was awarded the Deans Award in 2004, the highest award given to any law student. Before migrating to United States she was engaged in active practice of law in her home country Pakistan and was very well known as a human rights activist. She is also member of the Tampa Chapter of United Nations Association, American Immigration Law Association and Detroit Bar Association of Michigan. (To find out more about Fernando Perez III, PA, kindly visit www.easyvisas.net)
Amandeep Bindra Consultant
Admitted to the Bar in 2006, He has experience in handling assignments pertaining to Consumer laws, Labor laws, Industrial disputes and Motor accident claims. He has been drafting Agreements relating to suits including permanent and mandatory injunctions, suits for declaration under C.P.C & Civil appeal matters. The Practices uses his services in matters and cases of its clients pending before Panchkula and Chandigarh.
Apeksha Vohra Consultant
Apeksha Vohra is a law graduate from Government Law College (GLC) Mumbai and was admitted to the bar in the year 2004. She has been a national level mooter during her college days. Apeksha is practicing before the District courts of Mumbai on the civil as well as criminal side for past five years. “The Practice” uses her services from time to time while representing its client and in cases pertaining to Mumbai and Maharashtra.
Israr Ahmed Khan Consultant
Israr Ahmed Khan is an advocate practicing before the District courts of Ranchi, Jharkhand. He has experience in handling matters of both criminal and civil nature. “The Practice” uses his services as and when required while representing its clients in cases pending before District courts of Ranchi, Jharkhand.
OFFICES
Office B-55, Retreat Apartments, 20 IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi 110092.
Associate offices at: (1) 8A/27, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005.
(2) 1-C Beli Road, Allahabad, 211002.
Chambers at: (1) Chamber No. 182, Delhi High Court (2) Chamber No. 173, Allahabad High Court
McDonald's pulled up for overcharging on cold drink bottle By Kanu Sarda New Delhi | October 05, 2008 4:05:07 PM IST
Leading fast food restaurant chain McDonald's has been pulled up for "unfair trade practices" by a consumer court for overcharging on a coke bottle against the printed price and asked to compensate the consumer.
Anupam Tripathi, a resident of Patparganj in east Delhi, had gone to McDonald's in Preet Vihar in 2007 along with his family and ordered some burgers along with cold drinks.
He was shocked to find McDonald's charging Rs.30 for a cold drink bottle against the printed price of Rs.20.
He approached the east Delhi district consumer grievances court which found the restaurant guilty of overcharging. The court directed the restaurant chain to refund Tripathi Rs.10 and also pay him Rs.2,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation.
McDonald's challenged the court order at the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and stated that they had already revised the cold drink rates from Rs.20 to Rs.30 per bottle, which was reflected in the new menu. They told the Commission that the east Delhi consumer forum had referred to the old menu while passing the order.
The counsel for the restaurant contended that the consumer had placed on record the old menu card, which was revised on May 1, 2007, and the bottle was purchased a few days later, on May 10.
After hearing both the parties, the Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the restaurant chain and directed it to compensate Tripathi as directed by the district court.
Justice J.D. Kapoor, president of the Commission, ruled: "The very connotation printed on the packaged goods, namely Maximum Retail Price (MRP), leaves no manner of doubt that no trader can charge more than the price mentioned on the packaged good."
"The conduct of the appellants (McDonald's) squarely falls within the mischief of 'unfair trade practice' and 'deficiency in service' as they sold the article for a price which was more than the permissible maximum price," he ruled.
In a similar ruling in 2005, a consumer forum had directed a restaurant in east Delhi to pay Rs.7,000 as compensation to a consumer for allegedly overcharging on a soft drink.
M/s Aman Aahar, a franchisee of Nirulas chain of restaurants, was found guilty of deficiency in service for charging a consumer Rs.35 for a soft drink bottle which had Rs.15 printed as the maximum retail price. Ankit Jain, the complainant, also got a refund of Rs.20 that was overcharged by the restaurant in November 2005.
Jain in his complaint said that he had placed a home delivery order with the restaurant in Mayur Vihar amounting to Rs.76, but when he received his order he found that a 500 ml bottle of cold drink had been billed at Rs.35 instead of Rs.20.
During arguments before the forum, the restaurant officials claimed they could charge more on orders in which food was delivered at the customer's door steps.
The forum, however, disagreed with the contention and ordered Nirulas to pay punitive damages of Rs.25,000 in favour of the State Consumer Welfare Fund.ks/rn/dg
NO EXTRA CHARGES FOR HOME DELIVERY:COURTS- M ID DAY STORY DATED 6/6/2008 Mid-Day NO extra charges for home delivery: Court Author: Mid Day Correspondent Date: 06 Jun 2008
NO EXTRA CHARGES FOR HOME DELIVERY:COURTS- M ID DAY STORY DATED 6/6/2008 Mid-Day NO extra charges for home delivery: Court Author: Mid Day Correspondent Date: 06 Jun 2008
A consumer court in Delhi levied a fine of Rs 3,000 on a fast food restaurantDelhi levied a fine of Rs 3,000 on a fast food restaurant for charging Rs 10 for charging Rs 10extra on home delivery of a soft drink. The companies delivering products at home cannot charge more than the maximum retail price.Anupam Tripathi, a lawyer by profession, had purchased a soft drink bottle, which costs Rs 20 from a restaurant at Preet Vihar in East Delhi.
The restaurant charged him Rs 30, following which Anupam filed a case at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.According to the members
According to the members of the forum, Meena Saxena, Mukul Mishra and D S Bawa, the restaurants can’t over charge the customers. To defend itself, the restaurant stated that due to the delivery services, the menu attached with thefood items was not updated.This judgment of the court would be beneficial for thousands of customers usingfree delivery system.
“Retailers and restaurants could charge more than MRP only in cases where they were serving their customers in their resturants and providing added services such as AC, ambience, Music etc, however the same was never to hold in the case of Home delivery. However this was a grey area till this Order. This Order has put an end to that ambiguity and made it clear that packaged products in home delivery cannot be sold beyond MRP price. With this judgment of the forum, all customers will heave sigh of relief,” said Anupam.
MR X ....................Appellant Versus Hospital Z ..................Respondent - (1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 296
~ A Critical Analysis. Facts Of The Case: The facts of the case in brief were as follows: 1. The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and therefore a sample thereof was taken at the Respondents Hospital.
2. The Appellant was found to be H.I.V.(+).
3. On account of disclosure of the fact that the Appellant was H.I.V.(+) by the Hospital authorities without the express consent of the Appellant, the Appellants proposed marriage to Ms A which had earlier been accepted, was called off.
4. Moreover, the Appellant was severely criticized and was also ostracized by the community to such an extent that he had to leave is place of work and residence and shift to a new city.
5. The Appellant approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission for damages against the Respondents on account of injury and damages suffered to him because of disclosure of information required to be kept secret under medical ethics by the Hospital authorities.
6. The Commission however dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Appellant could seek his remedy in the Civil Court.
7. The Appellant thus appeared before the Supreme Court contending that the principle of Duty of care applicable to persons in medical profession included the Duty to maintain confidentiality and the said duty had a correlative right vested in the patient that whatever came to the knowledge of the doctor would not be divulged.
8. The Appellant contended that for violating the above duty as well as the Appellants right to privacy, the Respondents were liable to pay damages.
Issues Before The Supreme Court: The issues before the Supreme Court were as follows: 1. Whether the Respondents were guilty of violating the Appellants right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution? 2. Whether the Respondents were guilty of violating their duty to maintain secrecy under medical Ethics?
Judgement Of The Supreme Court: The Judgement of the Supreme Court was as follows: 1. In deciding the first issue, the Court held that in the event of a conflict between the Appellants fundamental right to privacy and Ms As fundamental right to be informed about any threat to her life/health, in such an event the Latters right to be informed will override the Appellants right to privacy. Hence the Court held the Respondents not guilty on the first count.
2. In deciding the second issue, the Court held that the duty to maintain secrecy in every Doctor-Patient relationship was also not absolute and such duty could be broken and hence secret divulged where compelling public interest so requires. Hence the Court held the Respondents not guilty on the second count as well.
3. The Court further held that The Appellants right to marry was suspended until complete cure of the Appellants dreadful disease. The Court based this decision on various Statutes which give right to spouse to seek divorce on ground of the other suffering from a communicable venereal disease such as AIDS.
4. The Court held that in the event the Appellant did decide to marry while suffering from such dreadful disease, he shall be punishable under section 269 & 270 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The court held that AIDS is the product of undisciplined sexual impulse. This impulse being a notorious human failing if not disciplined can afflict and overtake anyone however high or low he may be in social strata. The Court cannot assist that person to achieve that object.
6. The Court held that the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical men at time of entering profession is not enforceable in the Court of law as it lacks statuary force.
My Comments On The Supreme Court Judgement-A Critical Analysis: Every human being is capable of making mistakes. The degree of mistake made by one as compared to another may vary. But mistakes we all make. The Supreme Court of India-an embodiment of justice, the highest court of the land is no exception.
In my humble opinion, the above Judgment was a mistake. My reason for holding such an opinion is based on the following details discussed broadly below:
i. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not a breach of confidentiality and privacy by the Hospital authorities had indeed taken place. However the judgment makes out that the complainant was contesting his right to marry, which is factually incorrect. It is an elementary principle of Jurisprudence that the Court will not decide on issue not raised before it. Thus by deciding on an issue not before the court such as the Appellants right to marry, such decision is in fact no decision in law.
ii. Further more it may be noted that for the first time in the judicial history anywhere in the world a Court has taken away the fundamental right of an individual to marry.
iii. Even for the sake of argument if one was to believe that right to marry was an issue before the Court in the present case, it cannot be take away as it is an absolute right. The reason for the same is that the right to marry of an individual flows directly from his right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution of India. Article 21 extends to citizens and aliens alike and a person suffering from AIDS is no exception. Prior to the 44th Amendment the constitution provided for the suspension of this right under article 359 on the Presidents order to that effect. However after the 44th Amendment things have changed and now article 21 cannot be suspended at any point of time even on such order of the President, thus making rights flowing under it absolute.
iv. With reference to the Courts decision regarding the issue of conflict of the Appellants right to privacy against Ms As right to be informed and that whos right would override who's right. The Court failed to take notice of the following points:
The Court overlooked the fact that the Appellant in the present case was himself a Doctor who could be reasonably expected to be aware of the dangers of the disease and hence his consent should have at least been taken by the hospital authorities before publicly declaring his disease which had the effect of making him a victim of gross discrimination, and led him to being ostracized from the community.
Furthermore, the Court also failed to hear out one of the essential parties to the case- Ms A who's right was in question if at all, or was made out to be by the Court.
v. With reference to the Courts decision on the second issue of whether the Respondents were guilty of violating their duty to maintain secrecy, the Court held them not guilty as such duty of maintaining secrecy could be broken in public interest. Here the Court filed to take into account the fact that India has over 2 million reported AIDS infected patients and maybe more unreported persons. By setting such a precedent whereby a Hospital gets license to break their duty to secrecy in so called public interest leading to the ostracizing of an entire community of AIDS infected persons, the Court erred to take into account that compelling public interest lied in favour of the Appellant and the rest of such community consisting of a sizable population of over 2 million. The court failed to recognize the havoc such precedent would have over the entire community of such AIDS patiens who were already dealing everymoment of their lives with certain death.
vi. It is extremely disappointing to learn that the Court went on to hold that the Appellant would be guilty under sections 269 and 270 if he decided to marry Ms A where marriage was not even an issue before the Court. Such a decision defies logic and has an effect of rubbing salt on a wounded person.
vii. It may further be noted that the Courts reason for arriving at the decision of suspending the Appellants right to marry was based on Statutes such as Hindu Marriage Act, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, Indian Divorce Act, Special Marriage Act. These Acts being spoken of above all provide for a communicable venereal disease as a ground for divorce, but none hold that a person cannot marry if he suffers from such disease. This important distinction was clearly missed by the learned judges.
viii. Furthermore the Court failed to recognize that by setting such a precedent whereby the doctor could break his duty to maintain secrecy, such a precedent would only drive the disease underground, which would defeat the very objective of prevention of transmission of such disease in the first place.
ix. The Court held that the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical men at the time of entering the medical profession could not be enforced as it lacked Statuary force. Here it is worth noting that the Court applied failed to recognise the principle as to why such a Hippocratic Oath was required to be taken by medical me in the first place. Here the Court applied a very narrow minded approach and hence missed out on the larger picture.
x. It is extremely disappointing to learn that the Court went on to opine that AIDS is the product of undisciplined sexual impulse and hence the Court could not assist the Appellant to achieve such object. Such an opinion of the Court clearly underscores the presumptuous nature and the narrow minded approach which the Court adopted in solving the instant case. It was a clear case of forming a judgement and jumping to conclusions without hearing the other side and digging facts. It is a common principle of Jurisprudence that of Audi alteram partem- to hear to other side and that no man should be condemned unheard. The same principle was ignored by the Court in principle and in practice. The Court overlooked the fact that the Appellant had acquired the disease as a result of blood transfusion and not undisciplined sexual impulse.
xi. It is note worthy that there are many other forms of communicable disease that are in fact easier to acquire that HIV like TB, Hepatitis B, yet no restrictions are placed on persons suffering from these illness, then isnt it not discriminatory and arbitrary in nature to place restrictions on people who are HIV+.
xii. In the present case the Court completely ignored the fact that the Appellant had suffered damages as a result of such disclosure which led him to being so severely criticised and ostracized from the community as a result of which he was driven to leave his place of work and residence and shift to a new city for some respite. The Court refused to grant compensation to the Appellant and there by ended up setting a precedent which would not just discourage AIDS patient from coming out in open but also encourage people to discriminate against such persons who were already suffering fro such dreadful disease and pain.
The decision of the Supreme Court sent shock waves in the HIV community throughout the world. The decision was most unfortunate and arrived at in haste without fully comprehending the issues and being sensitive to them. The Court overlooked the larger picture while deciding the current matter and failed to recognise that its decision would impact not just the Appellant but the entire AIDS struck community at large.
During my Law School days this case had come up for much discussion and debate. Thankfully times have changed since 1998 and in more recent cases in determining the rights of AIDS patients the Supreme Court adopted a far more liberal and compassionate view on this topic in giving AIDS patients their long due rights and thereby overriding the 1998 judgement.
At this point I would like to conclude this analysis by quoting Dominic D Souza a late HIV Activist who said: " live in the hope of a world that will be free, if not free of disease, free of fear and discrimination".
The case of the complainant Anupam Tripathi was that he purchased a Coke bottle from the appellant and he was charged more than the MRP. He filed a complaint in the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing for refund of the amount of Rs. 10 to him alongwith compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.An appeal was filed in the State Commission, Delhi. It was clearly observed that the very connotation printed on the packaged goods namely “MRP” which means “Maximum Retail Price” leaves no manner of doubt that no trader or person can charge more than the price mentioned on the packaged. “Retail” means the sale of goods or articles to an individual or in small quantities directly to the consumer. It was further held that the conduct of the appellants squarely falls within the mischief of “unfair trade practice” and deficiency in service as they sold the article for a price which was more than the permissible maximum price. The appeal was dismissed and the order of the District Forum was thus confirmed.
The next time you eye that NRI matrimonial classified advertisement or surf wedding portals with a view to live out the Great American Dream, keep in mind that it is, increasingly, turning out to be a knotty affair: three out of five NRI marriages in the US are being dissolved in less than a year. This sorry state of Indian married life in the US will constitute a key portion of a seminar, on NRIs in the US, organised by Seva Legal Aid Foundation – an NGO working out of Fremont, California, in the US.
The seminar, that will also cover NRI investments and immigrations, will be held on October 13 at New Delhi’s India International Centre. The Great Indian Divorce There are around 18 million NRIs in the US – these include green card holders, H1-B workers and illegal immigrants. And the cookie is fast crumbling for the Great Indian Wedding, held with traditional pomp back home in India. “It is very easy for someone to file for a divorce in the US,” says Anu Peshawaria, founder of Seva, and an Indian Supreme Court attorney. “For under $500, you can do the needful in a week’s time with the help of US Divorce & Document Assistance.”
This is the route being taken by NRI men – many of whom already have live-in girlfriends but get married to keep their families happy – and there are around 15,600 NRI divorces every year in the US. “I handle at least 40 cases a month where the wives come for help – they cannot imagine contesting a divorce as one has to cough up $2,500-$3,000 as legal retainership, and thereafter hourly fees,” she says. “There are even cases where the men are gay but marry simply to gain social acceptance.” The wives come on the H-4 visa, the ’spouse visa’, and cannot find employment once their husbands leave them. One case that Peshawaria handled recently involved an NRI working for a software company, who married an Indian girl with the usual fanfare.
In a year’s time, he wanted out; by then, the couple already had a daughter. He got himself a divorce, and in order to avoid paying maintenance, he applied for a student visa and secured that too. Legal Loopholes Advocate Anupam Tripathi says, “A divorce procured in the US does not usually have a legal standing in India, but this is a grey area: it is decided on a case to case basis, and depends on the judge.” This, he adds, will only apply if the husband returns to India. If he does not and chooses to remain in the US, nothing can stop him from getting remarried there.
Sandhya Shukla, director, social services unit, Ministry of Overseas Affairs (MOE), says, “The US is a federal state where every state has its own laws, so it is easy for the man to go to a state that has easier divorce laws and procure a divorce. The wife will not even get to know of it – till she is slapped with a notice.” Malay Mishra, joint secretary, diaspora services division, MOE, says that the ministry is trying to “build awareness about the credentials of NRI grooms in question.”
Shukla adds that “starting February last year, we have organised three conferences to educate people about the pitfalls of NRI marriages – the NGOs will have a big role to play in this campaign.” Many ‘victim’ families are keen to be volunteers in this effort. However, nothing has been done to enforce any guidelines abroad.
A sidelight of the Great NRI Wedding is that more and more NRI men are opting for Filipinos as they are considered, like their Indian counterparts, good homemakers.
1.FREE CONSULTATION FOR FIRST 20 MINUTES ONLY.Rs.2500/- PER HOUR SHALL BE PAYABLE THEREAFTER.
2.LEGAL INSURANCE PLANS STARTING FROM Rs.25000/- FOR COVER UPTO Rs. 2,50,000/-. ASK FOR DETAILS OF THE SAME.
3.APPOINTMENTS MAY BE TAKEN FOR SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AS WELL.(CALL AT 43107881, 65105339, 22785195 OR 9899874982 FOR APPOINTMENTS PURPOSE BETWEEN 3 PM AND 7PM MONDAY TO FRIDAY)
4.ALL CLIENTS REFERRING THEIR FRIENDS, FAMILY AND KNOWN ONE’S TO THE FIRM SHALL BE ENTITLED TO GET DISCOUNTS OF UPTO 25% FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR SUCH PERSON REFERRED TO BY THEM.
Leading fast food restaurant chain McDonald’s has been pulled up for “unfair trade practices” by a consumer court for overcharging on a coke bottle against the printed price and asked to compensate the consumer.
Anupam Tripathi, a resident of Patparganj in east Delhi, had gone to McDonald’s in Preet Vihar in 2007 along with his family and ordered some burgers along with cold drinks.
He was shocked to find McDonald’s charging Rs.30 for a cold drink bottle against the printed price of Rs.20.
He approached the east Delhi district consumer grievances court which found the restaurant guilty of overcharging. The court directed the restaurant chain to refund Tripathi Rs.10 and also pay him Rs.2,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation.
McDonald’s challenged the court order at the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and stated that they had already revised the cold drink rates from Rs.20 to Rs.30 per bottle, which was reflected in the new menu. They told the Commission that the east Delhi consumer forum had referred to the old menu while passing the order.
The counsel for the restaurant contended that the consumer had placed on record the old menu card, which was revised on May 1, 2007, and the bottle was purchased a few days later, on May 10.
After hearing both the parties, the Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the restaurant chain and directed it to compensate Tripathi as directed by the district court.
Justice J.D. Kapoor, president of the Commission, ruled: “The very connotation printed on the packaged goods, namely Maximum Retail Price (MRP), leaves no manner of doubt that no trader can charge more than the price mentioned on the packaged good.”
“The conduct of the appellants (McDonald’s) squarely falls within the mischief of ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficiency in service’ as they sold the article for a price which was more than the permissible maximum price,” he ruled.
In a similar ruling in 2005, a consumer forum had directed a restaurant in east Delhi to pay Rs.7,000 as compensation to a consumer for allegedly overcharging on a soft drink.
M/s Aman Aahar, a franchisee of Nirulas chain of restaurants, was found guilty of deficiency in service for charging a consumer Rs.35 for a soft drink bottle which had Rs.15 printed as the maximum retail price. Ankit Jain, the complainant, also got a refund of Rs.20 that was overcharged by the restaurant in November 2005.
Jain in his complaint said that he had placed a home delivery order with the restaurant in Mayur Vihar amounting to Rs.76, but when he received his order he found that a 500 ml bottle of cold drink had been billed at Rs.35 instead of Rs.20.
During arguments before the forum, the restaurant officials claimed they could charge more on orders in which food was delivered at the customer’s door steps.
The forum, however, disagreed with the contention and ordered Nirulas to pay punitive damages of Rs.25,000 in favour of the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Visit the stroy at:http://mutiny.in/2008/10/page/13/
Switching identity: What’s in a name?
12 Oct 2008, 0053 hrs IST, Shobhana Chadha, ET Bureau
Siddharth Kapoor, a 23-year-old chartered accountant, was the only son of his parents. An astrologer recently told his parents that the name
‘Siddharth’ was not lucky for their son — in fact could even prove fatal for him — and advised them to change his name. Although Siddharth’s parents were progressive and did not believe in superstitions, they were also protective about their only son and hence forced him to change his name.
Although Siddharth was dead against the idea, he ultimately surrendered to his parents’ inflexible demand and decided to change his name from Siddharth Kapoor to Gaurav Kapoor. He, however, was completely unaware of the process that one needs to follow to change his/ her name and therefore was in a huge dilemma. In order to help people stuck in a similar situation, SundayET fills you with all the required information that one needs to know to change one’s name.
Steps to be taken
Changing your name requires you to take some measures for legal compliance. According to Anupam Tripathi, chairman, The Practice, “You need to get an affidavit made and make a public announcement by publishing your new name along with the previous name in two national daily newspapers — English and Hindi (both).” However, if you are only changing only your last name (and not the full name) after getting married, then the public announcement is not required.
But you would still require an affidavit. People also have a misconception that one needs to visit the court to get his/ her name changed. According to Hemant Sharma, advocate, Supreme court, “There is no need to approach the court until someone challenges it. However, the assistant of attorney can be taken to the editor of newspaper with a request letter from the attorney to publish the changed name in his daily.”
Inform the authorities
Although there is no list of documents that require a mandatory change of your name after you have done so, it is always safe and more advisable to make the required change in all important documents like your passport, bank accounts, etc.
According to Sharma, “After the exercise of changing name, one should approach the authorities for the change in name such as land authorities if he/ she possesses land/ property in his/ her name, election office, passport authority, transport authority in case of possession of an automobile, employer and to other relevant authorities.”
Finer points
The process of changing your name may sound a bit tedious but actually it is not. “One should just get in touch with the nearest lawyer and initiate the process. It will not take more than a day’s time,” says Tripathi. Experts feel that if you are making any changes in your name, then there are certain things that you must be aware of. Changing the last name after marriage can be useful. According to Amitabh Singh, associate director (tax), Ernst & Young, “It is generally recommended to change your last name after marriage or add your husband’s last name to yours; as it simplifies to a great extent the process of taking joint loans, insurance policies and other assets.”
If you are planning to go abroad after getting your name changed, then you may at times face some trouble. According to Tripathi, “Countries such as the US are very strict and can create a lot of trouble in providing visa. Therefore, you must always keep readily available copies of the newspapers in which you have made the public announcement and the affidavit while you are applying for such documents.”
Visit the story at:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Features/The_Sunday_ET/Money__You/Switching_identity_Whats_in_a_name/articleshow/3585022.cms
NEW DELHI: Leading fast food restaurant chain McDonald's has been pulled upfor "unfair trade practices" by a consumer court for overcharging on a coke bottle against the printed price and asked to compensate the consumer.
Anupam Tripathi, a resident of Patparganj in east Delhi, had gone to McDonald's in Preet Vihar in 2007 along with his family and ordered some burgers along with cold drinks.
He was shocked to find McDonald's charging Rs.30 for a cold drink bottle against the printed price of Rs.20.
He approached the east Delhi district consumer grievances court which found the restaurant guilty of overcharging. The court directed the restaurant chain to refund Tripathi Rs.10 and also pay him Rs.2,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 as cost of litigation.
McDonald's challenged the court order at the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and stated that they had already revised the cold drink rates from Rs.20 to Rs.30 per bottle, which was reflected in the new menu. They told the Commission that the east Delhi consumer forum had referred to the old menu while passing the order.
The counsel for the restaurant contended that the consumer had placed on record the old menu card, which was revised on May 1, 2007, and the bottle was purchased a few days later, on May 10.
After hearing both the parties, the Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the restaurant chain and directed it to compensate Tripathi as directed by the district court.
Justice J.D. Kapoor, president of the Commission, ruled: "The very connotation printed on the packaged goods, namely Maximum Retail Price (MRP), leaves no manner of doubt that no trader can charge more than the price mentioned on the packaged good."
"The conduct of the appellants (McDonald's) squarely falls within the mischief of 'unfair trade practice' and 'deficiency in service' as they sold the article for a price which was more than the permissible maximum price," he ruled.
In a similar ruling in 2005, a consumer forum had directed a restaurant in east Delhi to pay Rs.7,000 as compensation to a consumer for allegedly overcharging on a soft drink.
M/s Aman Aahar, a franchisee of Nirulas chain of restaurants, was found guilty of deficiency in service for charging a consumer Rs.35 for a soft drink bottle which had Rs.15 printed as the maximum retail price. Ankit Jain, the complainant, also got a refund of Rs.20 that was overcharged by the restaurant in November 2005.
Jain in his complaint said that he had placed a home delivery order with the restaurant in Mayur Vihar amounting to Rs.76, but when he received his order he found that a 500 ml bottle of cold drink had been billed at Rs.35 instead of Rs.20.
During arguments before the forum, the restaurant officials claimed they could charge more on orders in which food was delivered at the customer's door steps.
The forum, however, disagreed with the contention and ordered Nirulas to pay punitive damages of Rs.25,000 in favour of the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Visit the story at :http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_mcdonald-s-pulled-up-for-overcharging_1195687-all
Email
Print
Share
