Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SILVER SCREEN MAGNETIC DIAGNOSTICS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Silver Screen Magnetic Diagnostics v. Union of India & Ors. - CM-12429-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4728 (24 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

C.M. No.12429 of 2006 in

R.A. No.29 of 2005 in

CWP. No.9890 of 1993

Date of decision: 31.07.2006

M/s Silver Screen Magnetic Diagnostics Ltd.

---Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

-----Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemraj Mittal, Advocate

for the applicant-petitioner.

-----

ORDER:

Even though we do not find any justification for rehearing of the matter, we have heard learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, who had earlier conceded on the question of applicability of judgment in M/s Faridabad Ct..Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services & Ors. JT 1997(8) S.C. 171, cannot now be allowed to raise that the said judgment was distinguishable. No other contention was raised, as is clear from the order. The judgment in M/s Faridabad Ct..Scan Centre's case (supra) itself applies to the case of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the term 'hospital' covers a diagnostic centre also. We do not find any merit in this contention. The hospital which has been described in the notification may be providing medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment. The terms of the notification are to be read in entirety. It is clear from the next clause i.e. Clause 2(b) that there has to be facility for indoor patients which the petitioner is lacking as there are only four beds as claimed by the petitioner.

R.A. No.29 of 2005 in

CWP. No.9890 of 1993

From the impugned order also, it is clear that the petitioner tried to satisfy the requirement by putting four beds and it was found that there was no sincerity of purpose in doing so.

The diagnostic centre of the petitioner also does not fall in the description of hospital certified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Reliance on document Annexure P-8, dated 23.09.1993 is misconceived as the same is only the recommendation of the State of Punjab to the Director General Health Services, Government of India for grant of Custom Duty Exemption Certificate to the petitioner for import of M.R.I.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the policy regarding exemption was subsequently changed w.e.f. June 4, 1994, just after the petitioner imported the machinery on 31.5.1994.

Thereafter, the exemption was permitted. This ground was never raised at the time when the case was taken up earlier and dismissed. In any case, subsequent change of policy will not confer any right on the petitioner to get the benefit thereof.

For the above-reasons, we do not find any merit in this application.

Dismissed.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

July 31, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )

ashwani JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.