STATE(NIA)Vs SHEIKH AZHAR UL ISLAM AND OTHERS – Charge sheet by NIA

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

NEW DELHI

FINAL REPORT(U/S173 (2) Cr PC)BEFORE THE HON’BLE SPECIAL COURT NIA,

NEW DELHI

STATE(NIA) VS SHEIKH AZHAR UL ISLAM AND OTHERS

 

Sections of law: Section 120B of IPC and Sections18, 20, 38 39 and 40of UA(P)Act,1967 as amended.

CHARGE SHEET FILED ON 25.7.2016

RC-04/2016/NIA/DLI PAGE 4OF 2816.

BRIEF OF THE CASE

The instant case RC-04/2016/NIA/DLI, dated 28.1.2016,under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and 18, 18A and 18 B Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,as amended, was registeredat PS NIA, New Delhiin compliance to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, IS-I division order number 11034/111/2015-IS-IV,dated 28thJanuary 2016 issued under Section 6 (5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act, 2008, against three accused persons namely 1. Sheikh Azhar ul Islam son of Ab Satar Sheikh,resident of Prang, Kangan, Ganderbal 191131, Jammu and Kashmir, 2. Mohammed Farhan Shaikh son of Mohammed Rafiq Sadique Shaikh, Dost Apartments, B-Building, C-wing, 2ndFloor, Flat Number 18, Opposite Noorani Hotel, Kausa Mumbra District Thane 400612, Maharashtra, and 3. Adnan Hassan son of Mohammed Hussain Damudi resident of House No. 26, Daman, Sagar Road, Bhatkal, North Kanara 581320, Karnataka.

Read the whole documents

STATE(NIA)Vs SHEIKH AZHAR UL ISLAM AND OTHERS – Charge sheet by NIA

CHARGE SHEET FILED ON 25.7.2016

CHARGE SHEET OF MUMBAI TERROR ATTACK CASES 26TH NOVEMBER 2008

FINAL FORM / REPORT

(Under Section 173 Cr.P.C.)

IN THE COURT OFADDL. CH. M.M., 37TH COURT, ESPLANADE, MUMBAI

The Chief Investigating Officer of the sensational and diabolic attacks by the terrorists at different iconic locations in Mumbai on 26th November 2008, hereby submits a report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as under.A heinous criminal conspiracy has beenplanned and hatched in Pakistan by the internationally banned Lashkar-e-Taiba to execute a series of attacks at prominent places in Mumbai, the financial capital of the country on 26thNovember 2008. This was with the express intention to destabilize India, wage war against this country, terrorize its citizens, create financial loss and issue a warning to other countries whose citizens were also targetted , humiliated and cold-bloodedly killed. This Fidayeen Mission was part of a larger criminal conspiracy planned in Pakistan for attacking the commercial capital of India with intent to wage war, to weaken India economically and to create terror and dread amongst the citizens of the Mumbai metropolis in particular and India in general and, thereby, through the said unlawful activities its perpetrators committed terrorist acts.

Lashkar-e-Taiba (Lashkar-e Tayyiba; literally means Army of the Good, translated as Army of the Righteous, or Army of the Pure) — also pronounced and spelt as Lashkar-i-Tayyaba, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Lashkar-i-Taiba, or LeT — is one of the largest, most active and lethal militant organizations in South Asia.Lashkar-e-Taiba – “The Army of the Pure” is a militant offshoot of Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal- Irshad (MDI), an Islamic fundamentalist organization. Markaz-ud-Dawatul-wal- Irshad has since been renamed as Jamaat-ud-Dawa.It was founded by Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Zafar Iqbal in the Kunar province of Afghanistan in 1989. It has its headquarter at Muridke near Lahore, Pakistan. It operates numerous training camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir as well as in other parts of Pakistan. Lashkar has forged cooperative and operational ties with religious militant groups throughout the Middle East, South East Asia and also in other parts of the world.The Militant group’s defining objective is to Islamicise South Asia with its main aim being freedom for Muslims in India-administered Kashmir.The Lashkar-e-Taiba is banned as a terrorist organization by India, Pakistan, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Russia, Australia besides a host of other countries. Hafiz Saeed has been listed as the leader of the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The United Nations Security Council has also listed Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Haji Mohammad Ashraf, and Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed Bahaziq as senior members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba.Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi is listed as the terror group’s chief of Anti-India operations. Haji Mohammed Ashraf is the group’s chief of finance whereas Mahmoud Mohammed Bahaziq, a Saudi national who served as the leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba in Saudi Arabia, is a senior financier. Jamaat – Ud – Dawa has been recently declared as a terrorist front group by the United Nations (UN) as per its Resolution 1267. UN believes that this organization also supports Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Continue Reading

End User Software License Agreement [Format]

End User License Agreement

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING OR USING ADVOCATETANMOY OR ADVOCATETANMOY-SUPPLIED SOFTWARE CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.

ADVOCATETANMOY IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE SOFTWARE TO YOU ONLY UPON THE CONDITION THAT YOU ACCEPT ALL OF THE TERMS CONTAINED IN THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT. BY DOWNLOADING OR INSTALLING THE SOFTWARE, OR USING THE EQUIPMENT THAT CONTAINS THIS SOFTWARE, YOU ARE BINDING YOURSELF AND THE BUSINESS ENTITY THAT YOU REPRESENT (COLLECTIVELY, “CUSTOMER”) TO THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THEN ADVOCATETANMOY IS UNWILLING TO LICENSE THE SOFTWARE TO YOU AND (A) DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE, AND (B) YOU MAY RETURN THE SOFTWARE FOR A FULL REFUND, OR, IF THE SOFTWARE IS SUPPLIED AS PART OF ANOTHER PRODUCT, YOU MAY RETURN THE ENTIRE PRODUCT FOR A FULL REFUND. YOUR RIGHT TO RETURN AND REFUND EXPIRES 300 DAYS AFTER PURCHASE FROM ADVOCATETANMOY OR AN AUTHORIZED ADVOCATETANMOY RESELLER, AND APPLIES ONLY IF YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL END USER PURCHASER.

The following terms of this End User License Agreement (“Agreement”) govern Customer’s access and use of the Software, except to the extent (a) there is a separate signed agreement between Customer and Advocatetanmoy governing Customer’s use of the Software or (b) the Software includes a separate “click-accept” license agreement as part of the installation and/or download process. To the extent of a conflict between the provisions of the foregoing documents, the order of precedence shall be (1) the signed agreement, (2) the click-accept agreement, and (3) this End User License Agreement.

License. Conditioned upon compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Advocatetanmoy Systems, Inc. or its subsidiary licensing the Software instead of Advocatetanmoy Systems, Inc. (“Advocatetanmoy”), grants to Customer a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use for Customer’s internal business purposes the Software and the Documentation for which Customer has paid the required license fees. “Documentation” means written information (whether contained in user or technical manuals, training materials, specifications or otherwise) specifically pertaining to the Software and made available by Advocatetanmoy with the Software in any manner (including on CD-Rom, or on-line).

Customer’s license to use the Software shall be limited to, and Customer shall not use the Software in excess of, a single hardware chassis or card or such number and types of agent(s), concurrent users, sessions, IP addresses, port(s), seat(s), server(s), site(s), features and feature sets as are set forth in the applicable Purchase Order which has been accepted by Advocatetanmoy and for which Customer has paid to Advocatetanmoy the required license fee.

Unless otherwise expressly provided in the Documentation, Customer shall use the Software solely as embedded in, for execution on, or (where the applicable documentation permits installation on non-Advocatetanmoy equipment) for communication with Advocatetanmoy equipment owned or leased by Customer and used for Customer’s internal business purposes. NOTE: For evaluation or beta copies for which Advocatetanmoy does not charge a license fee, the above requirement to pay license fees does not apply.

General Limitations. This is a license, not a transfer of title, to the Software and Documentation, and Advocatetanmoy retains ownership of all copies of the Software and Documentation. Customer acknowledges that the Software and Documentation contain trade secrets of Advocatetanmoy, its suppliers or licensors, including but not limited to the specific internal design and structure of individual programs and associated interface information. Accordingly, except as otherwise expressly provided under this Agreement, Customer shall have no right, and Customer specifically agrees not to:

(i) transfer, assign or sublicense its license rights to any other person or entity, or use the Software on unauthorized or secondhand Advocatetanmoy equipment, and Customer acknowledges that any attempted transfer, assignment, sublicense or use shall be void;

(ii) make error corrections to or otherwise modify or adapt the Software or create derivative works based upon the Software, or permit third parties to do the same;

(iii) reverse engineer or decompile, decrypt, disassemble or otherwise reduce the Software to human-readable form, except to the extent otherwise expressly permitted under applicable law notwithstanding this restriction;

(iv) use or permit the Software to be used to perform services for third parties, whether on a service bureau or time sharing basis or otherwise, without the express written authorization of Advocatetanmoy; or

(v) disclose, provide, or otherwise make available trade secrets contained within the Software and Documentation in any form to any third party without the prior written consent of Advocatetanmoy. Customer shall implement reasonable security measures to protect such trade secrets.

To the extent required by law, and at Customer’s written request, Advocatetanmoy shall provide Customer with the interface information needed to achieve interoperability between the Software and another independently created program, on payment of Advocatetanmoy’s applicable fee, if any. Customer shall observe strict obligations of confidentiality with respect to such information and shall use such information in compliance with any applicable terms and conditions upon which Advocatetanmoy makes such information available.

Software, Upgrades and Additional Copies. For purposes of this Agreement, “Software” shall include (and the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to) computer programs, including firmware, as provided to Customer by Advocatetanmoy or an authorized Advocatetanmoy reseller, and any upgrades, updates, bug fixes or modified versions thereto (collectively, “Upgrades”) or backup copies of the Software licensed or provided to Customer by Advocatetanmoy or an authorized Advocatetanmoy reseller. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT: (1) CUSTOMER HAS NO LICENSE OR RIGHT TO USE ANY ADDITIONAL COPIES OR UPGRADES UNLESS CUSTOMER, AT THE TIME OF ACQUIRING SUCH COPY OR UPGRADE, ALREADY HOLDS A VALID LICENSE TO THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE AND HAS PAID THE APPLICABLE FEE FOR THE UPGRADE OR ADDITIONAL COPIES; (2) USE OF UPGRADES IS LIMITED TO ADVOCATETANMOY EQUIPMENT FOR WHICH CUSTOMER IS THE ORIGINAL END USER PURCHASER OR LESSEE OR WHO OTHERWISE HOLDS A VALID LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE WHICH IS BEING UPGRADED; AND (3) THE MAKING AND USE OF ADDITIONAL COPIES IS LIMITED TO NECESSARY BACKUP PURPOSES ONLY.

Proprietary Notices. Customer agrees to maintain and reproduce all copyright and other proprietary notices on all copies, in any form, of the Software in the same form and manner that such copyright and other proprietary notices are included on the Software. Except as expressly authorized in this Agreement, Customer shall not make any copies or duplicates of any Software without the prior written permission of Advocatetanmoy.

Term and Termination. This Agreement and the license granted herein shall remain effective until terminated. Customer may terminate this Agreement and the license at any time by destroying all copies of Software and any Documentation. Customer’s rights under this Agreement will terminate immediately without notice from Advocatetanmoy if Customer fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement. Upon termination, Customer shall destroy all copies of Software and Documentation in its possession or control. All confidentiality obligations of Customer and all limitations of liability and disclaimers and restrictions of warranty shall survive termination of this Agreement. In addition, the provisions of the sections titled “U.S. Government End User Purchasers” and “General Terms Applicable to the Limited Warranty Statement and End User License” shall survive termination of this Agreement.

Customer Records. Customer grants to Advocatetanmoy and its independent accountants the right to examine Customer’s books, records and accounts during Customer’s normal business hours to verify compliance with this Agreement. In the event such audit discloses non-compliance with this Agreement, Customer shall promptly pay to Advocatetanmoy the appropriate license fees, plus the reasonable cost of conducting the audit.

Export. Software and Documentation, including technical data, may be subject to U.S. export control laws, including the U.S. Export Administration Act and its associated regulations, and may be subject to export or import regulations in other countries. Customer agrees to comply strictly with all such regulations and acknowledges that it has the responsibility to obtain licenses to export, re-export, or import Software and Documentation.

U.S. Government End User Purchasers. The Software and Documentation qualify as “commercial items,” as that term is defined at Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) (48 C.F.R.) 2.101, consisting of “commercial computer software” and “commercial computer software documentation” as such terms are used in FAR 12.212. Consistent with FAR 12.212 and DoD FAR Supp. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, and notwithstanding any other FAR or other contractual clause to the contrary in any agreement into which this End User License Agreement may be incorporated, Customer may provide to Government end user or, if this Agreement is direct, Government end user will acquire, the Software and Documentation with only those rights set forth in this End User License Agreement. Use of either the Software or Documentation or both constitutes agreement by the Government that the Software and Documentation are “commercial computer software” and “commercial computer software documentation,” and constitutes acceptance of the rights and restrictions herein.
Limited Warranty
Subject to the limitations and conditions set forth herein, Advocatetanmoy warrants that commencing from the date of shipment to Customer (but in case of resale by an authorized Advocatetanmoy reseller, commencing not more than ninety (90) days after original shipment by Advocatetanmoy), and continuing for a period of the longer of (a) ninety (90) days or (b) the warranty period (if any) expressly set forth as applicable specifically to software in the warranty card accompanying the product of which the Software is a part (the “Product”) (if any): (a) the media on which the Software is furnished will be free of defects in materials and workmanship under normal use; and (b) the Software substantially conforms to the Documentation. The date of shipment of a Product by Advocatetanmoy is set forth on the packaging material in which the Product is shipped. Except for the foregoing, the Software is provided AS IS. This limited warranty extends only to the Customer who is the original licensee. Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy and the entire liability of Advocatetanmoy and its suppliers and licensors under this limited warranty will be (i) replacement of defective media and/or (ii) at Advocatetanmoy’s option, repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase price of the Software, in both cases subject to the condition that any error or defect constituting a breach of this limited warranty is reported to Advocatetanmoy or the party supplying the Software to Customer, if different than Advocatetanmoy, within the warranty period. Advocatetanmoy or the party supplying the Software to Customer may, at its option, require return of the Software as a condition to the remedy. In no event does Advocatetanmoy warrant that the Software is error free or that Customer will be able to operate the Software without problems or interruptions. In addition, due to the continual development of new techniques for intruding upon and attacking networks, Advocatetanmoy does not warrant that the Software or any equipment, system or network on which the Software is used will be free of vulnerability to intrusion or attack.
Restrictions. This warranty does not apply if the Software, Product or any other equipment upon which the Software is authorized to be used (a) has been altered, except by Advocatetanmoy or its authorized representative, (b) has not been installed, operated, repaired, or maintained in accordance with instructions supplied by Advocatetanmoy, (c) has been subjected to abnormal physical or electrical stress, misuse, negligence, or accident; or (d) is licensed, for beta, evaluation, testing or demonstration purposes for which Advocatetanmoy does not charge a purchase price or license fee.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED IN THIS WARRANTY, ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, AND WARRANTIES INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, NON-INTERFERENCE, ACCURACY OF INFORMATIONAL CONTENT, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, LAW, USAGE, OR TRADE PRACTICE, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE LAW AND ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED BY ADVOCATETANMOY, ITS SUPPLIERS AND LICENSORS. TO THE EXTENT AN IMPLIED WARRANTY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED, SUCH WARRANTY IS LIMITED IN DURATION TO THE EXPRESS WARRANTY PERIOD. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS ON HOW LONG AN IMPLIED WARRANTY LASTS, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY. THIS WARRANTY GIVES CUSTOMER SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS, AND CUSTOMER MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION. This disclaimer and exclusion shall apply even if the express warranty set forth above fails of its essential purpose.

Open Source Content. This Software includes content governed by the OpenSSL license, the text of which is available at http://www.opensl.org/source.html and otherwise incorporated herein:

Copyright (c) 1998-2006 The OpenSSL Project. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment:
    “This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
    for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.openssl.org/)”
  4. The names “OpenSSL Toolkit” and “OpenSSL Project” must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without
    prior written permission. For written permission, please contact
    openssl-core@openssl.org.
  5. Products derived from this software may not be called “OpenSSL”
    nor may “OpenSSL” appear in their names without prior written
    permission of the OpenSSL Project.
  6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
    acknowledgment:
    “This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
    for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/)” THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE OpenSSL PROJECT “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OpenSSL PROJECT OR = ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
    NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
    LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
    HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

This product includes cryptographic software written by advocatetanmoy .

Original advocatetanmoy License

Copyright (C) 1995-1998 advocatetanmoy
All rights reserved.

This package is an SSL implementation written
by advocatetanmoy.
The implementation was written so as to conform with Netscapes SSL.

This library is free for commercial and non-commercial use as long as
the following conditions are aheared to. The following conditions
apply to all code found in this distribution, be it the RC4, RSA,
lhash, DES, etc., code; not just the SSL code. The SSL documentation
included with this distribution is covered by the same copyright terms
except that the holder is advocatetanmoy.

Copyright remains advocatetanmoy`s, and as such any Copyright notices in
the code are not to be removed.
If this package is used in a product, Eric Young should be given attribution
as the author of the parts of the library used.
This can be in the form of a textual message at program startup or
in documentation (online or textual) provided with the package.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

  1. Redistributions of source code must retain the copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
    must display the following acknowledgement:
    “This product includes cryptographic software written by
    advocatetanmoy”
    The word ‘cryptographic’ can be left out if the rouines from the library being used are not cryptographic related :-).
  4. If you include any Windows specific code (or a derivative thereof) from the apps directory (application code) you must include an acknowledgement:
    “This product includes software written by advocatetanmoy” THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ERIC YOUNG “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
    IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
    OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence

General Terms Applicable to the Limited Warranty Statement and End User License Agreement

Disclaimer of Liabilities. REGARDLESS WHETHER ANY REMEDY SET FORTH HEREIN FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE, IN NO EVENT WILL ADVOCATETANMOY OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT, OR LOST OR DAMAGED DATA, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF CAPITAL, OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY OR WHETHER ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE AND EVEN IF ADVOCATETANMOY OR ITS SUPPLIERS OR LICENSORS HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. In no event shall Advocatetanmoy’s or its suppliers’ or licensors’ liability to Customer, whether in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of warranty, or otherwise, exceed the price paid by Customer for the Software that gave rise to the claim or if the Software is part of another Product, the price paid for such other Product. BECAUSE SOME STATES OR JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Customer agrees that the limitations of liability and disclaimers set forth herein will apply regardless of whether Customer has accepted the Software or any other product or service delivered by Advocatetanmoy. Customer acknowledges and agrees that Advocatetanmoy has set its prices and entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the disclaimers of warranty and the limitations of liability set forth herein, that the same reflect an allocation of risk between the parties (including the risk that a contract remedy may fail of its essential purpose and cause consequential loss), and that the same form an essential basis of the bargain between the parties.

The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Warranty and End User License shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California, United States of America, as if performed wholly within the state and without giving effect to the principles of conflict of laws, and the State and federal courts of California shall have jurisdiction over any claim arising under this Agreement. The parties specifically disclaim the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may seek interim injunctive relief in any court of appropriate jurisdiction with respect to any alleged breach of such party’s intellectual property or proprietary rights. If any portion hereof is found to be void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the license of the Software and Documentation and supersedes any conflicting or additional terms contained in any purchase order or elsewhere, all of which terms are excluded. This Agreement has been written in the English language, and the parties agree that the English version will govern.

Signed


Go for Alternative format

Vakalatnama Original side Calcutta High Court

W. P. NO. OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE

In the matter of:

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

                        And

In the matter of:

Writ or writs and/or order or orders and/or direction or directions in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or Prohibition;

                        And

In the matter of:

Distribution of Kerosene Oil under public distribution through fair price shops;

                        And

In the matter of:

Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

                        And

In the matter of:

Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

                        And

In the matter of:

Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993, a Control Order issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

                        And

In the matter of:

West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, a Control Order issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955;

                        And

In the matter of:

Repugnancy between Central Control Order and the State Control Order;

                        And

In the matter of:

Purported policy guidelines issued by the Food Commissioner & Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Food & Supplies under Order No. G-385/FS Cg/Legal/2007 dated 19th November, 2007 as communicated by the Memo No. Cg/Legal-30/2007/163(6) dated……… by Director of  Consumer  Goods, West Bengal;

                        And

In the matter of:

Memo No. 312/Adm(G) dated 24th December, 2007 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (G), Burdwan communicating ……….. Zilla Kerosene Oil Dealers & Traders Association, Burdwan;

                        And

In the matter of:

Articles 166, 254 and 257 of the Constitution of India;

                        And

In the matter of:

Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;

                        And

In the matter of:

Actions on the part of the respondent authorities in violation of direction as contained under the provisions of Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 and Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993;

                        And

In the matter of:

Misinterpretation of the Judgment and Order dated ………. November, 2018 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in MAT No. 1570 of 2018, MAT No. 1831 of 2018, and APOT No. 234 of 2018 and subsequent order dated ……. passed by the Hon’ble Justice …….. in W. P. No. 101 of 2018 (Subir Basu –versus- State of West Bengal & Ors.);

                        And

In the matter of:

  1. XYZ, Secretary of the Burdwan District of the West Bengal M.R. Dealers Association and a fair price shop owner-cum-Kerosene Oil Dealer of Gazole, residing at ………., District-Burdwan.
  2. PQR….. General Secretary of the West Bengal M. R. Dealers’ Association, State Unit, having office at 117, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata- 700 014 and also a fair price shop owner-cum Kerosene Oil Dealer of Village- ……….., District Nadia.

                                                              …Petitioners

            Versus

  1. State of West Bengal, service through the Food Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Food & Supply Department, 11A, Mirza Galib Street, Kolkata- 700 001.
  2. Food Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Food and Supply Department, Government of West Bengal, having office at 11A, Mirza Galib Street, Kolkata- 700 001.
  3. Director of Consumer Goods, Food & Supply Department, Government of West Bengal,  having office at 11A, Mirza Galib Street, Kolkata- 700 001.
  4. Additional District Magistrate (G), Malda, Government of West Bengal, Office of the District Magistrate, Post and Police Station- Malda, District- Malda.                                                                                                     …Respondents
  5. XXXXXX residing at …………., District- Burdwan.
  6. XXXX, residing at Village and Post Office- ….., District-Burdwan.

                                                         …Private Respondents

We, …………., residing at Village-Ghakshal…………., the Petitioner No.1 and AB, residing at …………., District-Burdwan, the Petitioner No.2 of the foregoing writ application put in our place and stead ……………Devnath, Advocate of this Hon’ble Court to appear and to represent before the Judges of the said Hon’ble Court and to file all such applications and documents to pay all such fees as may be necessary to draw and give receipts for and endorse all cheques and other orders or all moneys that may be entitled to receive and to engage other lawyers to appear and to represent before the Judges of the said Hon’ble Court and to do all such acts whether specified or not as shall be required to be issued or done in connection with the said matter and at knowledge that in accepting the retainer she does so on the condition of our  paying all costs that may be become due to her as and when requires the same.

Dated this the __th day of ………. 2018.

Accepted.

Advocate-on-record.

BACK SHEET

W. P. No.             of 2008

In the High Court At Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Original Side

In the matter of :

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

                 And

In the matter of :

ABC & ANR.

                                  … PETITIONERS.

                  Versus

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

                              … RESPONDENTS.

Vakalatnama
To
The Registrar
High Court at Calcutta
Original Side
Dear Sir,
Please enter appearance in my name on behalf of the Petitioners.
Dated this __th January 2018.

Yours faithfully,

Advocate.

ABC,
Advocate,
23, Kiran S Roy Road,
2nd floor, Kolkata-1.


Format: Writing prayers for a writ for Mandamus

The relief sought by the respondent-writ petitioner is as follows:

It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue
Rule Nisi calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why;

(i) An appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, be not issued directing the Respondents to issue Refund Payment Order to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.12,32,496/- pertaining to the Financial Year 2005-06, being the admitted amount adjudicated by Respondents themselves in terms of Section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 towards the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the tax levied by the State Government under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 on declared goods
which were subsequently sold in course of inter-State trade and commerce.

(ii) Further appropriate writ/order/directions, including Writ of Mandamus, be not issued directing the Respondents to pay statutory interest to the petitioner @ 9% per annum in terms of Section 43 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 from the expiry of the period of six months from the date of receipt of the application of refund filed by the petitioner till the date when Refund Payment Order is issued in favour of the petitioner.

Format Hospital Agreement with Government for Cashless treatment.

AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made on the ________ day of _________, __________ between the Governor of West Bengal and represented by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department ,Government of West Bengal having its office at ………………………………………………………………….. ( hereinafter called Cashless Scheme,2014 which includes WBHS,2008, which expression) of the First Part .

AND

……………………………………………………………………………………………….. Name of the Hospital /

Diagnostic Centre with Address ,[ which shall, unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof, be deemed to mean and include its successors and assigns ]of the Second Part.

WHEREAS the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or the ‘Cashless Scheme,2014’ has been providing comprehensive medical care facilities to the West Bengal Government Employees, Pensioners and their dependent family members;

AND WHEREAS ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or the ‘Cashless Scheme,2014 ’ proposes to provide treatment facilities and diagnostic facilities to the beneficiaries in the Private Recognized Hospitals or Diagnostic Centres;

AND WHREAS subsequently the ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’ has been introduced with all its amendment with a view to providing cashless medical treatment facility to the State Government officers and employees , the State Government pensioners including family pensioners, All India Service Officers, AIS pensioners including family pensioners and their eligible family members in Private empanelled hospitals within the state and in National Capital Region Delhi;

AND WHEREAS it has been decided that both the schemes as mentioned hereinabove would run concurrently for the time being ,

AND WHEREAS __________________________________________________________ (Name of the Hospital/ Diagnostic Centre) has offered to give the following treatment and/or diagnostic facilities to the beneficiaries under the’’ WBHS 2008’’, read with the Cashless Scheme, 2014 in the Hospital or Diagnostic Centre.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED between the Parties as follows:

1 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

1.1. The following terms and expressions shall have the following meanings for purposes of this Agreement:

1.1.1. “Agreement” shall mean this Agreement and include all Schedules, supplements, appendices, appendages and modifications thereof made in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;

1.1.2. “Card” shall mean a card under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’, issued by any competent authority or enrolment certificate/card issued by any competent authority under the ‘Cashless Scheme ,2014’ as the case may be.

1.1.3. “Card Holder” shall mean a person having a card under either of the schemes as the case may be as mentioned hereinabove;

1.1.4. “ WBHS 2008 beneficiary” shall mean a person who is eligible for coverage of WBHS

2008 and hold a valid card for the benefit under the WBHS 2008

1.1.5. Beneficiary under Cashless Scheme, 2014 shall mean all eligible persons under the WBHS 2008 enrolled under the ‘Cashless Scheme, 2014’.

1.1.6. “emergency” shall mean any condition or symptom resulting from any cause, arising

suddenly and if not treated at the early convenience, be detrimental to the health of the patient or will jeopardize the life of the patient;

1.1.7. “Health Care Organisation (HCO)”shall mean the__________________________________________________

(Name of the Hospital) while performing under this Agreement providing medical investigation, treatment and the healthcare of human beings & having a valid license under West Bengal Clinical Establishment Act,2003 ;

1.1.8. “Authority” shall mean the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the

Finance Department, Government of West Bengal.

1.1.9. “Package rate” shall mean and include lump sum cost of inpatient treatment / day care from the time of admission to the time of discharge including (but not limited to) – (i) Registration charges, (ii) Admission charges, (iii) Accommodation charges including patient’s diet, (iv) Operation charges, (v) Injection charges, (vi) Dressing charges, (vii) Doctor / consultant visit charges, (viii) ITU/ ICU/ ICCU/HDU charges, (ix) Monitoring charges, (x) Transfusion charges, (xi) Anaesthesia charges, (xii) Oxygen charges, (xiii) Operation theatre charges, (xiv) Procedural charges/ surgeon’s fee, (xv) Cost of surgical disposables and all sundries used during hospitalization, (xvi) Cost of medicines, (xvii) Related routine and essential investigations within the package period.

(xviii) Physiotherapy charges etc; and (xix) Nursing care and charges for its services but excluding expenses on telephone, tonics, toiletries, cosmetics etc. Package starts from the previous day of surgery and is of the following duration:-

i. 12 days for specialized Surgeries,

ii. 7 – 8 days for other major surgeries,

iii.3-4 days for Laparoscopic/ Endoscopic Surgeries/ normal deliveries, iv. 1 day for day care / minor (OPD) surgeries.

1.2. Annexure-I, consisting of the rate schedule for different packages, procedures and investigations shall be deemed to be an integral part of this Agreement.
1.3. Annexure –II having the performance bank guarantee & required guarantee

2 CHARGES FOR SERVICE RENDERED under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ and “ Cashless Scheme , 2014”

2.1 The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall charge from the beneficiary under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or and raise Claim for Cashless treatment “ Cashless Scheme ,2014” as per approved rates

for a particular procedure / package deal as prescribed by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal and attached as Annexure I(rate list), which shall be an integral part of this Agreement.

2.2 The charges for services rendered shall be computed as 100% of rates for Class 1 Hospitals and Diagnostic Centres, 80 % of rates for Class 2 Hospitals and Diagnostic Centres and 70% of rates for Class 3 Hospitals and Diagnostic Centres.

2.3 (I) The package rate quoted for a particular procedure is inclusive of all sub-procedures and all related procedures to complete the treatment. As an illustration, for TURP, the procedures such as urethral Catheterization, Cystoscopy, etc. should not be billed separately as they are all part of the Procedure i.e. TURP.

(II) Cost of implants/ prosthesis/ grafts will be charged in full separately in addition to package charge, as per the approved ceiling rates for implants or as per actuals whichever is less. Where there is no Health Scheme prescribed ceiling rate, actual rates will be charged. Tax invoice in respect of implant(s)is essential.

(III) Every surgical case should be done on package rate. Where there is no package rate for a particular surgical procedure the same should be done on identical procedure “package rate”.

(IV) If one or more minor procedures form part of a major treatment procedure, then approved package charges would be permissible for major procedure only and 60%

of charges for minor procedures.

Any deviation from the above norms shall require permission of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal.

2.4 Treatment charges of non-surgical cases may be calculated adding bed rent, doctor’s fees, investigation charges, cost of medicines & consumables, special nursing charges, aids, etc.

2.5 No additional amount shall be allowed over and above the approved rates. If there is no approved rate under ‘’WBHS 2008 ‘’/ Cashless Scheme,2014 for a particular investigation etc. the matter is to be brought to the notice of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority for fixation of rate.

2.6 The rates as given in Annexure I shall be the maximum rate and such rate may be charged from a Beneficiary under the WBHS 2008 or under the Cashless Scheme 2014” , for a particular service rendered. However, the rate being charged shall not be more than what is being charged for same procedure/ facility from other (non-WBHS ) patients or institutions. An authenticated list of rates being charged from any person other than beneficiaries shall be displayed in the hospital in conformity with the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Rules, 2003. Any additional charges, if paid by a beneficiary under the’’ WBHS 2008’’ or charged under the “Cashless Scheme ,2014” shall have to be refunded if detected subsequently or shall not be paid under Cashless Scheme as the case may be.

3. CLASSIFICATION OF HOSPITALS/ DIAGNOSTIC CENTRES

3.1. The classification of the Hospitals/ Diagnostic centres shall be based on their meeting the empanelment criteria as determined by the Finance Department and the Health and Family Welfare Department. The decision of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department shall be final and binding in this respect.

3.2. If reclassification is requested after addition of facilities, a fresh application with assessment fees shall be submitted.

3.3. The maximum allowable rates to be charged from the beneficiaries shall be as follows:-

3.3.1. Class 1 provider- 100% of approved rates, as given in Annexure I ;

3.3.2. Class 2 provider- 80% of approved rates, as given in Annexure I;

3.3.3. Class 3 provider- 70% of approved rates, as given in Annexure I;

4. DURATION

4.1. The Agreement shall remain in force for a period of 2 years or till it is modified or revoked, whichever is earlier. The Agreement may be extended for subsequent periods as required by the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, subject to fulfilment of all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and with mutual consent.

5. MEDICAL AUDIT OF BILLS

5.1. The medical audit/ prescription audit of the bills of the Hospital/ Diagnostic Centre shall be conducted by the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department or any authority designated by the Finance Department for that purpose,under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme,2014 obtained from the Hospital or diagnostic centre, as the case may be on and from Hospital or the date of diagnostic investigation. If any overpayment made by the beneficiary under the WBHS 2008 / Cashless Scheme,2014 is subsequently detected, the same shall be refunded by the Hospital/ Diagnostic Centre to the beneficiary within 15 days of such refund being claimed by the beneficiary.

6. VALIDITY OF RATES

6.1. Validity of the rates may be made to expire in case of premature or normal termintation of the Agreement.

7. TREATMENT IN EMERGENCYAND PRIORITY IN ADMISSION

7.1. In emergency, the Hospital shall not refuse admission or demand an advance payment from the beneficiary or his family member and shall provide credit facilities to the patient whether the patient is a serving employee or a pensioner availing facilities under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or “Cashless Scheme,2014”, on production of a valid card or enrolment Certificate issued by the competent authority under the said scheme. The final bill shall be settled by the patient prior to discharge in case of treatment under the ‘’ WBHS 2008’’. However in case of the “Cashless Scheme ,2014” cost of treatment upto rupees One Lakh shall be preferred to Medical Cell of the Finance Department and amount exceeding Rupees One lakh , if any , should be realised from the beneficiary.

7.2. If a Hospital refuses to provide the treatment to a bonafide beneficiaries under the WBHS 2008 or “the Cashless scheme, 2014 “ in emergency cases, without valid ground, such a hospital shall be disqualified for continuation of empanelment.

7.3. Normally, the treatment in higher category of accommodation than the entitled category shall not be permissible. However, in case of emergency when the entitled category accommodation is unavailable, admission in the immediate higher category may be allowed till the entitled category accommodation becomes available. However, if a particular hospital does not have the ward as per entitlement of the beneficiary, the Hospital may only make bill as per the entitlement of the beneficiary even though the treatment was given in a higher type of ward, On the request of the beneficiary, if the treatment is provided in a higher category of ward than that the beneficiary is entitled to, the expenditure over and above the entitlement shall be borne by the beneficiary and it shall be shown separately.

7.4. In non- emergency cases, priority shall be given for the beneficiaries under the ‘’WBHS

2008’’ or the “Cashless Scheme, 2014” to get admission and treatment. Non availability of

beds shall not be a ground for not providing services to a beneficiary under the’’ WBHS

2008’’ or the “Cashless Scheme, 2014”.

8. GENERAL CONDITIONS

8.1. All investigations regarding fitness for the surgery shall be done prior to the admission for any elective procedure and are part of package.

8.2. The package rate has been calculated as per the duration of stay usually required. No additional charge on account of extended period of stay shall be allowed if that extension is due to infection/ complication as a consequence of surgical procedure undertaken or due to any improper procedure/ case management and is not justified.

8.3. If a beneficiary has to stay in the hospital for his/ her recovery for a period more than the period covered in package, in exceptional cases, supported by relevant medical records and certified as such by hospital, the additional charges shall be limited to accommodation charges as per entitlement, investigation charges at approved rates, doctor’s visit charges (not more than 2 visits per day by specialists/ consultants) and cost of medicines for additional stay.

8.4. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall submit all the medical records to the beneficiary without requiring any additional payment.

8.5. Any legal liability arising due to any default or negligence in providing or performance of the medical services shall be borne exclusively by the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre who shall alone be responsible for the defect and / or deficiencies in rendering such services.

8.6. During the In-patient treatment of the beneficiary under the’’ WBHS 2008’’ or the “Cashless Scheme ,2014” the Hospital shall not ask the beneficiary or his attendant to purchase separately any medicines / sundries / equipment or accessories from outside and shall provide the treatment within the package deal rate, fixed under the said Scheme which includes the cost of all the items. Any such excess payments shall have to be refunded to the Beneficiary under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’, if detected later on. Similarly any such excess claim under the ‘’Cashless Scheme 2014’’ shall not be entertained.

8.7. During the In-patient treatment of the beneficiary under the ’’ WBHS 2008’’ or under the ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’, the Hospital shall not ask the beneficiary or his attendant to pay the consultation fees for any doctor as this shall be provided within the package deal fixed by the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ . Any such excess payments shall be refunded to the beneficiary under the’’ WBHS 2008’’, if detected later on. Similarly any such excess claim under the Cashless Scheme, 2014’ shall not be entertained.

8.8. For any non package services, the consultation fees for all consultation shall be as per the prescribed rates in Annexure I.

8.9. If there is any change in the location, the Hospital/ Diagnostic Centre shall immediately communicate to the Authority under the said Schemes. The empanelment shall be temporarily withheld in case of shifting of the facility to any other location without prior

permission of the Authority under the Schemes . The new establishment of the same Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall attract a fresh inspection, at the prescribed fee, for consideration of continuation of empanelment.

8.10. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall submit an annual report in Form No V and VI as per provision of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Rules, 2003 to the licensing authority.

The HCO is required to provide all treatment related information both relating to WBHS,2008 and ‘Cashless Scheme,2014’ through online system by logging into https://wbhealthscheme.gov.in using the User ID provided by Medical Cell, Finance Department as it is presently being done in respect of ‘Cashless Scheme,2014’ only.

8.11. Authorized signatory / representative of the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall attend the periodic meetings held by Officials connected with the implementation of the WBHS 2008 or the “Cashless Scheme,2014”, required in connection with improvement of working conditions.

8.12. During the visit by Officials connected with the implementation of the Said “Schemes” / concerned Department, the Hospital authorities shall cooperate in carrying out the inspection.

8.13. In case of any natural disaster / epidemic, the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall fully cooperate with the Health and Family Welfare Department / Director of Health Services, Officials connected with the implementation of the ‘’WBHS 2008 ‘’/“Cashless Scheme,2014”, and shall convey / reveal all the required information, apart from providing treatment.
8.14. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall not make any commercial publicity projecting the name of the ‘’WBHS’, 2008’’ or “Cashless Scheme, 2014” the Health and Family Welfare Department or Government of West Bengal. However, the fact of empanelment under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or “Cashless Scheme, 2014” shall be displayed at the premises of the empanelled Centre, indicating that the charges shall be as per the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ / “Cashless Scheme, 2014” approved rates.

8.15. The Hospital shall not undertake treatment of referred cases in specialities for which it is not equipped, but shall provide necessary treatment to stabilize the patient and transport the patient safely to nearest Hospital having the necessary facilities. However, in such cases the Hospital shall charge as per the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ “Cashless Scheme, 2014” rates only for the treatment provided.

8.16. Human Organ Transplantation, Cochlear implant Surgery are to be done with the permission of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department. In case of Human Organ Transplantation prior permission and authorisation from the Health and Family Department, West Bengal should be obtained.

8.17. Implantation of Dual-Chamber Pacemaker, more than two Stents, more than one Drug-Eluting Stents, AICD, CRT with AICD, DBS implants, Intra-thecal Pumps, Spinal Cord

Stimulators, more than two packages etc. are to be done with the permission of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority.

8.18. For non-package treatment, whenever the treatment cost exceeds Rs. 2.5 Lac, the matter is to be brought to the notice of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority by the recognised Private Hospital/ Nursing Home with prognosis report of such as limited/Nil/poor/guarded of the patient by the treating physician and upto date detailed treatment bill.
Where, in the opinion of the attending physician, prognosis of a case is limited or nil, if a patient under the Health Scheme is kept in a recognised hospital/ nursing home for indefinite period, no expenses other than bed rent is Chargeable.

8.19. The bed rent shall include the cost of all special mattresses and other such equipment/devices/nebulization.

8.20. The cost of investigations will be inclusive of cost of drawing the samples. This also applies to estimation of blood glucose using glucometer.

8.21. The use of Antibiotics should always be as per the antibiotic policy of the Hospital and based on culture report. ‘Shot gun therapy’ should be strictly avoided. Whenever antibiotics costing more than Rs 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand Only ) per dose are used, the Chief of the Hospital Infection Control Committee(HICC) should be consulted and together the Consultation in charge of the case and the chief of the HICC should certify that the most cost effective based antimicrobial treatment has been prescribed. The Chief of the HICC should be consulted whenever a change in the antibiotic regimen is contemplated in such patients.

8.22. Whenever the total cost of pharmaceuticals exceed Rs 10,000/-( Rupees Ten thousand only) daily, the Director Medical Services of the HCO or equivalent shall be consulted and he, along with the Consultant in charge of the case, should certify that evidence based cost effective treatment has been prescribed in the case.

8.23. In case of cancer chemotherapy, whenever the cost of therapy per cycle exceeds Rs 5000/- ( Rs Five thousand only ) , the prognosis of the patient is to be clearly mentioned along with the justification for the use of the chemotherapy drugs with regard to the expected survival/palliation of the patient.

8.24. The use of disposables/ consumables should be kept as permissible . The maximum allowable in all cases shall be ( non package treatment ) Gloves 10 pairs ( all types included ) per day ,Masks-2per day, I.V sets-3 per week, venflon or substitute 3 per week, urobag- 3 per week, suction catheter-1 per day, syrings-10 per day.

8.25. In case of any discrepancy/ difficulty, the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority is to be contacted prior to preparation of the final bills of the HCO.

8.26. In case of dual chamber pacemaker implantation , the medical reason for the non suitability of single chamber pace maker is to be justified, not just that it is more physiologically suited.

9. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF HOSPITALS / DIAGNOSTIC CENTRES

9.1. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre, at all times, to obtain, maintain and sustain the valid registration, recognition and high quality and standard of its services and healthcare and to have all statutory / mandatory licenses, permits or approvals of the concerned authorities under or as per the existing laws.

9.2. The Hospital shall keep in its service adequate number of specialists/ consultants of different specialties, so that the beneficiaries under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or ‘’Cashless Scheme 2014 ‘’shall be able to obtain the best possible treatment.

9.3. If facility for Diagnostic Centre is not available with the Hospital where the beneficiary is currently admitted, all diagnostic testing shall preferably be sent to empanelled Diagnostic Centres. Otherwise, it may be sent to a non-empanelled diagnostic centre having tie up with the HCO and maintaining quality at par with empanelled Diagnostic Centre but HCO can charge upto the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ / Cashless Scheme 2014 approved rate according to their category. If any Diagnostic test is not available within West Bengal then only it may be sent to Diagnostic Centre located outside West Bengal.
9.4. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall not assign, in whole or in part, its obligations to perform under the agreement, except with the prior written consent of the Authority of the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ / Cashless Scheme 2014 at its sole discretions and on such terms and conditions as deemed fit under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme 2014 . Any such assignment shall not relieve the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre from any liability or obligation under this Agreement.

9.5. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall be responsible for and obliged to provide all the services in accordance with the Agreement using state-of-the-art methods and economic principles and exercising all means available to achieve the level of performance specified in the Agreement.

9.6. All treatment/ services offered shall be evidence based and treatment modalities shall be in agreement with current medical and ethical practices.

9.7. Specialist treatment shall be provided only by those having the requisite training and competence. Diagnostic reports shall be signed only by those having the necessary

Page 10 of 23

specialization. Discharge Summary shall be signed by the treating specialist under whom the patient was admitted.

9.8. Informed consent shall be taken for all high risk procedures.

9.9. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall be obliged to act within its own authority and abide by the directives issued by the Authority under the WBHS 2008 / Cashless Scheme 2014 . The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall be responsible for managing the activities of its personnel and shall hold itself responsible for their misdemeanours, negligence, misconduct or deficiency in services, if any.

9.10. Online Information is to be given by the hospital to the concerned office of the employee/ controlling office of the pensioner within 3 days of admission into the hospital.

9.11.

i. HCOs will verify the signature of Government Employee / Government Pensioner in Form H & D4 with the same style /fashion and pattern of signature as available in Certificate of Enrolment/card.

ii. In case of absence of Government Employee /Government Pensioner at the time of admission /discharge of beneficiary HCO is requested to take his/her justification for absence received through HCOs e-mail ID or hard copy and submit the same duly countersigned by authority of the concerned HCO with the Final Bill Copy .And in that case beneficiaries /patient may also be allowed to put his /her signature in Form H & D4 in the same style/fashion and pattern already made in his /her Certificate of Enrolment/card.

iii. In case of death of a Government Employee/Pensioner during treatment at empanelled HCO any dependent beneficiary may sign in Form H &D4 by submitting his/her Certificate of Enrolment and the signature should be similar as stated herein above. But if Government Employee/Pensioner has no other dependent beneficiaries then any other near relative with due photo identification documents such as PAN, Driving Licence ,Voter ID etc may sign over Form H & D4 during hospitalisation death with a copy of admissible photo identification document(s) mentioned above.

iv. In case of availing higher cost of implants than mentioned in WBHS approved rate list a consent letter should invariably be obtained from Government Employee/Pensioners/beneficiaries regarding his /her willingness to obtain higher implants with same language, style / fashion and pattern of signature available in Certificate of Enrolment / card and the said letter should duly be countersigned by the authority of the concerned HCO with official seal. The same should be submitted in Medical Cell,Finance Department alongwith the claim bill.

9.12. HCO shall submit duly signed Form H, D4 and necessary sub-vouchers( HCO bills ) and necessary sub-vouchers,Investigations Reports at the time of submission of Cashless Treatment bills to Medical Cell,Finance Department.

10. PERFORMANCE BANK GUARANTEE

10.1. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall furnish a continuous, revolving and irrevocable Performance Bank Guarantee from a Scheduled Banks of RBI as recognised by Finance Department,Government of West Bengal for an amount of Rs. …. (Rupees …………………)

valid for a period of 05 years in the prescribed proforma to ensure due performance under this Agreement and for efficient service and to safeguard against any default. In case of any violation of the provisions of the Agreement, the provisions of Liquidated Damages as mentioned in Clause 11 below shall be applicable.

10.2 The Bank shall have no obligation to go into the veracity of any demand so made by authority and shall pay the amount specified in the demand notwithstanding any direction to the contrary given or any dispute whatsoever raised by the private hospital/diagnostic centre.

10.3 It will not be necessary for the authority to move against the private hospital/diagnostic centre first and the guarantor (Bank )will be treated as the principal debtor for the purpose.

10.4 Obligations of the Guarantor shall not be affected by any variations in the terms and conditions of the Agreement or other documents or by the extension of time for performance granted or postponement / non exercise / delayed exercise of any of its rights by authority or any indulgence shown by authority to the hospital / diagnostic centre.

10.5 Guarantee shall be irrevocable and shall remain in full force and effect until discharged by the Guarantor of all its obligations.

10.6 This Guarantee shall not be affected by any change in the constitution or winding up of the hospital/the Guarantor or any absorption , merger or amalgamation of the hospital/ the Guarantor.

10.7 The Guarantor has power to issue the guarantee and discharge the obligations

contemplated and the guarantor is duly authorised to execute the Guarantee pursuant of the power granted.

11. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

11.1. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall provide the services as per the requirements specified by the’’ WBHS 2008’’ or the “Cashless Scheme,2014” in terms of the provisions of this Agreement. In case of initial violation of the provisions of the Agreement by the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre such as refusal of service or direct charging from the beneficiaries under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ or the “Cashless Scheme ,2014” of rates in excess of agreed rates, irrational treatment or use of unnecessary drugs/ medicines/ procedures or defective service and negligence, false billing, the amount equivalent to 25% of the amount of Performance Bank Guarantee shall be charged as agreed Liquidated Damages under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme 2014. However, the total amount of the Performance Bank Guarantee shall be maintained intact being a revolving Guarantee.
11.2. In case of repeated defaults by the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre, the total amount of Performance Bank Guarantee shall be forfeited and action shall be taken by way of removing the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre from the empanelment of the’’WBHS 2008’’ or ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’ as well as termination of this Agreement.

11.3. In the first instance, the complaint shall be examined by the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department and if the complaint is found to be true the Authority shall have the right to give a show cause notice to the Hospital to be replied by it within 10 days of its receipt, and the reply of the Hospital shall be examined by the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department for the purpose of deciding the appropriateness of the treatment or Diagnostic procedures, as the case may be. If the Authority concludes that the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre has violated the provisions of the Agreement necessary action shall be taken for de-empanelment of that Hospital/Diagnostic Centre. The decision of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department shall be final.

11.4. For over-billing and unnecessary procedures, the extra amount so charged shall be refunded to the beneficiary by the Hospital within 15 days of such claims being found

Page 13 of 23

correct by the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority. The Authority shall have the right to issue a written warning to the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre not to do so in future. The recurrence, more than three, shall lead to the de-empanelment to that Hospital/ Diagnostic Centre.

12. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT

12.1. The Chairman of the West Bengal Health Scheme Authority under the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal may, without prejudice to any other remedy for breach of Agreement, by written notice of default sent to the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre terminate the Agreement in whole or part in any of the following grounds:

12.1.1. If the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre fails to provide any or all of the services for which it has been empanelled within the period(s) specified in the Agreement, or within any extension thereof if granted by the ‘’ WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme 2014 pursuant to Condition of Agreement; or

12.1.2. If the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre fails to perform any other obligation(s) under the Agreement; or

12.1.3. If the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre, under the ‘’ WBHS 2008’’ / Cashless Scheme 2014 has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or in executing the Agreement; or

12.1.4. The Licence under the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Act & Rules 2003 is revoked by the licensing authorities for any reason; or

12.2. If the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre found to be involved in or associated with any unethical illegal or unlawful activities, the Agreement shall be summarily suspended by the Authority under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme 2014 without any notice and thereafter may terminate the Agreement, after giving a show cause notice and considering its reply, if any, received within 10 days of the receipt of show cause notice; or

12.3. In case of any violation of the provisions of the Agreement by the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre such as (but not limited to), refusal of service, refusal of credit facilities to eligible beneficiaries and charging from the beneficiaries under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme 2014 or under the “Cashless Scheme,2014’’ in excess of approved rates, undertaking unnecessary procedures, prescribing unnecessary drugs / tests, deficient or defective service, overbilling and negligence in treatment, the Authority under the ‘’WBHS

2008’’ / Cashless Scheme ,2014 shall have the right to de-empanelment the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre, as the case may be.

13. INDEMNITY

13.1. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall at all times, indemnify and keep indemnified the Authority under the WBHS 2008 / Cashless Scheme ,2014 the Government against all actions, suits, claims and demands brought or made against it in respect of anything done or purported to be done by the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre in execution of or in connection with the services under this Agreement and against any loss or damage to the ‘’ WBHS 2008 ‘’/ Cashless Scheme 2014 the Government in consequence to any action or suit being brought against the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ / Cashless Scheme ,2014 the Government, along with (or otherwise), Hospital / Diagnostic Centre as a Party for anything done or purported to be done in the course of the execution of this Agreement.

13.2. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall at all times abide by the job safety measures and other statutory requirements prevalent in India and shall keep free and indemnify the Authority under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ / Cashless Scheme, 2014 from all demands or responsibilities arising from accidents or loss of life, the cause or result of which is the Hospital’s / Diagnostic Centre’s negligence or misconduct.

13.3. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall pay all indemnities arising from such incidents without any extra cost to the ‘’WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme, 2014 and shall not hold the

authority under the’’ WBHS 2008’’/ Cashless Scheme, 2014 responsible or obligated. The authority under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ / Cashless Scheme, 2014 the Government may, at its

discretion and shall always entirely at the cost of the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre, defend such suit, either jointly with the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre or singly in case the latter chooses not to defend the case.

14. PAYMENT

A. Payment under WBHS, 2008

14.1. The payment shall be made to the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre by the beneficiary directly. All bills and papers related to the beneficiaries’ treatment along with the necessary counter signatures by the authorised persons shall be handed over in original to the beneficiary.

14.2. On admission of the beneficiary, a written estimate of the expected bill shall be handed over. Whenever there is a change of setting requiring the escalation of this estimate, a fresh estimate shall be given to the patient/ patient party within 24 hours.

14.3. Online system based all reimbursement treatment related information under the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ to be inserted with Government Employee / Pensioner ID along with Patient ID after proper verification , period of treatment and expenditure amount in https://wbhealthscheme.gov.in with HCOs own user ID & password given from Medical Cell, Finance Department.

14.4. The beneficiary shall pay the costs of medical treatment to the recognised hospital/ nursing home prior to discharge. But in the case of death of a beneficiary, enrolled under the Health Scheme while receiving indoor treatment in a recognised private hospital/ nursing home, the concerned HCO shall release the dead body and, if the hospital dues remain unsettled, the hospital authority may send the bills with necessary treatment papers directly to the Medical Cell of Finance Department for clearance. The Medical Cell shall

examine the Claim and calculate the admissible amount as per provision of WBHS 2008. Thereafter,

refer the same to the concerned department for payment of the remaining dues to the respective

HCO from the relevant Head of Account.

B .Payment under ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’

14.5 The following procedures will have to be followed to provide cashless indoor (including Day Care) medical treatment facility to the eligible beneficiaries up to a ceiling of Rupees one lakh only.

14.6. The Government Employees/Pensioners and their eligible dependent(s) enrolled under the “Cashless Scheme ,2014” shall be entitled to all the benefits of the ‘’WBHS 2008’’ plus additional benefit of Cashless treatment up to Rupees One Lakh only provided the Employee/Pensioner enrols himself/herself online as per the procedure mentioned in said “Cashless Scheme’,2014”.

14.7. The concerned employees/pensioners including family pensioners would enrol themselves (starting from 15-09-2014) on West Bengal Health Scheme portal of the aforesaid website of this Department. Respective DDO of the department/office would issue enrolment certificate under his/her seal and signature through online procedure as mentioned in the aforesaid notification 4656-F(MED)dated 05-09-2014 of this department. This will serve as Health Card till such time formal Health Cards are issued.

Page 16 of 23

14.8. The beneficiary would produce this enrolment certificate/Card under “Cashless Scheme ,2014” before the approved Health Care Organisation (HCO) (website of Finance Department may be consulted for up to date approved list of such HCOs) for undergoing cashless medical treatment as provided in the West Bengal Health for All Employees and Pensioners Cashless Medical Treatment Scheme, 2014.

14.9. For undergoing cashless indoor medical treatment no advance authorization will be required by the HCO. On production of the enrolment certificate/ Card under “Cashless Scheme 2014” by the beneficiary, the HCO will login to the aforementioned website for verification of the enrolment. After

being satisfied that the beneficiary is enrolled, the medical treatment shall be extended in terms of the provisions of “Cashless Scheme,2014” as amended.

14.10. On admission of the beneficiary, a written estimate of the expected bill shall be handed over in case the expenditure exceeds Rupees one lakh. Whenever there is a change of setting requiring the escalation of this estimate, a fresh estimate shall be given to the patient/patient party within 24 hours.

14.11. No charges would be realized from the beneficiary enrolled under the present scheme up to Rupees one lakh. Where charges for treatment as per existing approved rate exceed rupees one lakh the amount over and above Rupees One lakh would be realized from the beneficiary. Original Money Receipt to be provided to Government Employee/ Pensioner regarding his/her actual payment portion only. Photocopy of details bill to be provided to Government Employee/ Pensioner. At the time of discharge, only a bill showing the charges of treatment as well as the relevant Code No(s) will be handed over to the beneficiary under receipt.

14.12. In the case of death of a Government employee/ pensioner, enrolled under the ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’, while receiving indoor treatment in a recognised private hospital/ nursing home, the concerned HCO shall release the dead body and if the hospital dues remain unsettled, the hospital authority may send the bills with necessary treatment papers directly to the Medical Cell of Finance Department for clearance of dues. The Medical Cell shall examine the Claim and calculate the admissible amount as per provision of WBHS 2008 / Cashless Scheme 2014 and make payment up to Rupees one Lakh –the cost of Cashless treatment to the HCO and may refer the same to the concerned department for payment of the remaining dues to the respective HCO/ Beneficiary from the relevant Head of Account.

14.13. If any difficulty arises in the course of implementation of the Scheme, it shall be referred to the Finance Department and the decision of the Finance Department thereon shall be final and binding on all the HCOs and the beneficiaries.

14.14 Payment will be made through direct credit in HCOs bank account through IFMS as given in the

prescribed proforma of e-pradan.

15. ARBITRATION

15.1. If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever (the decision whereof is not herein otherwise provided for) shall arise between the Authority of the ‘WBHS 2008’ or ‘Cashless Scheme, 2014 ‘and the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre upon or in relation to or in connection with or arising out of the Agreement, shall be referred to for arbitration by the Director of Medical Education, West Bengal, who shall give written award of his decision to the Parties. The decision of the Director of Medical Education, West Bengal shall be final and binding. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to the arbitration proceedings. The venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be at Kolkata.

16. MISCELLANEOUS

16.1. Nothing under this Agreement shall be construed as establishing or creating between the Parties any relationship of Master and Servant or Principal and Agent between the Authority under the WBHS 2008 or the ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’ and the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre.

16.2. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall not represent or hold itself out as agent of the authority under the WBHS 2008 or the ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’.

16.3. The authority under the WBHS 2008 or the ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’ shall not be responsible in any way for any negligence or misconduct of the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre and its employees for any accident, injury or damage sustained or suffered by any Beneficiary under the WBHS, 2008 or ‘Cashless Scheme 2014’ any third party resulting from or by any operation conducted by and on behalf of the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre or in the course of doing its work or perform their duties under this Agreement or otherwise.

16.4. The Hospital / Diagnostic Centre shall notify the authority under the WBHS 2008 or the ‘Cashless Scheme,2014’ of any material change in their status and their shareholdings or that of any Guarantor of the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre where such change would have an impact on the performance of obligation under this Agreement.

16.5. This Agreement may be modified or altered only on written agreement signed by both

Page 18 of 23

the parties.

16.6. If the Hospital gets wound up or partnership is dissolved, the authority under the WBHS 2008 or the ‘Cashless Scheme,2014’ shall have the right to terminate the Agreement. The termination of Agreement shall not relieve the Hospital or their heirs and legal representatives from the liability in respect of the services provided by the Hospital during the period when the Agreement was in force.

16.7. The Hospital shall bear all expenses incidental to the preparation and stamping of this Agreement.

17. NOTICES

17.1. Any notice given by one party to the other pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent to other party in writing by registered post ,E-mail or by facsimile and confirmed by original copy by post to the other Party’s address as below.

WBHS 2008 or the ‘Cashless Scheme2014’: ___________________________________________.

Hospital / Diagnostic Centre with address:

(____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____)

A notice shall be effective when served or on the notice’s effective date, whichever is

later. Registered communication shall be deemed to have been served even if it

returned with remarks like refused, left, premises locked, etc

Annexure-I

Rate schedule for Package, procedures and Investigations.

Annexure – II

Performance Bank Guarantee

To:

WHEREAS _____________________________________________________(Name of Hospital / Diagnostic Centre with Address) has undertaken to render the following services to the beneficiaries under the West Bengal Health Scheme, 2008 /Cashless Scheme ,2014

___________________________________________________ (Description of Services) hereinafter called “the Agreement”.

AND WHEREAS it has been stipulated by you in the said Agreement that the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre selected for empanelment shall furnish you with a bank Guarantee by a Schedule Bank of RBI as recognised by Finance Department, Government of West Bengal for the sum specified therein as security for compliance with the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre performance obligations in accordance with the Agreement.

AND WHEREAS we have agreed to give the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre a guarantee:

Now, THEREFORE, we hereby affirm that we are Guarantors and responsible to you, on behalf of Hospital / Diagnostic Centre (herein after referred to “the Second Part,” up to a total of_________________________________(Amount of the guarantee in Words and Figures) and we hereby irrevocably, unconditionally and absolutely undertake to immediately pay you, upon your first written demand declaring the Second Part to be in default under the Agreement and without cavil or argument, any sum or sums within the limit of ___________________________ as aforesaid, without your needing to prove or to show this grounds or reasons for your demand or the sum specified therein. This guarantee is valid until the

___________ day of ______________ 20____.

Signature and Seal of Guarantors

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

Date _____________________________________

Address: _____________________________________

Amount of Performance Bank Guarantee to be obtained from the Hospital / Diagnostic Centre at the time of signing the Agreement:-
A. Class-1 Multispeciality Hospital : Rs. 2,50,000/-
B. Class-2 Multispeciality Hospital : Rs. 2,00,000/-
C. Class-3 Multispeciality Hospital : Rs. 1,50,000/-
D. Class-1 Unispeciality Hospital : Rs. 2,00,000/-
E. Class-2 Unispeciality Hospital : Rs. 1,50,000/-
F. Class-3 Unispeciality Hospital : Rs. 1,00,000/-
G. Class-1 Diagnostic Centres : Rs. 1,00,000/-
H. Class-2 Diagnostic Centres : Rs. 75,000/-
I. Class-3 Diagnostic Centres : Rs. 50,000/-

IN WITNESSES WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed and executed on the day, month and the year first above mentioned.

Signed by

For and on behalf of
The Governor of West Bengal

In the
Presence of

(Witnesses)
1.

2.

Signed by

For and on behalf of (Hospital / Diagnostic

Centre)

Duly authorized vide Resolution No. ………

dated ……. of (name of Hospital /

Diagnostic Centre)

In the presence of

(Witnesses)

1.

2.

Page 23 of 23

Petition of Civil Revision Before the District Court [Format]

BEFORE THE LD DISTRICT JUDGE AT HOWRAH

Civil Revisional jurisdiction

Civil Revision no                  OF      2019

 In the Mater of

An application U/S 115 A of The Civil Procedure  Code [ West Bengal State Amendment]

And

In the matter of

  XYZ Chess Association

                             ……   Petitioner Revisionist /Defendant

vs

 District Chess association

                                        …….     Respondent/Plaintiff

And

In the matter of

An Impugned order Dated 29.03.2019 passed by the ld 3rd Civil Judge Juniur Division in Title suit No 1444 of 2017, thereby imposed huge cost in the tune of Rs 5000/- for causing Delay.

And in the matter of

Interpretation and application of Section 35 B of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with the propriety of the and non-application of mind while applying ‘Discretion’ and entering in the realm of fancy while imposing Cost .

And in the matter of

Over  application of jurisdiction and Reading down the law for suitability of a flawed argument

And in the matter of

 Dist Chess Association

                                        ….Plaintiff

Vs

 XYZ Chess Association

                                  …. Respondent

Value of the Suit Rs 2000/-

Value of the Revision: Same as above

Court fees paid accordingly

Humble Civil Revision application on behalf of the revisionist Bengal Chess Association

Most respectfully:-

  1. Syllabus: Whether judicial fancy can be permitted to take over the judicial discretion by undermining the prudence of law.
  2. Brief facts: On pleasure, the Ld trial judge imposed an unrealistic Cost in the tune of Rs 5000/- for causing delay while listening a solemn petition of vacating Ex-parte Order by the defendant XYZChess Association.
  3. The Revision: Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the applicant begs to prefer the application on the following grounds :

Grounds

  1. That the ld trial judge ought to decide the application for vacating Ex parte Order on merit at first and then to impose cost, and not to put cost before the merit .
  2. That the ld trial judge failed to catch the spirit of the Section 35 B of the Code of Civil Procedure while imposing cost for causing delay. The ld trial judge failed appreciate the bona fide of the vacating application.
  3. That the ld trial judge failed to apply discretion while imposing cost in the tune of Rs 5000/- and then act judiciously.
  4. That the ld trial judge overwhelmed by emotion , than to guided by judicial mind.

 

                                                        Prayer :

Therefore it is most humbly prayed that your honour would graciously be pleased to call for records.

Issue a rule calling for the Respondent /plaintiff to show cause as to why the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the ld 3rd Civil Judge Jr Division, Howrah in Title suit No 1444 of 2017 be not set aside  and the application for vacating Ex parte order be allowed by imposing lesser amount as cost.

On hearing make the rule absolute

And/ or puss such other or further order or orders as your honour may dim fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as duty bound and shall ever Pray.

Affidavit

I ……. aged…..

 

 

Prepared in my Office

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

18/6/1 Danesh Sk Lane,
Howrah, West Bengal
Pin-711109
Email: advtanmoy@gmail.com

Web: advocatetanmoy.com

 

Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court [Format]

1. Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India any person aggrieved by any judgment, decree, determination or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India may appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

Accordingly a person aggrieved by any order or judgment of High Court or of Tribunal may appeal to the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition.

2. Procedure for filing Special Leave Petition (SLP)

  1. Time Limit
    The Rules Governing SLP are contained in order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966. Under the said Rules, SLP can be filed against either the Order of High Court rejecting petition for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of India; i.e., on High Court refusing to grant Certificate of Fitness for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court or against the Order/Judgment itself. It is also possible to file SLP against the Judgment of the High Court either in Writ Petition or in the Income-tax Reference. If the Petition is filed against the Judgment of the High Court, the time limit is 90 days from the date of Judgment/Order and if the Petition is filed against the Order of High Court refusing to grant Certificate of Fitness for Appeal, the time limit is 60 days from the date of Order refusing to grant Certificate. The above time limit is subject to the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the Judgment/Order; i.e., subject to Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  2. Preparation of petition
    1. The petition should state succinctly and clearly all facts as may be necessary to enable the Court to determine whether SLP ought to be granted or not! The petition should be signed by Advocate on record of the Petition.
      The petition should contain statement as to whether the petitioner had filed any petition in the High Court for Leave to appeal to Supreme Court or not! The petition should also contain a statement that no other SLP has been filed by the Petitioner against the Order appealed.
    2. The petition should be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment appealed against and an affidavit of Petitioner verifying the petition.
    3. The annexures to the Petition; i.e., Exhibits to the Petition should be certified copies of documents which had formed part of the record in the High Court. If the certified copies are not available, uncertified copies can be filed and an affidavit verifying the Annexures as true copy should also be filed.
    4. The petitioners has to file seven copies of the petition.
    5. The petition is required to be filed on white paper and not on green ledger paper.
    6. The petition should be cyclostyled, if possible, typed or printed.
  3. Affidavit
    1. Affidavit verifying the petition is required to be filed along with the SLP. The affidavit should be typed on plain white paper;
    2. Affidavit verifying the uncertified copies of the Exhibits/Annexures should be filed;
    3. If the petition is filed beyond 60/90 days the affidavit should be filed explaining the time taken for obtaining certified copy and/or the reason for delay.
  4. Interim relief

    If any interim relief is required a separate application should be filed giving facts and circumstances as to why interim relief is sought from the Court.

  5. Court fees payable
    1. On the SLP, the Court fees payable is Rs. 250/-;
    2. In case of petition on certificate granted by High Court, the Court fees payable is Rs. 250/- if the amount in dispute is Rs. 20,000/- or less and for every Rs. 1,000/- in excess of Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 5/- but the maximum Court fees payable does not exceed Rs. 2,000/-.
  6. Vakalatnama

    The petitioner should appoint an Advocate on record in New Delhi and send a Vakalatnama in favour of the proposed Advocate on record who will be filing the SLP.

  7. Verifications

    The affidavits can be verified in Mumbai or any other place either before Notary or before the Advocate of the High Court.

In the Supreme Court of India
[Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Special Leave Petition
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special Leave Petition (Civil No. of 200 )
(against the final Judgment and order dated of the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at on C.I.T. Appeal No. of )

Between
……………….
Petitioner
And
……………….
Respondents

(For Index please see inside)

Advocate for the Petitioner

Index
Record of Proceedings

Sr. No. Particulars Page Nos.
1.    
2.    
3.    
4.    
5.    

  Index

  1. Office Report on Limitation A
  2. Synopsis and List of Dates B
  3. Copy of final Judgment and order dated —— passed by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. —— 1
  4. Special Leave Petition with affidavit.

In the Supreme Court of India
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
S.L.P. Civil No. ——— of 200

In the matter of
……………….
……….Petitioner
Versus
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Special Range, Mumbai and Anr
……Respondents

Office Report on limitation
The above petition is within time

Dt. (Section Officer)

Dt. (Section Officer)
Date Events
31-3 Previous year ended relevants to A. Y.
  Asst. Order
  Appeal filed before CIT(A)
  order of CIT(A)
  Appeal filed before I.T.A.T.
  Order of I.T.A.T.
  Appeal filed in High Court
  order and judgment of High Court
  S.L.P. filed
  In this Hon’ble Court.

In the Supreme Court of India
[Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Special Leave Petition
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special leave petition (Civil No. of 200 )

(Against the final Judgment and order dated of the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Mumbai on Income-tax Appeal No. of)

Between Petition
And Respondents

The Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India
and his companion judges of the
Supreme Court of India.

This Special Leave Petition of the petitioner abovenamed most respectfully sheweth:

  1. By this Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India Special Leave to Appeal is sought against the final Judgment and order dated ——— passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. of rejecting the Appeal of the Petitioner
  2. Questions of law : Following questions of law arises for consideration of this Hon’ble Court Declaration in terms of Rule 4(2)
  3. The Petitioner have not filed any other special leave petition touching the subject matter of the present petition
  4. Declaration in terms of Rule 6
    The Annexures produced along with the Special Leave Petition are the true copy of the pleadings and documents which found part of the records of the case in the Court below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petitions.
  5. Grounds:
    Being aggrieved by the final Judgment and order dated ———— passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. of the Petitioner hereby apply for Special Leave to Appeal on the following amongst other grounds which are taken without prejudice to each other :
  6. Grounds for interim Relief:
  7. Main Prayer:
    The Petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

    1. grant special leave to appeal to the Petitioner against the Final Judgment and order dated ——— passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. of
    2. pass any such order or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.
  8. Interim Relief.
Date
New Delhi
Filed by
Advocate for the Petitioner

Certificate in view of sub-clause 1 rule 4 order XVI

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confirm only tot he pleadings before the High Court whose order is challenged and the documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner person authorised by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the SLP.

Date
New Delhi
Filed by
Advocate for the Petitioner

In the Supreme Court of India
[Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Special Leave Petition
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
Special leave petition (Civil No. of 200
)

(Against the final Judgment and order dated of the Hon’ble Court of Judicature at Mumbai on Income-tax Appeal No. of 200 )

Between
having its office at
Petitioner
And

1. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range, Mumbai, having his office at Matru Mandir, Tardeo; Mumbai-400 034

 
2. Union of India, through Ministry of Law, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road,Mumbai-400 020 Respondents

Affidavit

I, ————————— of the Petitioner No. 1, aged about —— years, residing at ————————— do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

  1. That I am ———— of the Petitioner in the above matter and I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, as gathered from the records of the case. As such I am competent to affirm this Affidavit.
  2. That I have read contents of para 1 to —— in page Nos. —— to —— of the accompanying Special Leave Petition filed against the Impugned Judgment and order dated –––––– of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No. ——— of 200 and have understood the same. I state that the facts stated in the Petition are true to my knowledge as gathered from the records of the case. Parties to the present Petition are the same as they were before the Courts below.
  3. That I have read the accompanying list of dates and event from page ——— to ——— and prayers and say that what is stated therein is true to my knowledge and belief.
  4. That Certified copy of impugned judgment and order dated ——— of the High Court is filed with the Petition.
  5. The accompanying Annexures to the Petition are true copies of their respective originals.
  6. That the Petitioners have not filed any other petition before this Hon’ble Court against the Impugned Judgment and order dated ——— of the High Court.
  7. No facts which are not pleaded before the Court below have been pleaded in the affidavit.

Deponent

Verification

I, the Deponent abovenamed do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to —— of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge, no part of its is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at Mumbai on this ——— day of ——— 200
dvocate for the Petitioner

ADepondent
Before me
Associate High Court, Bombay

In the Supreme Court of India
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Special leave Petition (Civil)
No.——— of 200

….    Petitioner
V/s _________________________ Respondent
Affidavit of dated ——— 200 of

Mr. —————— on behalf of the
Petitioner

 

Complaint Before state Consumer Commission [Format]

BEFORE THE HOM’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST BENGAL BHABANI BHAWAN, KOLKATA-700027

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO _CC35/2012

In the Matter of:
A complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Rules made thereunder

AND

In the Matter of

THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
( A GOVT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
NILHAT HOUSE( 9TH & 10TH FLOOR)
11, R. N MUKHERJEE ROAD KOLKATA-1
REPRESENTED BY
MR.—-xxxxxx————–
———COMPLAINANT

—–VESSUS—

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
( A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
KOLKATA REGIONAL OFFICE,
HIMALAYA HOUSE 3RD FLOOR,
38B JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD
KOLKATA -71
—–OPPOSITE PARTY

ADVOCATE- ON -RECORD.
SERVICE ADDRESS-

TANMOY xxxxxxxxx
VIVEK xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18/8/1 DANESH SK LANE , HOWRAH-9
TEL – Xxxxxx

VALUE OF THIS COMPLAINT Rs.- 90,94881/-

The Hon’ble President and his Companion members of the State Commission

The humble complaint of the complainant above-named most respectfully submits as follows:-

The claim in brief

Standard Fire Policy was taken for nine consecutive months for 44,048 Mt Non- Cooking coal@ Rs. 2043.22 PMt.
Due to unilateral imposition of the of Policy Excess at the second and third phase of policy spanning for nine months of a continuous Standard Fire Insurance Policy was settled by Rs.71.728/- against the claim of Rs. 80,59,881 /-due to spontaneous combustion caused huge loss.
The Lose in brief

The first incident of fire was reported by the insured STC on 25.01.2006 to the united India insurance Co., against that they replied vide letter dated 25.01.2006, inter alia directed not to disturb the affected area and let the stock remain as it was with the ignite state and then the second incident of fire was reported by STC on 16.02.2006, against that insurance replied on 17.02.2006 inter alia stated that unless and until there is any physical lose of the coal stock due to any insured peril for which physical inspection has to be carried out by IRDA accredited surveyor they will not entertain any incidents although reported by STC from time to time, then further on 21.02.2006 STC wrote that without manipulation of the pile of coal there was no possibility to quantify the loses and by the same letter they requested for appointment of surveyor to measure the lose. Then other incidents of fire was reported 21.04.2006, 26.04.2006, 08.05.2006, 23.05.2006 and 12.05.2006, which was as per report received from STC appointed surveyor in the occasion of insurance`s failure to appoint their surveyor to ascertain the lose. The dates of loses were intimated as per volumetric measurement of gross lose of 4439.364MTs as the under writers did not authorize segregation of the burnt coal and the same time request for surveyor from the side of insurance also went unheeded. After a hectic exercise of correspondence a surveyor from the side of insurance were issued after a long lapses of time, and a joint survey report on 28.08.2006 was prepared and the lose was estimated 3948.590 MT which is only 11% less of above estimation.

The law points

Whether Fire Insurance Tariff (Wording & Rates) is a Public Document like Railways & Custom Tariff and whether the insurance company has any right to change and or alter it for imposing Special Condition of policy deductibles or excess at heir sweet will?

Whether Joint Survey Report of Assessment of Loss by two IRDA accredited Surveyors representing insured and insurers can be disowned under any circumstances when it is recommended by the Insurers?

Whether when there is no “Duration Clause” under Fire Policy, then in that circumstances a claim of any duration is payable under the policy can be repudiated under Indian Contract Act?.

Whether a single incident of continuous Self Combustion of Coal can be segregated in parts subsequently in different occation on the visual basis of reporting after reporting the first incident to adjust the Special Policy Excess clauses in favour of insurer?
Whether the Insurer can go against their own direction?

THE POLICY

1. That the State Trading Corporation(Here in after STC) of India is a Govt of India undertaking entered into a insurance contract with the United India Insurance Company Ltd( Here in after UII) and had taken Standard Fire Insurance Policy for for a period of three months. And the policy was extended for next three months and again the same policy was extended with the same condition for another three months.The United India Insurance Company Ltd issued multiple policy numbers for a total policy period covering a span of total none months from 26.1.2005 to 25.7 2006 for their 44,048 Mt Non- Cooking coal lying in two plots (OLD GENERAL GOOD SHED AND “B” TYPE QUARTER PLOT) of Visakhapattanam Port( Andhra Pradesh). A full description of the policies are as under.

NO POLICY PERIOD POLICY NO SUM INSURED RISK COVERED POLICY EXCESS RS.

1. 26.10.2005 TO 25.1.06(three months) 031100/11/05/00353 NINE CRORE SPONTANEOUS
COMBATION 10, 000/-
2. 26.1.2006 TO 25.4.2006(three months) 031100/11/05/00508 NINE CRORE SPONTANEOUS
COMBATION 10,000/-
.3. 26.4 2006 TO 25.7 2006(three months) 031100/11/06/11/00000096 EIGHT CRORE NINETY NINE LAKH NINETY-NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE ONLY SPONTANIOUS
COMBINATION 20, 00000/- (imposed later unilaterally without knowledge of the insured by using forged documents)

2. That the whole stock of Non- Cooking coal ( bulk) was insured for a sum of Rs. Nine Crores and no portion of the stock was removed in the policy period i.e 26.10.2005 to 25.7 2006(total nine months ) or misused by the Complainant State Trading Corporation(STC) at any relevant time. Fire insurance Policy with Spontaneous Combustion peril Add- on Cover of coal stock as valued @ Rs. 2043.22 per metric Ton for a Stock of quantity weighting 44048MTs was initially taken for three months then extended for consecutively three months and three months on the same conditions and for the same insured money. Total policy period was Nine months.
Xerox Copies of the Insurance policies are attached herewith and collectively marked as A-1/ A-2 /A-3 (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )
3. That under the first two policy period covering a period of six months from 26. 10 .05 to 25. 4. 2006, in its policy paper included a clause of ”policy excess” of Rs. 10,000/- for each and every loss, which the Insurer and the Insured were well aware and mutually agreed. and on the same basis , for the third time when the policy was extended for a period of three months (26 .4 2006 TO 25.7 2006), it was understood that the same condition as agreed for the first two policies would be extended. Policy proposal from the side of STC was advanced with the same impression of facts that the policy Excess will be Rs. 10,000/- as earlier. But later shockingly it was discovered that the insurance company unilaterally imposed “Special excess of 2% of sum insured subject to minimum of RS. 20 Lacks” clause without the knowledge of STC and in violation of provisions made in Indian Contract Act 1882. Discovering this STC immediately registered their protest with insurance company.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 1.9.2006 by STC TO THE UII attached herewith and marked as B (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

4. That the complainant STC in several instances communicated with the Insurance Company highlighting it`s Unilateral imposition of 20 Lacs of Policy Excess in the third policy, but the Insurance Company chose to be remain silent . STC took the pain to rise the issue with Insurance Regulatory authority pointing the absurdity of the of the Policy Access clause if taken in its face value, over looking the violation of Indian Contract Act against a Govt . Company( STC) by an another Govt company( United Insurance) of imposition of unilateral “Excess” clause. .
5. Xerox copies of the letter dated 30.8.2006 to the UII and the Communication to the IRDA dated 1.9.2006 are annexed herewith and collectively marked as C , D (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

6. That after discovery and being aware of the unilateral imposition of the extraordinary and exorbitant Special excess of Rs. 20 Lacs on the third policy period , STC approached National Insurance , Kolkata DO-XI 19 R.N Mukherjee Road Kol-1. National Insurance ( Another Govt Company indulging in the same general insurance business) agreed with the standard Policy Excess of Rs. 10,000/- and issued a policy affected for a period from 26.07.06 to 24.10.06 as per then prevailing All India Fire Tariff norms and regulation. This proved beyond doubt that UII is indulging in “restrictive trade practice” along with “unfair trade practice” in the area of Insurance business. Due to this STC incurred huge losses.
In this policy its spontaneous combustion clause suggests that ” in case of any smoke comming from coal stock immediately water is to be spread in order to cooling down the coal”
A xerox copy of the policy dated27.7.2006 with the National Insurance is attached here with and marked as E (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

7. That by a letter dated 17.7.2006 STC while pointing out the above mentioned fact inter alia wrote to the UII–
“ You have never informed us about the above condition( 20 lacs policy excess) while we paid the premium to you . The “ standard Fire and Special Peril Policy” for which we proposed for the insurance and the policy you have issued to us must be governed by the Fire Tariff Of IRDA in respect of rates /wordings/ endorsements/ add- on covers etc. and as per norms all Fire policy must be in strict conformity with the codified provision s of All India Fire Tariff( AIFT). We request you please appreciate that we, as a public Sector Company can not compromise with the risk coverage at all. as an underwriter , of course you had the option not to accept the risk . But having accepted the risk under AIFT you can not unilaterally impose any condition outside the ambit of the AIFA, on the back door without the knowledge of the insured. We consider this as a gross violation of the Tariff.”
By this letter STC requested and call upon the insurance company to correct the anomaly .
A xerox copy of the letter dated 17.7.2006 is attached here with and marked as – F- (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

8. That by a letter dated 1.11.2006 to the IRDA, STC made a representation about the failure of the United Insurance to supply the Proposal form .
Again by a letter dated 1.11.2006 STC made a heartily request to the United Insurance to supply the proposal pertaining to the third insurance being policy number 03 /11/06/11/00000096 which they failed to supply within the 30 days of acceptance of the Policy . in this letter STC wrote –
“ In view of the above , we would once again request you to kindly comply with IRDA regulations. Since the dispute of unilateral imposition of Rs. 20 Lacs excess under the above policy was referred to IRDA, We need to send the proposal form to them for their decision.”
A xerox copy of the letter dated 1.11.06 to the IRDA and United Insurance attached herewith and collectively marked as G1, G2 (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

9. That On 6.11.2006 the United insurance supplied the much-expecting Proposal form which was signed by the STC at the time of acceptance of the policy. This proposal Form was devoid of any Policy Access condition and in printed formate. but after receiving it , it was found that last page ( Page Three) at the side of the Declaration somebody penned “ As per your proforma bill dated 25.4.06“ which was initially not at the time of making. STC promptly communicate this over telephone.
A Xerox copy of the Proposal dated 25.4.06 has been attached herewith and marked as H (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

10. That by a letter dated 18.7.2006 UII inter alia accepted the following-
“ As per your contention that Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy is governed by the Fire Tariff you are correct in this regard. However , imposition of excess/ special condition warranties and endorsement are imposed considering the exposer/ type/ nature of risk by the underwriters during the time of acceptance”
The above mentioned Proposal does not support the view of the UII and further more imposition of any thing contrary to the standard Tariff regime is contravention of law to deprive the lawful claim of the insured , in this case the victim is STC.
Again in this letter UII put blames on the STC that it had discussed the matter pertaining to the Policy excess with STC official MR. Sharma( Manager Marketing) is pure invention,imagination and conjecture, which is cooked up and after thought at the occasion of the claim. Without prejudice under the strict proof of evidence STC is challenging the UII.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 18.7.06 attached herewith and marked as I (INTERNAL PAGE NO- )

11. That the proposal was preferred on 25. 4.06 from the side of the STC and after due deliberation it was accepted by the UII on 26.4.25 for a period of three month dated from 26.4.06 to 25.7.06 . Receipt was issued on 28.4.2006. But policy schedule document ( ANNEXURE A-3) was manufactured after the policy had been taken out by the STC . The Computer generated paper shows the date of origin of that paper , which is AKG L36361-03/05/2006. IN THIS DOCUMENT 20 LACS POLICY ACCESS CLAUSE IMPOSED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF STC. This mischief had been organized to frustrate our claim under the third phase of extended policy.

THE BACKGROUND

12. That by a letter dated 25.1 2006 for the first time to the United insurance, STC informed the following-
“ WE have been informed today morning by ———- our Clearing & handling Agent that they have noticed some smoke in the stocks of coal lying at Vizag, which they put of by sprinkling water on it. This has been intimated to our surveyor M/S BSI Inspectorate India Pvt Ltd regarding above incident.”
By this letter inter alia request was made to deploy a surveyor from the side of UII.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated of STC 25.1.06 attached herewith and marked as J

13. In reply to the said intimidation vide their letter Ref 031100/ Fire-CLM/06 dated 25.01.06 inter alia instructed “ not to disturb the affected area and let it remain as it was “. Due to this standing instruction, the surveyor on behalf could not able to ascertain the actual loss due to fire .

A Xerox copy of the letter dated 25.1.06 of UII attached herewith and marked as- K

14. The second intimation had been communicated on behalf of STC to the UII by a letter dated 16.2.06. in response to the to that letter UII by a letter dated 17.2. 06 inter alia stating –
“ Unless and until there is any physical loss of coal stock due to any insured peril for which physical inspection has been carried out by IRDA accredited surveyor, we will not be in position to proceed to entertain any of your such alleged incidents being reported by you from time to time . Please take note of the same and revert back”
Again by a letter dated 21.2.2006 STC inter alia mentioned -” In view of your advice not to disturb the area , it was not possible for us to ascertain the losses. Please appreciate the fact that unless the peril is dug up and brunt out ash removed/ segregated it would not be possible to quantify the losses.
You are , therefore, requested to depute your representative/ surveyor to Visakapattanam so as to conduct survey in presence of our surveyors, BSI Inspectorate india Pvt. Ltd and ascertain the loss quantity “.

A Xerox copy of the letter dated 17.2.06 and 21.2.2006 attached herewith and marked as -L1 ,L2

15. That when the first incident was reported to the United India Insurance , it put an embargo for not disturbing the affected stock and leave it as it is and as it is where. STC surveyor M/S Inspectorate Griffith India ( IGI), an accredit surveyor time to time took the volumetric measurement of the stock and the same was communicated to the UII accordingly. By a letter dated 14.7.2007 STC gave a feed back to the UII, inter alia citing the policy wise loss and the quantum of loss thereunder assessed by volumetric measurement. It was measured a loss of 4439.364MTS Then again by a letter dated dated 25.7.06 STC finally intimated to the UII that as per volumetric measurement total Spontaneous combat ion of coal stands 4439.364 MT. Due to non segregation or bifurcation stipulated by the standing instruction on part of the UII, only volumetric measurement could be possible and M/S Inspectorate Griffith India ( IGI) . In this regard standard practice and survey norms were followed. Later in there joint measurement UII’S surveyor also followed the same standard and norms. as a Public sector company STC could not accept any unscientific methodology. Full particular of the incident is as below-

POLICY PARTICULARS NAME OF THE PLOT DATE OF THE INCIDENT LOSS OF QUANTITY(MT)
1.(a) 031100/11/05/00353 OLD GENERAL GOOD SHED 25.01.06 22.000
031100/11/05/00353 B” TYPE QUARTER PLOT ( 25.01.06 18.000 TOTAL 40MT(1+2) ON 25.1.06 VALUE RS 87729/-
POLICY EXESS RS. 10000/-
031100/11/05/00508 OLD GENERAL GOOD SHED
(VALUE 10.02.06 TO 11.02.06,
15.2.02.06 TO 16.02.06,
20.02.06 TO 22.02.06 90.000
031100/11/05/00508 “B” TYPE QUARTER PLOT 10.02.06 TO 11.02.06,
15.02.06 TO 16.02.06,
.20.02.06 TO 22.02.06 50.000TOTAL 140MT (3+4)ON 25.1.06
POLICY EXESS RS. 10000/-
VALUE RS 286048/-
031100/11/05/00508 OLD GENERAL GOOD SHED 24.02 .2006 TO26.02.2006 1039.868 POLICY EXESS RS. 10000/-
VALUE RS 2124679/-
031100/11/05/00508 B” TYPE QUARTER PLOT 14.03.2006 TO 16.03.2006 957.496 POLICY EXESS RS. 10000/-
VALUE RS. 1956375/-
2(b) 031100/11/06/11/00000096 OLD GENERAL GOOD SHED 27.04.2006
TO 29.4.2006 1062.000SPECIAL POLICY ACCESS OF RS 20 LACS INPOSED
VALUE RS.2169900/-
031100/11/06/11/00000096 OLD GENERAL GOOD SHED 3.5.2006 TO 8.5.2006 1200.000SPECIAL POLICY EXCESS OF RS 20 LACS IMPOSED
VALUE RS.2451864/-

TOTAL LOSS ASCERTAINED 4439.364 MT.VALUE RS. 50,16,59/-AFTER DEDUCTING RELEVANT POLICY EXESS

A Xerox copy of the letter dated14.9.2007 and 25. 7.06 attached herewith and marked as M1, M2

16. That by several letter STC intimated the occurrence of fire and requested the United Insurance to appoint their surveyor . By a letter dated 11.8.06 STC in formed that if united India fails to a- ppoint surveyor then in that occasion STC would appoint IRDA acredited “A” category surveyor and put up the claim bill to the insurance company accompanied with the survey fees bill . In this regard STC appointed M/S J. B Boda Surveyors Pvt Ltd to assess the loss.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 11.8.06 attached herewith and marked as N ( Internal page no )

17. That a series of communication had been send to the UII and consequential request of appointing of surveyor had been made. UII choose not to pay heed of this . From the day one that is 25.1.2006, when it was for the first time reported that smoke had been detected on the superficial level of the stock till the end of the third policy period , the fire was never extinguished in depth of the pile / bulk of the stock. Only an honest attempt was made to stop it by sprinkling water on the outer surface. That attempt might stopped gussying out of the smoke but never ceased to exist at the bottom of the pile. If there no un- intelligent embargo was put to the STC and had the STC been allowed to dig or segregate the pile , may the fire could be stopped to spread its tentacle. Fire never extinguished , so occasional vomiting of smoke is very natural or consequential. STC reported the same and requested to appoint surveyor promptly. Inspectorate Griffit India Pvt Ltd, a well known survey agency was deputed by the STC to assess loss periodically and the same was passed to the UII. UII was duty bound to appoint their surveyor to assess the quantum of loss then to believe STC or its survey or Inspectorate Griffit India Pvt Ltd, who made volumetric measurement time to time and finally the quantum of loss assessed a loss of 4439.364MTs. By a letter dated 25.7.2006, this was communicated to the UII.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 25.7.06 attached herewith and marked as N1 ( Internal page no- )

18. That after a long time after the completion of the policy period ended on 25.7.06 , united insurance appointed one surveyor Mr Prasad Babu . By a letter dated 14.8. 2006 United Insurance communicated this to the STC . Mr Prasad babu By his letter dated 16. 8.06 confirmed his appointment as a surveyor . In his letter he mentioned about his personal knowledge-
“ As per the information gathered by me that you have imported thermal coal in bulk was 44,048 MT and stored at the above two plots for for the period from July , 2005 to till date and during this period number of times or occasions , they have reported that smokes was emanated from these due to spontaneous combustion and when ever they were observing smoke they use to sprinkle water and they have not sought any service of VPT fire wing.
It was also further ascertained by me that your Surveyor M/S Inspectorate Griffith India Private Ltd, have conducted joint physical stock verifications, issued reports and based on those report, you have intimated to the insurers through letter dated 25th July that 4,439.36MT was involved or damaged due to reported spontaneous combustion on number of occasions, kindly provide me such copies of survey reports along with measurements.”
As per his demand all necessary papers were supplied. In his letter inter alia he had shown interest in joint physical examination for volumetric measurement.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 14.8.06 of UII and letter dated 16.8.06 by Prasad Babu attached herewith and marked as O ( Internal page no- )
19. That on 28.08. 06 a joint verification was made by D.S Prasad Babu and the stock verified stands 40099.410 MT against the discharged quantity of 44048 MT. So apparent loss of stock due to combustion was 3948.59 MT. of thermal coal.
A xerox copy of the stock verification certificate dated 28 .08. 06 attached herewith and marked as P ( Internal page no- )

20. That by a letter dated 22.1 2008 to the UII, the STC inter alia registered their objection about the joint Survay report by the following way in page no 1-

“ It was imperative for the surveyor to let us know about the assessment of loss before submission of the Survay report but your Surveyor preferred to keep us in dark in the matter contrary to the market practice”
In this letter STC pointed out some major inconsistency or contradiction of the Survey Report.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 22.1.2008 by STC attached herewith and marked as Q ( Internal page no- )

21. That again by a letter dated 23.6.2008 STC clarified the whole matter encompassing the loss along with the policy excess matter and an assessment of loss in terms of money to the UII. in this letter in page number 5 the loss computed Rs 43,94,832/- for the first two policy period and Rs 621764/- for the third policy period taking under consideration of 20 lacs policy excess. Though STC never recognize this unilateral imposition of policy excess. With all honesty , and conformity with the policy contract the assessment was made . The total loss was calculated Rs. 50,16,595/- after deducting policy excess in each reported incident. Though there was several reporting of the incident to the UII for appointing of the surveyor to assess the loss then and there and settle it accordingly. However the STC always maintained that there exist but only single case of fire due to self combustion which never ceased or passivated and started again afresh to constitute a second incident. But for the taming and controlling the escalating controversies settled it once for all with Rs. 50,16,595/-.
Unfortunately the matter never settled so STC are orced to start this proceeding.
A xerox copy of the stock verification certificate dated 23 .06. 08 attached herewith and marked as R ( Internal page no- )

22. That D.S Prasad Babucould could able to made his observation only on 6 th October 2008 . Inter alia in his observation in page no two that-
“ even thou , the cost of above observed shortage of imported coal works out to Rs 80, 66, 969. 37/—- but after application number of excess considering number of events or accidents, locations, finally net loss assessment is NIL”.
Prasad Babu came to this conclusion after putting several blames on the head of STC, however he never disclosed in his letter that why he not appreciated his own measurement done in joint stock verification dated 28.8.06.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 6.10.2008 by Prasad Babu attached herewith and marked as RI ( Internal page no- )

23. That by a letter 17 Apl.2008 regarding the anomalies in the survey report the STC categorically addressed the issues point -wise but there was no response either from the side of UII or its Surveyor, then again by a letter dated 5.11.2008 to the Surveyor D.S Prasad Babu again clarified the whole objections and the back grounds of the reported incidents. In this letter inter alia in the para no 11 the STC clarified-
“ technically there was only one loss of spontaneous combustion in each of the stake during the whole policy period( from Oct 2005 to Jul 2006) of three policies since there was no destacking/ rolling etc of the both coal stacks( as per instructions of the underwriter vide their letter— 21.1. 06). As IGI, our Surveyor does not know insurance policy conditions , they noted and considered the dates of loss only when fire surfaced on the top of the coal stacks. Scientifically, spontaneous combustion should continue ceaselessly in undisturbed coal stacks untill and unless the oxidization which results the combustion can be stopped by destaking or by any other means. From the view of the matter scientifically it is a single loss and the dates of losses are not relevant at all but STC reported losses to the underwriters from time to time as in event IGI ‘s report and thus the under writer need s to consider their relevance vis- a-vis the impact of varying policy excess.

A Xerox copy of the letter dated 17.4.2008 and 5.11.2008 by STC attached herewith and marked as S1 , S2 ( Internal page no- )

24. That subsequently on the basis of the report submitted by Prasad Babu, United India insurance by its letter dated 24.7.2009 agreed to settle the claim ( claim no. 031100/11/05/11/90000010) arising out of damages caused by fire firstly reported no 25.1.06 and it was reported for the last time and finally on 8.5.2006. In their settlement letter they put policy excess Rs Ten Lacs for the second policy period which is completely wrong and without any basis and in this regard no body has any in formation of this . This has only 10000/- policy excess. this one is pure invention to frustrate the claim of the STC . And about Rs 20 lacks excess STC always objected the same in all quarters.

United India insurance agreed to settle the claim with a paltry amount in the following manner–

DATE OF LOSS WITH POLICY NO LOSS OF QUANTITY VALUE POLICY EXCESS NET LOSS ASSESSED
25/1/2006, 26/10/05 TO 25/1/2006
031100110511000000353 40 MT 81728.40 10000/- 71728.40
10/11.2.06, 15/16.2.06, 20/22.2.06, 26/10/06 TO25/4/06
03110011051100000508 140MT 286049.40 100000/- NIL
27/28.4.26, 26/04/06 TO 25/7/06 03110011051100000096 749.094MT 1530556.30 200000/- NIL
3/4.05.2006 757.496MT 1547723.40 200000/- NIL

A Xerox copy of the letter dated 24.7.2009 by UII attached herewith and marked as T ( Internal page no- )

25. That Insurance Surveyor, Mr. D.S. Prasad Babu submitted Survey Report recommending repudiation of claim on ground that spontaneous fire was continuously occurring and claim is not payable. There is no Duration Clause in Standard Fire And Special Perils Policy taken by STC. So, the Surveyor was utterly wrong in claim repudiation on that ground. So, Survey Report violated the policy condition and biased/motivated and prejudicial to the interest of STC. If, the insurance Surveyors contention is taken as correct and claim is considered as a single case continuance spontaneous combustion of coal, only one policy excess of Rs.10,000/- shall be deducted. as the first incident was reported in the consumption of the first policy period, which has 10,000/- standadr policy excess. The payable loss should be (3949.59 MT X Rs.2043.22)-Rs10000/- = Rs 80,59,881/

26. That In a joint meeting with United India, Surveyor and STC at Kolkata Regional Office of United on 30.09.08 it was decided that Surveyor should review the matter and obtain further details/information/ clarification, if any from STC. A detail letter was sent to Surveyor by STC. Accordingly, the Surveyor submitted his Addendum Report (Ref.PB:UI:STC:024:2009 dated 25/3/09) and re-assessed the loss of only Rs.9.49,519.80. This was contested by STC as Surveyor had planted different date(s) of loss on the third policy so that major part of the loss falls under the last policy. Details are as under :
Date(s) of loss reported by STC Date(s) of loss changed by Surveyor
24/26th February, 2006 27/28th April, 2006
14/16th March, 2006 3rd/4th May, 2006
27/29th April,2006 27/29th May, 2006

Surveyor appointed in mid-August, 2006 (after several months of loss) and can not change date(s) of loss under any circumstances. This is perennially an arbitrary action of Surveyor and proves his biasness beyond any doubt.

A Xerox copy of the letter dated 20.8.2009 by STC attached herewith and marked as U ( Internal page no- )

27. That In mid-2009 a Voucher of Rs.71,728/- was sent by United India to STC as against Surveyor’s above recommendation of Rs.9.49,519.80. The insurance co.’s Divisional Office provided a xerox copy of an Endorsement bearing No.031100/ 11/ 05/11/ 8200082 which states imposition of Special Excess of minimum of Rs.10 Lacs on the 2nd policy No.031100/11/05/00508 which was evidently issued on expiry date of policy (25/04/06 –the system generated date on Endt.) without any knowledge of STC whatsoever prior to that date in 2009.Interestingly, United India Ins. Co. provided all insurance documents to Surveyors but evidently this totally arbitrary Endorsement No.031100/ 11/ 05/11/ 8200082 was not given to Surveyors else the assessment could not be for Rs.9.5 Lacs. This arbitrary Special Excess on every loss date had reduced claim form Rs.9.50 Lacs to Rs. 71,728/-. The issuance of Claim Voucher admits liability under the policy. The matter was taken up with Divisional Office/ Regional Office/Head Office of United but no response received by STC so afar. Approach by Director of STC to CMD/United India could not also evoke any response.

28. That by a letter dated 8.7.2011 United India insurance communicated the STC—–
“ With reference to your letter Ref 574 dated 20th August 2009 regarding the above , we would like to inform you that we have once again checked our underwriting and claim file and come to a conclusion that our stands regarding settlement of last three claims( for value Rs. 2,86,049/- Rs.-153055.30 and Rs. 15,47,723.40) remain unchanged.”
It is evident from their own admission that how deliberately they delay the process as they are responding on 8.7.2011 to a letter which delivered them two years back. This high handedness proof their culpable laziness to frustrate a legitimate claim. However they accepted their liability . Which is Rs.71.728/- only (according to clause 13 of the policy documents) . Which is prejudicial to the interest of the STC. Which is against the claim of STC.
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 8.7.2011 by UII attached herewith and marked as V

29. HUMBLE SUBMISSIONS BY THE COMPLAINANT

i. The claim was reported by STC Kolkata on 25.01.2006 to United India Ins. Co without mentioning the loss quantity. United responded on same day and advised ‘not to disturb the affected area’. Loss quantity informed to Insurance company as per report of Inspectorate Griffith India (IGI), Surveyor.United informed vide letter dated 12.06.06 that claim falls within stipulated Policy Excess limit and stated that ‘thus the alleged claim stands as NO CLAIM’. Second repudiation letter issued by United.United had not even appointed Surveyor for assessment despite repeated reminders for six (6) months and STC was compelled to appoint IRDA accredited Surveyor, M/s J.B.Boda, keeping United informed of this Surveyor appointment to lodge the claim bill on the strength of M/s J.B.Boda, Survey Report.When STC appointed M/s. J.B.Boda Surveyor by formally informing United India , they were perhaps unnerved and ultimately United India appointed Mr. D.S.Prasad Babu, Surveyor from Visakapatnam in Aug. 06. There was a Joint Survey of loss on 28.08.06 quantifying the then available stock 40099.410 MT and thus the total quantity loss stood to 3949.59 MT and not 4439.410 MT as intimated earlier. The variation is only 11% as claimed by STC. Therefore, the gross estimated loss stands to around Rs.80 Lacs. Special Policy excess (deductibles) of Rs.20 Lacs on third policy period 25/4/06 to 24/07/06, net adjusted payable loss stood around Rs.38 Lacs. THE JOINT SURVEY REORT BY TWO IRDA ACCRIDITED SURVEYORS (both insured and insurers) IS THE MOST VALUABE VITAL DOCUMENT FOR STC IN CASE OF ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. Since the Special Excess of Rs.20 Lacs for each loss was imposed by United in last policy (period 25.04.06 to 24.07.06) would eat away almost the entire loss, matter taken-up with IRDA against Tariff policy gross deviation by United and about the legality & propriety of Special Excess which virtually takes back the promise of policy itself. The IRDA disposed the complaint because STC was informed about Special Excess of Rs.20 lacs before accepting policy by United India in their Proforma Bill. So, complain was rejected. The IRDA did not consider the legal point that the then Tariff Rates & Tariff Wording in 2006 were public document and there is no provisions for any kind of Special Excess as per Tariff Rates & Tariff Wording and therefore, the insurance companies has no authority to change the policy contrary to Tariff.

ii. No scientific calculation of Spontaneous combustion in undisturbed coal stack is possible unless survay is conducted immediately after the loss. debris are need to removed and de- staking is done to stop the continuity of the peril and minimize further losses.
iii. The opposite party UII incurs liability by committing offence under section of 420 IPC by causing wrongful loss to the complainant through imposition of Policy Access fraudulently without the knowledge of STC and gain wrongfully through the policy excess. UII has committed breach of confidence which is worst kind of mal practises on part of UII and caused injury to the business interest of the complainant.
iv. From all circumstances including act and conduct of UII, it is amount to gross deficiency of service to the complainant.

30. That the cause of action arose on and from dated 8.7.2011 when the opposite party UII through its Sr. Div. Manager refused to settle the legitimate claim of the STC and decided to pay arbitrarily a paltry amount against to a huge loss. And relief for complained valued at Rs. 90,94,881/-. This claim is within the limitation period from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

31. That the complainant has incurred a loss of Rs.80,59881/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has to undergo mental torture, harassment and mental strain due to course of transactions and negotiations to settle the claim. The complainant is entitled to recover a ,sum of Rs 80,59881/- towards the loss due to fire and Rs 10,00000 as a compensation for mental torture , harassment , mental strain and business loss and again Rs 35,000 as legal expenses and correspondence. Thus the total claim stands total Rs 90,94,881/-.
32. That this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

33. That for the purpose of the jurisdiction, the complainant has transacted all the business documents through it`s office in kolkata at to the opposite party`s office in kolkata.

34. STC HAS PAID THE REQUIRED FEES BY DEMAND DRAFT of Rs 4000/- , NO 302364, DATED_13/09/2011, issued by SBI- CAG BRANCH- KOLKATA. The complainant hereby giving an undertaking that in any reason the demand draft is not honoured on demand, the complainant will deposit a new demand draft without fail.

THE PRAYER

It is , therefore , most respectfully prayed that your Honour may gracefully be pleased to grant the following relief/ relives to the complainant:-

1. Declaration of the unilateral imposition of RS. 10 lacs and 20 lacs Policy excess is illegal and fraudulent and the effect of the policy excess clause in policy number 033/11/06/11/00000096 is null and void.

2. Declaration of the settlement offer dated 24.7.2009 by the UII is null and void and without any effect.

3. Realization of Rs .80,59,881 /-.

4. Realization of Rs . 10,00,000 towards compensation

5. Realization of Rs 35,000 towards legal expenses and correspondence.

6. Cost, interests and other relief/ relieves etc . as the Hon’ble commission deems fit and proper.

Verification

I, Mr. son of residing at
do hereby solemnly declare and state that the statements contained in the complaint above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and the rest are my humble submission and that I have not suppressed any material fact.
Verified at kolkata
this _____th day of ________ 2012

Date:
Place:                                                                                        Signature of the deponent

Dismissal from office – Format of the dismissal order

Sir Arthur Trevor Harries

Chief Justice

The Calcutta High Court

Order

A full and thorough enquiry was held by Mr. Justice K.C. Das Gupta into the charges made against Sri P.K. Bose the Registrar of the Original Side of this Court. Sri P.K. Bose was represented by eminent Counsel and every opportunity was given to him to meet the charges and put forward his explanation and defence. The learned Judge however in a full and very carefully considered report found Sri P.K. Bose guilty of serious charges involving moral turpitude and dishonesty and further he was of opinion that Sri P.K. Bose was by reason thereof unfit to hold the said office of Registrar.

I considered this report and the evidence most anxiously and found myself in entire agreement with the learned Judge. Sri P.K. Bose was, in my view, clearly guilty of the matter comprised in the charges specified by Mr. Justice K.C. Das Gupta. I considered that prima facie the conduct of Sri P.K. Bose warranted dismissal and I therefore gave him notice under article 311(2) of the Constitution of India to show cause against the action proposed against him, namely, dismissal.

On the 31st August, 1951, Sri P.K. Bose showed cause before me and I heard Sri Sachin Chaudhuri his counsel and Sri P.K. Bose personally. In all the circumstances this is not a case in which I can properly show any leniency. Sri P.K. Bose has abused the trust and confidence reposed in him and has been found guilty of serious malpractices and dishonesty. Conduct such as this of an officer of the status of the Registrar of the Original Side of this Court is unpardonable and must be dealt with severely. I therefore dismiss Sri P.K. Bose from his office as Registrar of the Original Side of the Court, the dismissal to take effect from the 1st September, 1951.

Let a copy of this order be served on Sri P.K. Bose.

 

Sir Arthur Trevor Harries(CJ)

Dated: 3rd September, 1951