Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Bhakti Manojkumar Gaggad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 March, 2018

Aruvita Mishra vs Delhi University & Anr on 23 April, 2019

15. The facts in Bhakti v. State of Maharashtra (supra) were that the LPA 263/2019 Page 5 of 7 Petitioners enrolled for a BDS course in September 2014. As of that date the rule required them to complete the first year BDS examination within three years. On 27th April 2015 there was an amendment which provided that the entire course of the BDS including internship could be completed within a period of nine years. The Petitioners who were still in the first year BDS were allowed to pursue the course and appear for the examination and were permitted to take advantage of the amendment position. It was directed that „merely because the Petitioners had joined BDS course on 1st September 2014, they will not be continued to be governed by the old provision which was no more in existence. They were allowed to pursue the BDS course and appear for the exam without considering the time limit fixed before the amendment dated 27th April 2015.‟
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Ravleen Kahlon And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 September, 2018

The question involved in this case was similarly placed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Bhakti (Supra) in which it was held that the DCI had the authority to make such provisions while exercising powers under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the said amendment has been approved by the Central Government but in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2015, it was held that : -
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Mohit Saroha vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 September, 2018

The question involved in this case was similarly placed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Bhakti (Supra) in which it was held that the DCI had the authority to make such provisions while exercising powers under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the said amendment has been approved by the Central Government but in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2015, it was held that : -
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Rajatdeep Singh vs Pt B.D. Sharma University Of Health ... on 7 September, 2018

The question involved in this case was similarly placed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Bhakti (Supra) in which it was held that the DCI had the authority to make such provisions while exercising powers under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the said amendment has been approved by the Central Government but in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2015, it was held that : -
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Zorinpuii Ralte vs Pt B.D. Sharma University Of Health ... on 7 September, 2018

The question involved in this case was similarly placed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Bhakti (Supra) in which it was held that the DCI had the authority to make such provisions while exercising powers under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the said amendment has been approved by the Central Government but in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2015, it was held that : -
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R K Jain - Full Document

Rohit Kumar vs Pt. B.D Sharma University & Others on 7 September, 2018

The question involved in this case was similarly placed before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Bhakti (Supra) in which it was held that the DCI had the authority to make such provisions while exercising powers under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and the said amendment has been approved by the Central Government but in respect of applicability of Regulations of 2015, it was held that : -
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R K Jain - Full Document

Balram Rohilla vs Dental Council Of India And Ors on 17 February, 2020

The issue in the present petition relates to the applicability of the amendment in the BDS Course (7th Amendment) Regulations, 2015, to the candidates who had obtained admission in BDS course in the session 2014-2015. It is informed that the Single Judge of this Court relying upon the Division Bench's decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Bhakti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others passed in writ petition No.13510 of 2017 decided on 06.03.2018, wherein benefit of the amended regulation has been made available to the candidates who had obtained admission in 2014 session and thereby permitting them to complete the BDS course within 9 years including one year Compulsory Rotatory internship as well as the decision of the Kerla High Court in the case of Abdul Rahim and others Vs. State of Kerala and others passed in writ petition(C) No.18090 of 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2020 20:31:44 ::: CWP No.1763 of 2018 2 2016 decided on 17.12.2016, had allowed the petition.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gunjan Kankarwal vs University Of Delhi & Ors on 18 February, 2021

2. Mr. Zahid Hanief, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the fact that the aforesaid span period of 9 years was introduced in the Regulations by way of an amendment which came into Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 446/2021 Page 1 of 2 Signing Date:20.02.2021 16:20:37 effect on 23.05.2015. He cites the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bhakti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2018) 5 Mh.L.J. and the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Aluri Sneha vs. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Hyd 371 [W.P. No. 28325/2011 and connected matters, decided on 29.08.2018] to submit that the amendment in the Regulations, which took place in 2015, cannot be applied retrospectively. It is his submission that the petitioner took admission in the BDS course in 2011, at which time the span period was not in existence.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

Dheeraj Kumar Karmania And Ors vs Pt B.D. Sharma University And Ors on 7 September, 2022

After noticing a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bhakti vs. State of Maharashtra and others passed in Writ Petition No. 13510 of 2017 decided on 06.03.2018, it has been held that an amended Regulation will be applicable with effect from the date of amendment and the old provision ceases to exist and will not govern any body.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Mittal - Full Document
1