Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.41 seconds)
Aruna Jain vs Vk Sehdev on 27 November, 2025 cites

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Akhil Sharda on 11 July, 2022

15.1 It has been submitted that the appropriate authority is not properly constituted. It has been submitted that the appropriate authority has not taken any advice from the advisory committee and the appropriate authority has not complied with Section 17d of the Act and the appropriate authority has failed to follow Section 17 (1) of the Act. It has been submitted that there is no private or public complaint against Dr. VK Sehdev and that Dr. Aruna Jain has almost issued 200 notices throughout her tenure and she let off various doctors on account of extraneous considerations and since Dr. VK Sehdev refused to fulfil her demands, she moved the present complaint solely to harass the accused. It has been submitted that Form F is not filled by a surgeon. It has been submitted that the documents seized on the day of raid were not sealed and that there is no public witness. It has been submitted that the statutory compliance of the present act is mandatory since the act is draconian in the sense that after the framing of charge, license of the doctor gets suspended. It has been submitted that since the statutory procedure has not been followed by the appropriate authority. Accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. 15.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors., MANU/SC/0841/2022, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhil Sharda, Crl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 43 - M R Shah - Full Document

"The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh [2007 R.Cr.D on 19 January, 2016

g) Harbir Singh Vs. Sheeshpal and Ors., (2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases 418 h) Dinesh Vs. State 2025 SCC Online DEL 4586 KARANBIR Dr. Aruna Jain Vs. Dr. VK Sehdev and Ors. Case no. 512553/2016 PS Timar Pur 62/72 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.11.27 17:34:00 +0530 14. Contentions of Dr. Anil Grover: 14.1 It has been submitted that as per rule 13 of 1996 Rules, the intimation of
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - G Mathur - Full Document

Smruti Tukaram Badade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 January, 2022

In the case of Tukaram Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it has been held that reading Section 30 with Rule 12, the Section is mandatory. The Hon'ble High Court further held that when the law prescribes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner and not at all. The aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case and as a result of violation of the mandatory procedure, the case of the complainant falls under a shadow of doubt and benefit of the lapse has to be given to the accused persons. The contention of Ld. APP that public persons rarely join is acceptable to the court as the provision is mandatory in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Ravinder Kumar Goel vs The State Of Haryana on 15 February, 2023

23. It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra) has held that if no legal decision is made by the appropriate authority under Sub Section 1 of Section 30, then the decision to carry out the search is an individual decision of the concerned Civil Surgeon and the action of search is itself vitiated. The aforesaid judgment is clearly applicable to the present facts. The relevant paragraph is:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A S Bopanna - Full Document
1   2 Next