Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.45 seconds)
Crown Veterinary Services Private ... vs Maharashtra State Veterinary Council on 6 January, 2026 cites

Amit Nain vs The Veterninary Council Of India And ... on 10 October, 2019

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. registration as veterinary practitioners and enter their names on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Register, subject to the outcome of the present Writ Petition;
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

Abhishek Kumar Sharma And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 6 ... on 10 August, 2018

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. of the Constitution is concerned, the Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1's refusal to follow the statutory scheme under the Act directly impairs his rights as a shareholder because Petitioner No. 1 continues to bear the burden of employing these doctors who, despite being duly qualified and eligible for registration and practice in India, are unable to do so because of arbitrary state inaction. The Petitioners are directly affected by the delay / inaction of Respondent No. 1 to process the application of its employees, Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany as their present inability to practice as Veterinarians' in India has affected the business of Petitioner No. 1. The non grant of Certificate of Registration, though having been issued to other similarly placed foreign veterinarians who are engaged by Petitioner No.1, in the case of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany, is discriminatory and violates the Petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Aditya Daniel Jha vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 3 April, 2023

14. Considering that this court has in the orders passed in Anisha Vaishwas Bhisey (supra) and Aditya Jha (supra) directed the MSVC to register the names of the Petitioners therein, on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Registers and grant Certificates of Registration as well as allow the Petitioners therein to practice and be conferred rights and entitlements as Veterinary Practitioners in India under the Act, subject to hearing of the present Writ Petition, we do not consider it appropriate to direct MSVC to decide these applications, particularly given their reluctance.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N K Gokhale - Full Document
1