0

Delhi Court Upholds Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail for Rajan Kumar @ Ashu Chauhan

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case title: RAJAN KUMAR @ ASHU CHAUHAN VS STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI

Case no: BAIL APPLN. No.2112/2023 & CRL.M.A. 16653/2023 (Stay)

Dated on: May 21, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

Fact of the case:

The case involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Rajan Kumar @ Ashu Chauhan under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 24th September 2022, two PCR calls were received by PS Vasant Kunj (South) regarding a quarrel and subsequent medical examination of the injured at ISIC Hospital, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Members of the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of Vasant Kunj Enclave were holding a peaceful demonstration outside Calvin Studio & Gym. Later, they were confronted by Rajan Kumar @ Ashu Chauhan and his associates. After the RWA members returned to their meeting place, the petitioner, along with his associates, allegedly arrived with weapons and assaulted Manoj Arya, Manish Agarwal, and Naveen Chander Bhatt. The assault led to grievous injuries and the theft of two gold chains and two mobile phones from the victims. CCTV footage collected from the vicinity showed the arrival and involvement of the petitioner and approximately 30 associates in the incident. The footage also showed the presence of police personnel who did not intervene. The court reviewed substantial evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements, leading to the consideration of the current application for anticipatory bail.

 Issues framed by court:

Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented?

Whether the petitioner violated the conditions of the previous anticipatory bail granted on 19th October 2022?

Whether the anticipatory bail granted earlier should be cancelled due to these alleged violations?

Legal provisions:

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.: Deals with the provision for anticipatory bail.

Relevant Sections of the IPC: Sec. 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), Sec. 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), Sec.341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint), Sec. 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), Sec.509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), Sec.379 (Punishment for theft), Sec.452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), Sec.147 (Punishment for rioting), Sec.148 (Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), Sec.149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object), Sec.34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).

Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959: Punishment for contravention of license or rule.

 Contentions of Appellant:

The petitioner denied all allegations of assault and theft. He claimed that he was not involved in the incident in the manner described by the prosecution. He contended that he complied with the conditions set during the previous anticipatory bail and that the alleged violations were either misunderstandings or minor infractions that do not warrant the cancellation of bail. He assured the court that he would continue to cooperate with the investigation and would not interfere with witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondent argued that the nature of the offenses, including assault, theft, and intimidation, is severe and justifies denying anticipatory bail. The prosecution presented evidence that the petitioner had violated the conditions of his previous anticipatory bail by visiting the area and conducting meetings without prior intimation to the investigating officer, and by allegedly threatening local residents. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner posed a threat to the witnesses, as evidenced by his actions post-grant of bail, and that his bail should be cancelled to prevent further intimidation or interference in the investigation.

 Court analysis & Judgement:

The court reviewed the evidence, including the statements of victims, witness testimonies, and CCTV footage that corroborated the presence and involvement of the petitioner in the incident. The court found substantial evidence that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the anticipatory bail granted on 19th October 2022, which mandated that he not visit the area without prior intimation and that he refrain from intimidating witnesses. The court concluded that the petitioner’s actions posed a significant risk to the integrity of the investigation and the safety of witnesses.

The court dismissed and disposed of the application for anticipatory bail and upheld the cancellation of the previously granted anticipatory bail. The court directed that the petitioner be taken into custody, highlighting the need to ensure a fair and uninfluenced investigation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh

Click here to View Judgement

0

Delhi High Court Proclaims Strict Maintenance Of Timelines To Be Followed For The Procedures Of Organ Transplantation

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case Title: AMAR SINGH BHATIA & ANR. VS. SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL & ORS.

Case No.: W.P.(C) 3590/2020

Dated on: 20th May, 2024

Coram: PRATHIBA M. SINGH J.

Facts:

In this case, Amar Singh Bhatia & Anr., herein the petitioners, filed a petition against Sir Ganga Ram Hospital & Ors. herein the respondents. This filing took place out of the raising concerns about the delays and confusion in the process of organ transplantation, which is governed by the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (THOTA). The court heard the concerns and, in a previous judgment on January 4, 2024, directed that clear timelines has to be set for each step of the transplantation process. This was important because the lack of clear timelines was causing significant delays, sometimes stretching up to 2 to 3 years. Such long waits were causing a lot of stress and trouble for both the organ donors and the recipients, as well as their families. After reviewing the matter, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a communication on May 3, 2024, outlining specific timelines for the Authorization Committees which was responsible for overseeing organ transplantation. Moreover, the court agreed with these timelines and emphasized the importance of clear communication with donors, recipients, and their families throughout the process. However, they directed that any communication regarding documentation or procedural issues should be sent via email or WhatsApp to ensure proof of communication. Therefore, the court ordered that these timelines be followed by all Authorization Committees involved in organ transplantation, and that proper publicity be given to ensure everyone involved follows them. Compliance with these directives was recorded by the court.

Issues framed by the Court:

  1. Whether there were significant delays in processing applications for organ transplantation and the need to establish clear timelines for each step of the process.
  2. Whether there was sufficient clarity and communication throughout the transplantation process.
  3. Whether the practices followed by the hospitals and authorities involved in organ transplantation were in accordance with the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and its rules.
  4. Whether there was effective compliance with existing legal provisions and court directives regarding organ transplantation procedures.

Legal Provisions:

Rule 11 of the 2014 Rules: It states that the processing of any application should be done within 10 days from the date of application.

Rule 33 of the 2014 Rules: It states that any appeal against an order should be decided within a maximum of 30 days.

Contentions of the Appellants:

The appellants, in this case, raised concerns about the lengthy delays and confusion in the process of organ transplantation. They argued that the existing system did not provide clear timelines for each step, leading to significant waiting periods of 2 to 3 years. These delays were causing a lot of stress and trouble for both the organ donors and the recipients, as well as their families. Moreover, the appellants urged the court to intervene and direct the authorities to establish specific timelines for processing applications for organ transplantation. Further, they emphasized the importance of clear communication throughout the process, especially regarding documentation requirements and procedural formalities. They wanted the court to ensure that the transplantation process becomes more efficient and less burdensome for everyone involved.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents, in this case, argued against the need for specific timelines for each step of the organ transplantation process. They intended to contend that the existing system was functioning adequately and that imposing rigid timelines could lead to rushed decisions or compromise the thoroughness of the process. Additionally, they tried to highlight the logistical challenges or administrative burdens in implementing such strict timelines. Further, they emphasized on the importance of discretion and careful consideration in evaluating organ transplantation applications, suggesting that fixed timelines could undermine these aspects.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Based on the intricate analysis made by the hon’ble court, it acknowledged the appellants’ concerns about the delays and lack of clarity in the organ transplantation process. The court reviewed the existing system and found that it indeed lacked specific timelines for each step, leading to significant waiting periods for patients in need of organ transplants. After considering the arguments presented by both the parties, the court decided to intervene and directed the authorities to establish clear timelines for processing applications for organ transplantation because these timelines would ensure that each step of the process is completed within a reasonable timeframe, reducing waiting periods and alleviating stress for patients and their families. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of clear communication throughout the process.

Therefore, it can be said that the court’s judgment specifically aimed at making the organ transplantation process more efficient and less burdensome for everyone involved. Further, it ordered strict compliance with the prescribed timelines and directed adequate publicity to ensure that all stakeholders, including hospitals and governmental authorities, adhere to the new directives. Compliance with the court’s directives was recorded, bringing an end to the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to View Judgement

0

Delhi HC Directive: Re-examination Ordered for CAPF Aspirant’s Tattoo Scar

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , ,

Case Title: AKSHAY CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.

Case No.: W.P.(C) 5602/2024

Dated on: MAY 20, 2024

Coram: V. KAMESWAR RAO, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

Facts:

The prima facie of the current case demonstrates that Akshay Choudhary, herein the petitioner filed a petition seeking relief from the HC of Delhi. It was stated that he had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant (Group A) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) but was declared unfit during the Medical Standard Test (MST) due to a tattoo on his right forearm. The petitioner underwent tattoo removal surgery and requested a review medical examination (RME), but was again declared unfit due to an unhealed scar. The petitioner argued that the tattoo had been completely removed, and hence, he should be considered fit for the position. However, the court acknowledged that while the Medical Board had valid reasons to examine the scar, it should have allowed sufficient time for healing before making a determination. Moreover, considering the evidence presented, including photographs of the petitioner’s forearm and a specialist’s opinion indicating the scar may have healed, the court directed the respondents to conduct a re-examination. If the new Medical Board finds the scar has healed, the petitioner should be considered for appointment. Otherwise, the matter will be concluded against the petitioner. The court ordered the re-examination to be completed within six weeks and disposed of the petition accordingly.

Issues framed by the Court:

  1. Whether the petitioner’s case was rightly rejected by the Medical Board/Review Medical Board.
  2. Whether the eligibility conditions stipulated in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Commandant (Group A) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) were met by the petitioner.
  3. Whether the Medical Board/Review Medical Board should have allowed sufficient time for the petitioner’s scar to heal before making a determination of fitness.
  4. Whether the evidence presented, including photographs of the petitioner’s forearm and a specialist’s opinion, indicates that the scar may have healed.
  5. Whether a re-examination by a new Medical Board is warranted to determine the current status of the petitioner’s scar and fitness for the position.

Legal Provision:

Article 226 of the Constitution of India: It gives High Courts the power to issue writs to any person or authority, including governments, throughout the territories in which they have jurisdiction.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant, Akshay Choudhary, contended that he had initially been declared unfit for a job position due to a tattoo on his right forearm. He underwent surgery to remove the tattoo and requested a re-examination. However, he was again deemed unfit due to an unhealed scar from the surgery. The petitioner argued that since the tattoo was now removed, he should be considered fit for the job. Moreover, he also stated that the medical examination should have been conducted after allowing sufficient time for the scar to heal. The petitioner provided evidence, including photographs and a doctor’s opinion, suggesting that the scar had healed. As a result, he requested the court to order a new medical examination to determine his current fitness for the job.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents argued that the eligibility conditions for the job position stipulated that tattoo on certain parts of the body, including the right forearm, were not allowed. They contended that since the tattoo was originally on the right forearm, the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria even after the tattoo removal surgery. Additionally, they asserted that the medical examination was conducted based on the conditions present at that time and should not be reconsidered after the fact. Therefore, they opposed the petitioner’s request for a new examination and argued for the dismissal of the case.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Upon analysing the complete scenario of this present case, the hon’ble court rightly considered the matter of fact and stated that though the petitioner removed the tattoo through surgery, but the medical board still declares him to be unfit because the scar hadn’t healed properly. Moreover, the court agreed that the medical board should have given more time for the scar to heal before making a decision. They also looked at evidence, like photos of Choudhary’s forearm and a doctor’s opinion, which suggested the scar might have healed by then. Therefore, the court ordered a new medical check-up by a different team. If they find the scar has healed, the petitioner should be considered for the job. Otherwise, the case will be closed against him. They said this new check-up should happen within six weeks.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to View Judgement

0

Delhi High Court Orders Firm’s Compliance with Anti Evasion Cell Investigation and Appearance Before Proper Officer in GST Suspension Case Update

Blog , , , , , ,

Delhi High Court Orders Firm’s Compliance with Anti Evasion Cell Investigation and Appearance Before Proper Officer in GST Suspension Case Update 

Case Name: M/s Balaji Tilak Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 7224/2024 

Dated: May 20, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the present case centre the petitioners in their petition, M/S Balaji Tilak Metal and Alloys P. Ltd., the petitioner requests the revocation of a Show Cause Notice that was issued on March 27, 2024, and that suspended their GST registration. 

On February 15, 2024, a Show Cause Notice was submitted, suggesting that the petitioner’s GST registration be cancelled and stopped immediately. When the petitioner showed up before the Proper Officer, the Anti Evasion Cell, which was looking into the petitioner as a non-existent firm, told him to join the inquiry. 

 ISSUES: 

  • The petitioner seeks to quash a Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024, which suspended their GST registration 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

The learned counsel for the appellants fiercely and strongly argued that a Show Cause Notice that suspended the petitioner’s GST registration is being challenged. Existence of Business: The petitioner disputes the Anti Evasion Cell’s assertion that they are a nonexistent company, arguing that they were in fact operating and conducting business.  

Updated Address: The petitioner claims that the Anti Evasion Cell failed to notice their new address, which was updated on the GST portal. Inquiry Compliance: As a result of the petitioner’s failure to participate in the Anti Evasion Cell inquiry, the Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024 specified the suspension that followed. 

Additionally, the petitioners contended that a Show Cause Notice that had suspended their GST registration is being contested. They refuted the Anti Evasion Cell’s claim that they were a nonexistent company, claiming that they were in fact operating and conducting business, and that the Anti Evasion Cell was unaware of their updated address on the GST portal. The petitioners further contended that the Show Cause Notice dated 27.03.2024, which had specified the suspension, was issued as a result of their failure to comply with the Anti Evasion Cell’s investigation. 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants were sharply and passionately rejected by the learned counsel the petitioner’s GST registration was suspended, according to the respondents, because they did not cooperate with the Anti Evasion Cell’s investigation and did not satisfy the Proper Officer regarding their business activities at the registered address.  

The investigation by the Anti Evasion Cell was based on the allegation that the petitioner was a non-existent firm. The petitioner was found to be non-existent at the earlier address, and the address had been updated on the GST portal, which the Anti Evasion Cell was unaware of. As a result of these arguments, a Show Cause Notice was issued, suggesting the petitioner’s GST registration be cancelled. 

Additionally, the respondents contended that the Anti Evasion Cell’s investigation was predicated on the claim that the petitioner was a nonexistent company. The former location was discovered to be unoccupied, and the Anti Evasion Cell was not informed that the address had been modified on the GST portal. These arguments resulted to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, which recommended that the petitioner’s GST registration be terminated. 

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Anti Evasion Cell on May 28, 2024, at noon, and to appear before the Proper Officer on May 29, 2024, at noon, the court said. The court then directed the aforementioned authorities to issue the necessary directives in response to the petitioner’s request to have the suspension lifted after a maximum of two weeks. 

 The court ordered the petitioner to appear before the Anti Evasion Cell and the Proper Officer on 28.05.2024 and 29.05.2024 respectively, with further orders to be passed within two weeks thereafter. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

Delhi High Court Upholds Justice over Procedural Infirmities; Reinstates Judicial Aspect in Medical Candidature

Blog , , , , ,

Case Name: Dr Prasuna Chiluka v. National Board of Examinations & Anr 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 15345/2023 

Dated: May 21, 2024 

Quorum:  Justice C Hari Shankar 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The petitioner is a medical professional who earned an MD in general medicine on June 27, 2015, and an MBBS in March 2010. The petitioner was given high dose intravenous and oral steroids in 2015 after receiving a diagnosis of lupus nephritis. Even now, the treatment is still being administered in part. The petitioner experienced numerous difficulties as a result, including severe steroid toxicity, hirsutism, acne, obesity, and myopathy.  

The petitioner applied for and was hired for the position of Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist at the District Hospital in Sircilla, Telangana, in July 2018 when her health began to improve somewhat. The writ petition alleges that the petitioner’s profession as a Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist required her to work roughly thirty hours a week, allowing her to attend to her personal medical issues.  

Nevertheless, in order to be admitted to Super Speciality programmes, the petitioner took the National Testing Agency’s (NTA) 2019 NEET-SS exam. The petitioner selected the Medical Gastroenterology Super Specialty. Consequently, she was accepted into the Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, for the Super Specialty of Medical Gastroenterology DrNB programme (henceforth referred to as “PIMSRC”).  

The petitioner went back to her native Karimnagar throughout the aforementioned time frame. The writ petition claims that the petitioner chose to return to her job at the District Hospital, Sircilla, even though it only required five hours of labour each day, since she needed a source of money as the family’s only provider. On November 28, 2019, the petitioner was permitted to report to work at the Sircilla District Hospital by the Commissioner of the Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad in Hyderabad, subject to disciplinary action.  

The petitioner filed an application with the PIMSRC in November 2019, requesting an eight-month leave of absence. On January 10, 2020, the PIMSRC forwarded the application, with a copy marked to the petitioner, to the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), the appropriate leave sanctioning authority.  

ISSUES: 

The primary concern in this case is that the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) did not specifically deny the petitioner’s request for leave, which led her to believe it was approved and ultimately became a source of disagreement. 

 LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

  • Section 50 of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act, 1939- The extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest is one factor that a regional transport authority must consider when evaluating an application for a contract carriage permit. Additionally, the authority must take into account any representations that may then be made, or may have previously been made, by individuals who already hold contract carriage permits in the region, by any local authority or police authority in the region, regarding the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted being sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region  

 CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:  

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the in addition to being sent to the petitioner just one day prior to the DrNB Final Theory examination, which is scheduled for October 12, 2023, the contested communication that revoked the petitioner’s DrNB candidature also failed to reveal the appropriate application of mind. It is argued that the petitioner’s DrNB candidature was cancelled for entirely mechanical reasons.  

Mr. Kirtiman Singh presented a completely new argument during the court’s oral arguments to support the petitioner’s request to have her DrNB candidature revoked. This argument, which is unsupported by the contested cancellation order, is that the petitioner was carrying out her duties as a Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist at the District Hospital, Sircilla during the time she wanted to be considered to be on leave. In addition to arguing that the impugned order cannot be supported by such new grounds, Mr. Harshavardhan contends that this cannot serve as justification for cancelling the petitioner’s DrNB candidature even on the merits. 

Given that the petitioner was required to complete three years of DrNB training, of which two years and three32 days have already been completed, and only thirty-three days remain, the applicable Rules allow her to complete the said training until December 31, 2024, at which point she will be eligible to receive the DrNB qualification. As long as the petitioner is able to complete the required mandatory training until December 31, 2024, she is eligible to take the DrNB Final Theory examination, which will take place on May 15–17, 2024, without having to revert to the next examination in January 2025. 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The learned counsel of the respondents argued that the submissions made by the petitioners stating that the petitioner did not reveal that she worked at the District Hospital Sircilla as a Civil Assistant Surgeon Specialist when she enrolled in DrNB programme. 

Before enrolling in the institute where the DrNB training was to be completed, a candidate who was employed by another organisation was required to provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or Relieving Letter issued by that employer, according to the “FAQ”1 published on the website of the MCC that conducted the NEET SS 2019.  

It was also contended that the petitioner did not provide any such NOC from the Telangana government or the District Hospital Sircilla before to beginning DrNB course. Because of this, the petitioner was not qualified to continue with the DrNB course, and the NBEMS was therefore entitled to revoke the petitioner’s candidature.  

In particular, Clause 8.7 of the Registration Letter dated June 22, 2020, which the NBEMS sent to the petitioner to register her for DrNB training, stated that DrNB training extensions were only allowed under exceptional circumstances with prior approval from the NBE and were not to be granted on a regular basis. This letter addressed the extension of DrNB training upon a candidate’s availability of leave for 30 days annually.  

Even in the NBEMS approval letter dated December 20, 2021, which granted the petitioner’s request for a leave of absence from 14 September 2021 to 3 October 2021 due to her marriage, it was made clear that extending the leave for more than a year would result in the petitioner’s candidatures being cancelled.  

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court determined that these conditions are not met by the contested order. Her absence from DrNB training was not mentioned in the 4 October 2023 show cause notice that suggested to cancel her DrNB candidature. The petitioner’s purported inability to complete the necessary number of FATs was the sole basis for cancellation, as stated in the aforementioned show cause notice.  

In the event that an applicant meets all necessary requirements, such as attending classes and receiving training, the court cannot become overly technical in determining the candidate’s eligibility to become a licenced medical practitioner. In these situations, the Court must consider the preferences of each applicant individually and determine whether it would serve the public interest to prevent the candidate from practicing medicine.  

There is no disputing the fact that she had serious disabilities even at home due to Lupus Nephritis. Such a candidate’s DrNB candidature being cancelled would be a total loss for her morale, especially considering that her DrNB programme is almost over. Here, the facts are important. Despite the petitioner’s physical limitations, erasing all of her DrNB training with a single stroke of the pen would not benefit her or the interests of the general public. Additionally, the community would lose the services of a potentially committed superspecialist in medicine.  

The court took a pragmatic standpoint, this Court believes that the petitioner’s DrNB candidature cannot be sustained by the contested order dated October 11, 2023, since justice must always prevail in a space where the rule of law governs and justice is our primary objective. 

Thus, the findings of the aforementioned assessment would be made public. In addition, the petitioner has the right to finish her DrNB training and finish her candidature, pending the results of the DrNB final theory exam. All ensuing reliefs would come next.  

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgement reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora 

Click to view judgment.

1 2 3 4 5 … 47