CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2015 › Medical Council of India v. Rfdf Medical College Hospital an

Medical Council of India v. Rfdf Medical College Hospital and Research Centre .

Supreme Court of India · 15 October 2015

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
15 October 2015
Case no.
C.A. No. 8681 of 2015
Bench
Anil R. Dave, Adarsh Kumar Goel
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8681 OF 2015 (arising out of SLP(C)No.29443 of 2015) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

RFDF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL

AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1.
Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Looking at the facts of the case, in our opinion, interim relief ought not to have been granted by the High Court and respondent No.1 should not have been permitted to give admission to students.

4. Interim relief, granted by the High Court, is quashed and admission, if any given, shall stand cancelled.

5. We hope that the High Court will conclude the final hearing of the pending Writ Petition at an early date and the learned counsel appearing for the parties shall extend their cooperation to the Court so that the petition pending before the High Court can be

JUDGMENT

decided at an early date. It is clarified that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

6. In view of the said fact the appeal is disposed of as allowed. No order as to costs.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. .................J.

[ANIL R. DAVE]

..................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 15th October, 2015.

Ask CaseMinister about Medical Council of India v. Rfdf Medical College Hospital and Research Centre .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp