DEAN MAULANA AZAD MED.COLLEGE vs DR BUDH PRIYA RAHUL — C.A. No. 6345/2012

Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010219252009

Filing Date

27-Jul-2009

Registration No

C.A. No. 6345/2012

Diary Number

21925/2009

Order Date

29-Aug-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XIV-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DEAN MAULANA AZAD MED.COLLEGE

    Adv. RANI CHHABRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DR BUDH PRIYA RAHUL

    Adv. MOHINDER JIT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 29-Aug-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  4. 28-Aug-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 04-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 04-Sep-2014

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 04-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 11-Aug-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 03-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 02-Jul-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 30-Apr-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 26-Mar-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 09-Feb-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 08-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 10-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 23-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 09-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 16-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 27-Jul-2009

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 6345/2012

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 006345/2012 The Supreme Court disposed of Dean Maulana Azad Medical College's appeal on August 29, 2019, finding it infructuous without ruling on merits. The core dispute involved whether Dr. Budh Priya Rahul should undergo fresh internship after allegedly submitting forged documents. Although the High Court had ruled in the doctor's favor on procedural grounds (lack of notice), the Supreme Court declined to interfere, reasoning that requiring internship would be futile given the respondent had already practiced medicine for over a decade. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case