Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus MANAS RANJAN BEHERA & ORS.

Decided
26 October 2009
Judges listed
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 15 S.C.R. 450 · 2009 INSC 1199
Also cited as
  • (2010) 1 SCC 173 (12 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 451, margin B

2

The Medical Council of India has challenged the Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa directing the admission of 12 students after the cut-off date of 30th September of the concerned year. It may be noticed in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and others, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65, this Court directed that all the parties shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as regards admission to students in the Medical and Dental colleges. In Direction-15 of paragraph 35 of the Judgment, we has also indicated, "Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with." In view of these directions, the High Court should not have passed the impugned Order. However, we have noticed that these 12 students were eligible and because of unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed time limit. We condone the delay in giving admission to them as a one time measure. However, we clarify that these time schedule prescribed by this Court should be followed strictly. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. R.P. Appeals disposed of.

p. 451, margin C