Medical Council Of India Through Its Secretary vs. D. Peraiah Chetty
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
27 Jan 2009
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
| ITEM NO.88 | REGISTRAR COURT. 2 | SECTION XIIA |
|---|---|---|
| SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<br>RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS | ||
| BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA | ||
| Civil Appeal No(s). 517-532/2009 | ||
| MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. | Appellant(s) | |
| <b>VERSUS</b> | ||
| D. PERAIAH CHETTY & ORS. | Respondent(s) | |
| (with office report) | ||
| WITH<br>C.A. No. 533/2009<br>(With Office Report)<br>C.A. No. 534/2009<br>(With Office Report)<br>C.A. No. 536/2009<br>(With Office Report)<br>C.A. No. 537/2009<br>(With Office Report)<br>C.A. No. 1375/2009<br>(With Office Report)<br>C.A. No. 3332/2011<br>(With Office Report) | Date: 16/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. | |
| For Appellant(s) | Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. | |
| For Respondent(s) | Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. | |
| Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta, Adv. | ||
| Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Adv. | ||
| Signature Not Verified | Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Adv. | |
| Digitally signed by<br>Suman Wa<br>Date: 2014.09.18<br>16:47:55 IST<br>Reason: | Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Adv. | |
| Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv. |
Ms. Anu Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv. Mr. Arjun Singh,Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta,Adv. Mr. S.U.K.Sagar,Adv.for M/s. Temple Law Firm.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
What gets revealed from perusal of the office report is that the original record has been received from the concerned High Court and is available in this Registry for reference of the Hon'ble Court. The office report further states that the appellant in all the matters and the Respondent No.1 in C.A.Nos. 517 and 522 of 2009, Respondent No.2 in C.A.Nos. 533, 534 and 536 of 2009 and Respondent No.1 in CA No.1375 of 2009 have already filed the statement of case.
The office report proceeds to state that respondent No.4 in CA No.518 of 2009, Respondent Nos. 1-3 in CA No. 519/2009, Respondent Nos. 1-4 in CA No. 520/2009 and Respondent Nos. 1-3 in CA No. 527/2009, Respondent No.3 in CA No. 518, 519, 520, 521, 523 and 524 of 2009, Respondent No.4 in CA Nos. 523, 525 and 526 of 2009, Respondent No.3 in CA No. 534/2009, Respondent No.3 in CA No. 536/2009, Respondent No.1 in appeal arising out of W.A.Nos. 2528, 2594 and 2595 of 2005 in CA No. 533 of 2009, Respondent No.2 in CA No.534 of 2009, respondent No. 2 in CA No. 536 of 2009 Respondent No.1 in CA No. 534/2009, Respondent No.1 in CA No.536/2009 have not filed their statement of case although they were notified to do so on 2.5.2011. Order XIX Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that if the respondent has
-2-
entered appearance and does not file a statement of case within the time as provided in sub-rule (1) (i.e. 35 days) it shall be presumed that he does not desire to lodge the same. In view of the rule position cited above no further opportunity for filing the statement of case is warranted to be given to the said respondents.
The office report further states that the other respondents have been served but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Viewed thus, the matters shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules.
(M K HANJURA) Registrar
SW