APPEAL NO. I. 3.3. Soelcu :s lvi ....i..;c vapla Fnmapuire !r(iia1 College v. (I. Medical College:. Ruru.i ijibag. Suilia
Judgment
(By Sri. Sal. K.umman, Ciovennuent Advocate for in 1) N4Y.E: FF3, P7 A P.9 an. delet.ed vide court order in ii O.)OO(i. F 4, Bc A o are UeIe;tect aide core t oruer Dt,22. I leO This writ appeal is flied U/S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set asid,e. the ord.er passed in WPNb. 3912 1/2004 Hfle(j 15J)72005. [F9js wilt aB eat corning on ibr onrw_cn:na IT [frOOJUi i 15 027, KSFtEEtYHAR RAt) 4, delivered the Ibliowlugu JUDGMENT The marcO Single eudge, while (irsposlrig off the rent petnrori has ruaoc the fbliowtng order:
25. in the result I iaee the following order. i) 1 direct the 90 spondent*coilcge to •ad a .1 t the PeIir.IOIrer t.o First rear .MBBS Course tSr academic. r(r 2CC) •‘ ‘9CY as undertaken on it ori payment of fees as fixed by the competent autnoritres. — re_i-
i, I c’ l’ic J) ‘ 1 1 nwejsi ‘ to 1 itid ‘a’ ti h sg€ziIist ICSTK,Ild(r.t% 1 ., 7, M S ‘ ti )CCOI(Ijj.ZY ijiti j, :‘iicl ht tir- light n ‘s tsjtj’ rs tnait a5 qe I! !‘—t uii is dis; se I nt : nirdaigJ ‘in o%ts. 2 TIer ;w.ti’inrr in tb. *rit jwttn ii has ii i. givti 3(11 “s’is5. to ‘l° \Ieclica (.c-’use- a acre, rjirrc 1(111’ cti i i’ 1. ‘:flfll. lr- rtaspskicnt \G 5 in tir mit ixlitk’n t-1S tiled ii s ap;x ii €LggIicv d In U I ‘(Ciba N’.2 in ii oid 1 ‘c in d snina ‘lix c au M 1 1 ixtut subnn. s lii it tow n’ violatid 1 1 thu ‘ I r i L vn .1 N s r i d 111 tli( CI ‘)I’lSt) 1 1 (‘txlaIan lg i ci’ si itti 1a c nsvcrs’P belo r t ci n sin a4lic)n. ln’ Ii cc ‘sin 11, ‘c lIt • flit’ t ‘n:tct fl11eS and ‘. ‘tea i - i. sIoi 1i pas— C S r I Sd! JUDGE JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.