The Supreme Court opined that it is unjust on the part of Haryana Utilities to say that 70% of the installed capacity should be further bifurcated and the Change in Law benefit should be restricted only to 70% of the installed capacity.
Observing that performance of functions identical to those performed by medical practitioners by persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Central Act, could have dangerous consequences, the Supreme Court held that Rural Health Practitioners enlisted under the Assam Act, are underqualified to perform functions similar to those performed by medical practitioners registered in accordance with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court, however, upheld the constitutionality of the Assam Community Professional (Registration and Competency) Act, 2015 that was enacted to give continuity in service to the practitioners in question.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao v. BR Gavai*, JJ has set aside the judgment of the Aurangabad bench of
by Nilufer Bhateja*