SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 337

M.FATHIMA BEEVI, S.C.AGRAWAL
A. K. Sabhapathy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
J.RAMAMURTHY, K.R.NAMBIAR, M.A.Firoz, M.K.NAMBIYAR, R.MOHAN, T.T.KUNHIKANNAN

Judgment

S.C. AGRAWAL, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated October 14, 1982(reported in AIR 1983 Kerala 24). It raises the question relating to the validity of the first proviso to S. 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act’) and the order dated September 28, 1978 and notification dated April 13, 1981 issued by the Government of Kerala.

2. Section 38 of the State Act reads as under:.

"38. Persons not registered under this Act etc. not to practise : - No person other than (i) a registered practitioner or (ii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under S. 30 or (iii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in S. 25 shall practise or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication as practising modern medicine, homoeopatnic medicine, or ayurvedic medicine, sidda medicine or such medicine shall practise any other medicine unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine.

Provided that the Government may, by notification in the Gazette direct that this section shall not apply to any person o






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top