Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Inconsistency between Schedule provisions and statutory rules - Several sources discuss conflicts between schedules or rules and the main legislative or procedural framework. For example, ["Gnanasoundari VS G. Vijayakala - Madras"] explains that rules amended by the Amending Act (Act 104 of 1976) must not be inconsistent with the body of the code, but can amend or add to rules in the First Schedule. It also states that the proviso introduced by way of the Madras Amendment, which is inconsistent to Sub-Rule 4, Rule 14 of Order 41 would stand repealed, indicating an effort to resolve conflicts between schedules and rules. Similarly, ["Union of India and Another v. Jogendra Singh and Another - Chhattisgarh"] notes that provisions in the Schedule of the Act are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 25-B(4), but clarifies that the provisions of the Schedule are incorporated in Section 25-B(4) itself, suggesting some schedule provisions are integrated into the main law to avoid conflict.
Application of procedural rules and amendments - Several sources highlight how procedural rules, such as those in the CPC or specific schedules, interact with amendments or special statutes. ["Satish Kumar Sakuja VS Appolo Cranes Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi"] discusses that Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 4 of Order XIII-A of CPC and the consequences of non-compliance, stating that once consequences are provided for not filing the response... proceedings shall not be called in question, emphasizing procedural strictness. ["Bhagla VS Zor Singh - Rajasthan"] notes that Section 4 of the C.P.C. which saves the special provisions of Section 13(2) of the Land Revenue Act, illustrating how procedural provisions are preserved or overridden by specific laws.
Inconsistencies in schedule-based penalties and classifications - The schedule-based classification of offences or penalties sometimes conflicts with statutory provisions. For example, ["RAVINDRAJITH VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL"] discusses drug offences where the penalty set out is 'death or life imprisonment' for possession of 2 grams or more of heroin, based on Schedule III of the Act, which deals with punishments in drug-related offences. This illustrates schedule provisions prescribing penalties that may conflict with or supplement statutory penalties.
Interpretation and validity of amendments and schedules - Several references, such as ["RAM KISHAN & SONS vs UNION OF INDIA - Delhi"], address whether schedule provisions are ultra vires or inconsistent. It states that the provisions of the Schedule are inconsistent with the provisions of Section... but also that the schedule forms part of the Act itself, indicating that schedules are integral but may be challenged if inconsistent. The courts have held that acts done which are inconsistent with the law declared by this court are invalid ["Union Of India VS Amrik Singh - Supreme Court"], emphasizing the need for consistency between schedules and the main law.
Conclusion - The main insight is that schedules and rules can sometimes conflict with statutory provisions or amendments, but courts generally interpret schedules as part of the law unless proven to be ultra vires or inconsistent. Amendments, especially those made under specific Acts, aim to harmonize or override conflicting schedule provisions, but inconsistencies may lead to legal challenges regarding validity and applicability. The overarching principle is that schedules are integral but must conform to the primary legislative framework and constitutional limits ["Gnanasoundari VS G. Vijayakala - Madras"], ["Union of India and Another v. Jogendra Singh and Another - Chhattisgarh"], ["RAM KISHAN & SONS vs UNION OF INDIA - Delhi"].
References:- ["Gnanasoundari VS G. Vijayakala - Madras"]- ["Jaimon, S/o. Antony VS Sebastian, S/o. Mathew - Kerala"]- ["Union of India and Another v. Jogendra Singh and Another - Chhattisgarh"]- ["RAVINDRAJITH VS. ATTORNEY GENERAL"]- ["RAM KISHAN & SONS vs UNION OF INDIA - Delhi"]- ["Union Of India VS Amrik Singh - Supreme Court"]- ["Bhagla VS Zor Singh - Rajasthan"]- ["Satish Kumar Sakuja VS Appolo Cranes Pvt. Ltd. - Delhi"]
In the complex world of medical education regulation in India, questions often arise about the recognition of foreign medical qualifications. One common query is: 13(2) and 13(4) inconsistent schedule? This refers to whether subsections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (IMCA) create inconsistencies, particularly regarding schedules and the recognition of degrees from abroad. For medical professionals, students pursuing foreign MBBS, or legal practitioners, understanding this is crucial.
This post delves into the provisions, analyzes their scope, and explains why they are generally reconcilable through harmonious interpretation. We'll draw from judicial insights and statutory schemes to provide clarity.
The provisions of subsections 13(2) and 13(4) of the IMCA are not inherently inconsistent. The apparent conflict stems from their differing scopes—historical versus contemporary recognition—but a purposive reading aligns them with the Act's overall legislative intent. Courts typically apply the rule of harmonization to ensure both operate without overlap or contradiction. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1590
This approach recognizes that Section 13(2) addresses specific historical qualifications from pre-independence eras in Pakistan and Burma, while Section 13(4) governs current foreign qualifications, often under reciprocity schemes or with additional conditions like practical training. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 8 Supreme 527
Section 13(2) explicitly states: The medical qualifications granted to a citizen of India (a) before August 15, 1947 by the medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Pakistan and (b) before April 1, 1937, by medical institutions in the territories now forming part of Burma which are included in Part I of the Third Schedule shall also be recognized medical qualifications for the purposes of the Act. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1590
This provision acknowledges the historical validity of degrees from partition-era institutions, ensuring practitioners aren't disenfranchised due to geopolitical changes. It's a special, time-bound recognition not subject to modern conditions.
As noted in related judicial discussions, Section 13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third Schedule, distinguishing them from later subsections. Apurv Shankar VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 441
Introduced via amendments (Act 34 of 2001), Section 13(4) clarifies: Section 13(4) lays down special provisions for recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is no scheme of reciprocity. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1590
It applies to qualifications outside reciprocity (Section 12), requiring compliance with conditions like screening tests or training. Importantly, Nothing contained in sub-sections (4A) and (4B) shall apply to the medical qualifications referred to in section 14. This carves out exceptions, showing the provision's targeted nature.
Section 13(3) and 13(4) link to Part II of the Third Schedule, further delineating their role in non-reciprocal scenarios. Apurv Shankar VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 441
The IMCA's recognition framework is holistic:- Section 11 & First Schedule: Indian institutions.- Section 12 & Second Schedule: Reciprocal foreign qualifications.- Section 13: Catches all others, with subsections for historical (13(2)) and conditional (13(4)) cases. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1590
An authoritative view emphasizes: The scheme relating to recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India as envisaged by Section 12 is not complete. In order to make the scheme complete, exhaustive and workable, one has to take into account the provisions of sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1590
This confirms 13(4) supplements, not overrides, earlier provisions like 13(2). Similarly, recognition scheme is comprehensive and that Sections 13(2) and 13(4) are not mutually exclusive but address different categories of recognition within the legislative intent. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 8 Supreme 527
Apparent inconsistencies—e.g., 13(2)'s unconditional recognition versus 13(4)'s conditions—resolve by context: pre-1947/1937 degrees versus later ones.
Judicial interpretations reinforce this. In eligibility disputes for foreign MBBS graduates, courts stress schedule distinctions: What is relevant to notice is that Section 11 of the Act refers to the First Schedule whereas Section 12 refers to the Second Schedule and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third Schedule and Sections 13(3) and 13(4) refer to Part II of the Third Schedule. Apurv Shankar VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 441
This underscores non-overlapping applications. In another context, regulations inconsistent with statutory rules were quashed, highlighting the need for alignment—much like harmonizing 13(2) and 13(4). Central Secretariat Stenographers Service Association VS Central Secretariat Service, Direct Recruit Assistants Association - 2010 Supreme(Del) 1102
For students or doctors, this means historical qualifications under 13(2) typically stand without extra hurdles, while current foreign degrees may need Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) compliance under related provisions.
Recommendations:- Authorities should interpret 13(2) for historical cases and 13(4) for ongoing ones.- Seek eligibility certificates pre-admission abroad to avoid issues. Apurv Shankar VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 441- Legislative clarity via amendments could minimize disputes.
Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the IMCA are designed for distinct purposes—historical legacies versus modern safeguards—and harmonize within the Act's scheme. This prevents perceived inconsistencies, ensuring fair regulation of medical practice.
Key Takeaways:- No inherent conflict; contextual application resolves doubts.- Historical degrees (13(2)) get special recognition.- Current foreign quals (13(4)) face conditions like training.- Always consult schedules and latest NMC rules.
This post provides general information based on statutory provisions and cited judgments. It is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
References:1. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 15902. Yash Ahuja VS Medical Council of India - 2009 8 Supreme 5273. Apurv Shankar VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 4414. Central Secretariat Stenographers Service Association VS Central Secretariat Service, Direct Recruit Assistants Association - 2010 Supreme(Del) 1102
#IMCALaw, #MedicalQualifications, #ForeignMBBS
These rules no doubt must not be inconsistent with the body of the code. But they can amend or add to rules in the First Schedule to the Code. ... The exception relating to Section 97 of the Amending Act is found in Clause 2 of the Sub-section 2 and it reads as follows:- "The provisions of Order 41 of the 1st schedule as amended by Section 97 of this Act shall not apply to or affect any appeal pending immediately ... 13. ... Therefore, by virtue of Section 97(1) of the A....
The plaint schedule property therein is the eastern most 3 and 3/4 cents from out of the plaint schedule property in OS 95/2002. 3. The suits were jointly tried. OS 95/2002 was taken as the leading case. ... The suit is one for declaration of title and possession, and for a declaration that Sale Deed No.906/2001(Ext.B3) does not affect the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is, 13 cents 160 square links with building thereon. ... 2. RSA 1129/2006 ....
S.4(1) of CPC reads as under: - "4. ... (2). ... 2. ... Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) namely, those contained in Order V, R.9 of 13 and 15 to 20, Order IX, Order XVIII, R.3 to 10, Order XVI, R.2 to 21, Order XVII, Order XXI and Order XXIII, R.1 to 3 shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far
(4) In a case of possession of 2 grammes of heroin and above, the penalty set out is "death or life imprisonment". ... (2) On a plain reading of the wording in Part 111 it is clear that for the possession of "2 grammes of Heroin and above" (column 11) the penalty as set out in the corresponding entry in column 111 is "death or life imprisonment" (3) Part 111 of the schedule sets out three different ... In that case it was held that:- (1) In the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, a....
The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the lawyers has made this reference recommending that the order dated 12-2-65 is not in accordance with law and the order dated 7-3-63 is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such it should be set aside. ... 4. ... There is nothing in the words used by the Legislature which justifies such a conversion, and these are strong reasons which render such an interpretation wholly inconsistent with the scheme of the Act. ... Issue summons to the accused fixing 25-2-65. Mention Rs. 20....
13. ... 2. These two petitions are taken up for consideration and disposal with the consent of learned counsels for parties. 3. Parties to the petitions shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. ... PROPERTIES MENTIONED HEREUNDER SHOWN AS SCHEDULE-D PROPERTIES IN THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.138/2023 IN ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE SAID SUIT BY FILING I.A.NO.2 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE VIDE A....
(C) No. 1403/2013 Page 2 of 13 said Act is ultra vires; the provisions of the Schedule are inconsistent with the provisions of Section ... 12 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score that Schedule of the Act is inconsistent with the statutory provision [Section 25-B (4)] is a misunderstood and a mis-reading of the aforenoted ... (C) No. 1403/2013 ....
Golak Maths case (supra) but acts done which are inconsistent with the law declared by this court are invalid. ... (4) IN our judgment, that is not the effect of I. C. Golak Maths case (supra). ... In that case Wanchoo, Bhargava and Mitter,JJ., held that the word law in Article 13(1) does not include any law in the nature of a constitutional provision, and Article 13(2) when it speaks of the State making any law, refers to the law made under the provisions contained in Ch. ... ... (6) H....
The Act of 1946 being the Special Act and expressly and exclusively dealing with the conditions of service of the workmen in industrial establishment enumerated in Schedule appended to the Act, shall prevail unless it is excluded under section 13-B of the Act. ... 2. ... The Petitioner was granted personal hearing on 13 April 2012. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter proceeded to pass order dated 30 May 2012 imposing the punishment of removal from service in respect of Charge Nos.1 and 3 and dismissal from service in ....
... 13. ... After some time thereafter the very petitioners applied for amendment of the plaint deleting the relief of declaration of title prayed for in their favour and to substitute the same with the relief that the suit plaint schedule properties 1 and 2 belong to the third schedule kattalai. ... Ladha Ram & co. , (1976 (4) SCC 320 = (1977) 90 L.W. 8 S.N). ... Amir Khan (AIR 1921 PC 50 = 13 L.W. 49) and L.J Leach and Co., Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. , (AIR 1957 SC 357). ... Moj....
What is relevant to notice is that Section 11 of the Act refers to the First Schedule whereas Section 12 refers to the Second Schedule and Sections 13(1) and 13(2) refer to Part I of the Third Schedule and Sections 13(3) and 13(4) refer to Part II of the Third Schedule. However, sub-sections (4-A) and (4-B) of Section 13 do not refer to any schedule at all because by those sub-sections general provisions are enacted which apply to all the cases where a citizen of India has obtained or is desirous of obtaining medical qualification granted by any medical institution in any c....
Paras-6, 8, 9 and 13 of the schedule read as follows:- Where the number of posts in any service or cadre permits reservation to be made for all the reserved categories, the 100-point roster as shown at para-1(a) above shall be applicable and where the number of posts in any service or cadre is too small to permit reservation to be made for all the reserved categories, the replacement roster as shown at para-1(b) above shall be applicable.
A perusal of the Schedule indicates that the Schedule contains 13 different items. Establishment means an establishment as specified in the Schedule and includes the precincts thereof. Now we come to the Schedule to the Act to find out what is the true ambit and scope of item No.5 of the Schedule. The definition clause contains an inclusive definition.
In her rejoinder she stated that the house bearing No. 4-2-13/1 was constructed by 1st defendant with the joint family funds. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that these are joint family properties. 42. Item II of A schedule consists of two residential houses bearing House No. 4-2-13 and 4-2-13/1 at Vemulawada Village.
Para 4 of the Regulations was, therefore, held to be ultra vires and inconsistent to Rule 13, read with para 2 under the Fourth Schedule of the Rules. The Tribunal took the view that the Government, while framing 1964 Regulations, had enlarged the scope of the Rules, which was beyond its competence and jurisdiction since executive instructions could not override any provision of Rules. The aforesaid para was accordingly quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
