UOI v. AGYA RAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, these applications are allowed and the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. These applications have been filed on behalf of a judicial officer, who had adjudicated upon an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The applicant was impleaded as respondent no.4 in W.P.(C) 1894/1999 and as respondent no.2 in…
Judgment
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate versus NIRANJAN KUMAR & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocate for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Cousnel for GNCTD CM APPL. 21904/2024 in + W.P.(C) 1890/1999 UOI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate versus AGYA RAM & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocate for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Cousnel for GNCTD CM APPL. 21916/2024 in + W.P.(C) 1891/1999 UOI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate versus KISHAN LAL & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocate for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Cousnel for GNCTD This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2024 at 12:05:54 CM APPL. 21899/2024 in + W.P.(C) 1894/1999 UOI Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate ..... Petitioner versus HARISH & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocate for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Cousnel for GNCTD CM APPL. 21919/2024 in + W.P.(C) 1895/1999 UOI Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate ..... Petitioner versus JAGJIT SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents Through: CM APPL. 21914/2024 in + W.P.(C) 1896/1999 UOI Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate ..... Petitioner versus SUBHASH CHAND MARWAH & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jatin Dua, Advocate for Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Cousnel for GNCTD CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2024 at 12:05:54 % O R D E R 15.04.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 21933/2024 (under Order I Rule 10) in W.P.(C) 1889/1999 CM APPL. 21904/2024 (under Order I Rule 10) in W.P.(C) 1890/1999 CM APPL. 21916/2024 (under Order I Rule 10) in W.P.(C) 1891/1999 CM APPL. 21899/2024 (under Order I Rule 10) in W.P.(C) 1894/1999 CM APPL. 21919/2024 (under Order I Rule 10) in W.P.(C) 1895/1999 CM APPL. 21914/2024 (under Order I Rule 10) in W.P.(C) 1896/1999
#1. These applications have been filed on behalf of a judicial officer, who had adjudicated upon an appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The applicant was impleaded as respondent no.4 in W.P.(C) 1894/1999 and as respondent no.2 in the remaining above petitions. The applicant being the Judicial Officer seeks deletion of his name from memo of parties. At the very outset, learned counsel for appellant Union of India fairly admits that these applications deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, these applications are allowed and the Judicial Officer is deleted from array of parties. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks.
#2. List on the date already fixed i.e., 13.09.2024. APRIL 15, 2024/rk GIRISH KATHPALIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2024 at 12:05:54
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, these applications are allowed and the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act — s. 9.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 15 Apr 2024. The bench was GIRISH KATHPALIA.
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.