Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Hc/ Ro Prasiddh Narain on 3 January, 2022
Bench: K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
ITEM NO.7 Court 10 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15312-15321/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-01-2021
in WPC No. 5075/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No. 5080/2020 15-01-2021 in
WPC No. 5443/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No. 5444/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC
No. 5445/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No. 5447/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No.
7745/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No. 11061/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No.
11063/2020 15-01-2021 in WPC No. 11065/2020 passed by the High
Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HC/RO PRASIDDH NARAIN & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. [ALONGWITH PAPERS OF SLP(C) NO. 23379/2018,
13630/2020 AND 1719/2021]
IA No. 122518/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 16570/2021 (XIV)
(FOR
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA
133361/2021
IA No. 133361/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 03-01-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG
Ms. Vishaka, Adv.
Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.
VVV Pattabhi Ram, Adv.
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv.
Ms. Aakansha Kaul, Adv.
Digitally signed by
JAGDISH KUMAR
Date: 2022.01.04
16:41:33 IST
Reason: Ms. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
Mr. A. K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
2
For Respondent(s)/
Caveator Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Ms. Manita Haryani, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.
Mr. H. S. Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Arora, Adv.
Mr. Harshy Dhankar, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the caveator, it is not in dispute that the Special Leave Petition filed against the very same common order has been dismissed by this Court. Taking note of this admitted fact, we see no need to take a different view. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGDISH KUMAR) (RENU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER