Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 80 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Sudama Singh & Others vs Government Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 February, 2010

Jagjit Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 June, 2010

Majlis Park v. MCD & Ors.‟s case (supra) & Sudama Singh & Ors v. Govt. of Delhi & Anr.‟s case (supra) and also to determine as to what should be the approach of the coordinate Bench when there are earlier authoritative pronouncements having a contrary ratio decidendi and the appeal is pending Page 15 of 16 before the Supreme Court without the judgment being set aside or operation of the judgment being stayed.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 69 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Govinda And Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 26 May, 2025

57. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (supra) was rendered in the context of rehabilitation and improvement scheme for jhuggi clusters that came into effect from 01.04.2000, with a cut-off date of 30.11.1998 for determining eligibility. This Court, while interpreting the scheme in light of the provisions of the Constitution and relevant international human rights conventions, arrived at the following conclusions:
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Manoj Gupta And Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 4 August, 2022

16. As far as the reliance of the appellants on the judgments of this Court in Sudama Singh (supra) and Ajay Maken (supra) is concerned, we are again unable to accept the same. In the referred judgments, this Court was not dealing with the position where the respondents were disputing the existence of the JJ cluster as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case ."
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Shekh Ansar Ali And Ors vs Delhi Urbban Shelter Improvement Board on 14 February, 2024

16. As far as the reliance of the appellants on the judgments of this Court in Sudama Singh (supra) and Ajay Maken (supra) is concerned, we are again unable to accept the same. In the referred judgments, this Court was not dealing with the position where the respondents were disputing the existence of the JJ cluster as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case."
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Smt. Raj Pati Devi vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 September, 2011

At this stage, reliance is placed on the latest judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sudama Singh & Ors vs. Government of Delhi & Anr., 168 (2010) Delhi Law Times 218 (DB) bearing similar facts wherein it was held by Hon'ble High Court that it is not uncommon that when a survey team arrives at a jhuggi camp, some or the other member may not be found there. By merely stopping with that single visit, and not finding a particular member of that family, it may not be concluded that no such member resides in that jhuggi. Such an exercise, if it has to be meaningful, has to be undertaken either at the time when all the members of the family are likely to be found. Alternatively, there should be repeated visits by the survey team over a period of time with proper prior announcement.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vaishali (Minor) Through Next Friend ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 April, 2022

16. As far as the reliance of the appellants on the judgments of this Court in Sudama Singh (supra) and Ajay Maken (supra) is concerned, we are again unable to accept the same. In the referred judgments, this Court was not dealing with the position where the respondents were disputing the existence of the JJ cluster as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Janki vs Central Public Works Department And ... on 7 October, 2022

16. As far as the reliance of the appellants on the judgments of this Court in Sudama Singh (supra) and Ajay Maken (supra) is concerned, we are again unable to accept the same. In the referred judgments, this Court was not dealing with the position where the respondents were disputing the existence of the J J cluster as on 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

P.K.Koul vs Estate Officer & Anr. on 30 November, 2010

"Article 5 In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination W.P.(C) No.15239/2004 Page 30 of 157 in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights :
Delhi High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 16 - G Mittal - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar & Others vs D.D.A. & Others on 4 May, 2011

In Sudama Singh versus Government of Delhi, 2010 (168) DLT 218, a Division Bench of this Court held that relocation has to be a meaningful exercise consistent with rights of life, livelihood and dignity of such jhuggi dwellers and that removal of their jhuggis without ensuring their relocation would amount to gross violation of Fundamental Rights. In pursuance to this view that the court issued directions that the decision of non-entitlement of alternative accommodation to the jhuggi dwellers on relocation was illegal and unconstitutional.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - S Khanna - Full Document

Naval Kishore & Ors vs U.O.I. & Ors on 2 January, 2012

At this stage, it is imperative to analyze the guidelines w.r.t. resettlement/ relocation emphasized by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the Division Bench Judgment passed by Sh. A. P Shah, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and Dr. S. Muralidhar, Justice in the case of Sudama Singh & Ors vs. Government of Delhi & Anr., 168 (2010) Delhi Law Times 218 (DB) which are being reproduced herein for the sake of reference:­
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next