Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Shabnam Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 September, 2017

Sanraj Farms Private Limited vs Shri Ram Kishan & Anr. on 3 March, 2025

13. Defendants' counsel, therefore, contends that transaction by the sale deed was a void transfer, in view of Sections 33 and 42 of the DLRA. Plaintiff's application for mutation due to the objection, could not be sanctioned and a revision petition under Section 72 of the DLRA was preferred before the Financial Commissioner being No.74/2018, which was dismissed by order dated 18th August 2022.The Financial Commissioner directed the SDM/RA to take a final view with regard to the transaction of sale, in terms of Sections 33 and 42 of the DLRA, after providing opportunity to both parties. The Financial Commissioner's order has been challenged by plaintiff, by way of a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the revenue authority after notification under Section 507(a) of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Defendants rely upon the decision in Subnam Gupta v Union of India & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2759 of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15th April 2024, in that the Financial Commissioner's order could have legal significance.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar & Anr vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 8 November, 2024

4. Mr. Anupam Srivastava, learned Additional Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and submits that the Notification urbanising Village Mamurpur was issued after the order was passed by the learned SDM which is challenged before the Appellate Authority and therefore, in light of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Subnam Gupta (Sabnam Gupta) v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2759, proceedings cannot be rendered as non est. Without prejudice to this contention in law, Mr. Srivastava, on instructions, submits that the application filed by the Petitioner seeking dismissal of the appeal deserves to be considered and time may be granted to decide the same.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Daya Kishan & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 22 November, 2024

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 13/12/2024 at 22:37:56 the Competent Authority was passed prior to the Notification as in the case before the Supreme Court, where the Notification urbanising Village Samepur was issued on 23.04.1992, whereas the appellants had challenged the mutation order dated 31.05.1989 by filing an appeal before the Financial Commissioner under Section 64 of the 1954 Act, which appeal was adjudicated on 10.02.1995 and in this context, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings under 1954 Act were non est and these facts were different from the case in Subnam Gupta (supra), where the impugned order of the SDM was passed prior to urbanisation of Village Burari.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Sh. Jaipal Singh Deceased Through His ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 11 December, 2024

6. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Financial Commissioner to decide the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the Revision Petition bearing No.171/2016 in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh (supra) as also the Division Bench of this Court in Subnam Gupta (supra). The decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next