Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)

Sh. Rajiv Prem vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 September, 2006

6. Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the erstwhile land owners in their objections under Section 5A omitted to disclose the existence of any sanctioned building plan in respect of the land, to claim exclusion thereof from the purview of notification under Section 4 of the Act. She contended that the plea in this regard being raised for the first time by the petitioner by filing an additional affidavit after lapse of about 17 years from the date of issue of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the same is highly belated rendering his petition being barred by inordinate delay and laches. A Division Bench decision of this Court in Radha Soami Sat Sang Beas and Ors. V. Delhi Administration and Anr. in Civil Writ Petition No. 1282/1978 rendered on 15th October, 2004 and upheld by the Supreme Court, was cited to contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. It was, in addition, argued that the erstwhile land owners having omitted to assail the validity of declaration under Section 6 and subsequent proceedings including the award, the petitioner, being a purchaser subsequent to the issue of such declaration and passing of the award, has no locus standi to maintain the petition challenging the same.

Cc No. 666/1/14 Dinesh Kumar Gogna vs . Sharad Aggarwal Page 1 Of 5 on 3 December, 2015

5. My attention has also been drawn to the various judicial pronouncements including Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 187; Lallan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) JCC 1731; & Radha vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (2) JCC 1414 to show that when any complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to register the FIR.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pronouncements Including Lalita ... vs . Govt. Of U.P. & Ors., on 21 January, 2016

5. My attention has also been drawn to the various judicial pronouncements including Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 187; Lallan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) JCC 1731; & Radha vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (2) JCC 1414 to show that when any complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to register the FIR.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pronouncements Including Lalita ... vs . Govt. Of U.P. & Ors., on 9 March, 2016

5. My attention has also been drawn to the various judicial pronouncements including Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2014 SC 187; Lallan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) JCC 1731; & Radha vs. State of Delhi, 2011 (2) JCC 1414 to show that when any complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the police is bound to register the FIR.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next