Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)

Rajinder Rai vs Smt. Ritika Arora on 15 January, 2021

Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that the defendant cannot be permitted to resile from her admissions under the claim of "procedural defects" or "curable defects" as per this Hon'ble Court's decision in'Kanwar Singh Yadav v. AIIMS' in CS(Comm) No. 222/19 as upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order in 'Kanwar Singh Yadav v. AIIMS' in CM (M) No. 409/20 dated 28.07.2020. In the light of the above facts, circumstances and law, it is submitted that this Court may be pleased to allow the Plaintiff's application under Order XIII-A read with Order XII Rule 6 of CPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hariom Project Private Limited vs Military Engineer Services, Director ... on 17 August, 2020

30. He submits that this Court in its exercise of the powers of judicial review, would not interfere with the order passed after due application of mind by the Competent Authority and after following the Principles of Natural Justice. Relying upon the decisions in Michigan Rubber (India) W.P.(C) 10729/2019 Page 11 Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216; Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 2299; and Kanwar Singh Yadav vs. All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) & Ors., MANU/DE/0165/2019, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the power of judicial review vested in this Court is highly circumscribed and does not extend to reviewing the order passed by the respondents on its merit, but extends only to considering the decision-making process. He submits that the decision-making process being fair and reasonable, this Court would refuse to interfere with the Impugned Order.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document
1