Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Shiv Nath Choudhary vs Ndmc & Ors. on 24 October, 2011 cites

Gainda Ram & Ors vs M.C.D. & Ors on 13 September, 2004

32. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it will not be appropriate for it to grant stay orders in the face of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Supreme Court. It is reiterated that any such order shall be an anti-thesis to the orders of the Supreme Court, which must be respected both, in letter and spirit. In such circumstances, the present petitions are disposed of by declining grant of any interim orders to the petitioners. However, liberty is granted to both the parties to apply to the Supreme Court for a clarification of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011 passed in the case of Gainda Ram (supra). The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 95 - Full Document

Sodan Singh vs N.D.M.C. & Ors on 4 February, 1998

She particularly referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in paras 40 and 41 of the judgment in the case of Sodan Singh (supra), which dealt with the immediate eviction of unauthorized squatters/hawkers and laid emphasis on the fact that in the said case, the Supreme Court had directed removal of unauthorized squatters/hawkers without awaiting final allotment of sites to be allotted to eligible claimants at the places recommended by the Thareja Committee or suggested by the NDMC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Sudhir Madan And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 17 May, 2007

The other issues agitated by the parties, starting from the interpretation of the various observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, to the formulation of the scheme as approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Madan (supra), to the composition of the disputes redressal mechanism and its validity as also the meaning of the status quo order, are all in a turmoil as both the parties have stoutly defended their respective stands which are completely at variance with each other.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 23 - B P Singh - Full Document

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 August, 1990

29. The fountainhead of the dispute in the present cases therefore remains the status quo order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Supreme Court. The issue which is sought to be agitated before this Court is that having regard to the status quo order, whether a stay order ought to be granted by this Court in favour of the petitioners/vendors as prayed for by them, irrespective of their legal status, thus forbidding the respondent/NDMC from threatening and/or removing them from the different sites occupied by them in the NDMC areas. In other words, this Court is being called upon to examine the meaning, scope and effect of the status quo order dated 15.07.2011. On the question of how to ascertain the implication of a status quo order passed by a court, in the case of Messrs Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra), it was observed by the Supreme Court that the expression, „status quo‟ is undoubtedly a term of ambiguity and at times, gives rise to doubt and difficulty and in case any party has any doubt on the meaning and the effect of the status quo order, the proper course for such a party would be to approach the Court that had passed the status quo order, to seek clarifications.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 78 - K N Singh - Full Document

Mohd. Ismail vs Slum & Jj Department (Mcd) on 22 December, 2009

21. Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate appearing for some of the petitioners/vendors sought to embellish the submissions of Mr.Sawhney, Sr.Advocate and relied on the orders passed in W.P.(C) 1449/2011 entitled Mohd. Ismail vs. NDMC & Ors. to urge that the "Appellate Authority" constituted under the dispute redressal mechanism for the NDMC area, has not been functioning, which fact he stated is borne out from a perusal of the order dated 08.03.2011 passed in the aforesaid case, wherein the Court took notice of the claim of the petitioner/vendor therein to the effect that inspite of orders passed by the Appellate Authority allowing squatting at a particular site, till a final determination by the Vending Committee as to his eligibility, the respondent/NDMC and the police were disturbing his activities. In the aforesaid order, the statement of the counsel for the respondent/NDMC was recorded to the effect that the appellate authority, whose order was being relied upon by the petitioner therein, was constituted initially for the MCD areas and later started functioning for the NDMC areas as well for the reason that at that time, there was no separate appellate authority for the NDMC areas, but subsequently, in accordance with the scheme approved by the Supreme Court, the Chairperson, NDMC had constituted a separate appellate authority for the NDMC areas. Therefore, the appellate authority appointed earlier had ceased to have jurisdiction qua the NDMC areas. It W.P.(C) 4743/2011, 5254/2011 & connected matters Page 18 of 28 was thus contended on behalf of the petitioners/vendors that the aforesaid order clearly indicates that the appellate authority in the NDMC areas is not functioning.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - G Mittal - Full Document
1