The petition seeking relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was dismissed because a fresh Section 6 notification was issued under the 1894 Act and no Award had been passed, making such relief inapplicable.
The petition was dismissed without granting any relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
28
SOHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Indu Prasad and Mr. Lokendra Upadhyay, Proxy Counsel.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel DDA with Ms. Komal Sorout and Ms. Mrinalini Sharma, Advocates for DDA. Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate for LCA/L&B.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 11.01.2019
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
JANUARY 11, 2019 nk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether relief under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act can be granted where a fresh Section 6 notification has been issued under the 1894 Act and no Award has been passed.
SOHAN SINGH
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
S.MURALIDHAR
SANJEEV NARULA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
