Disposed¶16

Balam Rawat v. Delhi and District Cricket Association

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/13057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petitions with liberty to pursue civil remedies; exclusion of pendency period for limitation under Section 14, Limitation Act 1963; impugned termination challenge; Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA); Virender Singh Shah; Balam Rawat; Sanjeev Narula J; Delhi High Court; order dated 19.02.2026; W.P.(C) 6544/2022; W.P.(C) 13057/2024; petitions disposed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of as withdrawn with pending applications; Petitioners granted liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies, with the pendency period before this Court to be excluded for limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ¶16

Balam Rawat Vs Delhi and District Cricket Association — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners may be granted leave to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to take recourse to appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted to the Petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to take recourse to appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The period during which the present writ petitions remained pending before this Court shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the event the Petitioners institute appropriate proceedings before a competent forum.

¶15

Key takeaways

The question of limitation shall be considered by the concerned forum in accordance with law.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), Order dated 19.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 6544/2022 (Virender Singh Shah) and W.P.(C) 13057/2024 with CM APPL. 54469-54470/2024 (Balam Rawat) v. Delhi and District Cricket Association: Counsel for both Petitioners, after addressing submissions, sought leave on instructions to withdraw the writ petitions challenging an impugned termination, with liberty to take recourse to appropriate civil remedies, expressing apprehension that any such challenge may be barred by limitation. Leave and liberty granted. The Court clarified that the period during which the writ petitions remained pending before it shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should the Petitioners institute appropriate proceedings before a competent forum, leaving the question of limitation itself to be considered by the concerned forum in accordance with law. Petitions disposed of as withdrawn along with pending applications.

¶1

$~5, 6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6544/2022

¶4

VIRENDER SINGH SHAH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. Madhav Aggarwal, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI AND DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. T. Singh Dev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Vedant Sood, Mr. Bhanu Gulati and Mr. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates for R-1.

¶7

W.P.(C) 13057/2024, CM APPL. 54469-54470/2024 BALAM RAWAT .....Petitioner

¶8

Through: Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate. versus

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 19.02.2026

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. 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 20/02/2026 at 13:05:41

¶14

Both the counsel for the Petitioners, after addressing submissions for some time, on instructions, seek leave to withdraw the present petitions with liberty to take recourse to appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law. They, however, express an apprehension that any challenge to the impugned termination may be held to be barred by limitation.

¶15

Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted. It is clarified that the period during which the present writ petitions remained pending before this Court shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the event the Petitioners institute appropriate proceedings before a competent forum. The question of limitation shall be considered by the concerned forum in accordance with law.

¶16

According, the petitions are disposed of as withdrawn along with pending applications.

¶17

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 19, 2026 nk

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 20/02/2026 at 13:05:41

Balam Rawat v. Delhi and District Cricket Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balam Rawat v. Delhi and District Cricket Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.R. Aravindakshan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Hemaang Goel Vs Union of India & Ors.

M S Itd Cementation India Limited Vs Rupal Murmu and 22 Ors. & Anr.

Mrs Madhu Chopra Vs Unique Identification Authority of India - Uidai

Vijai Prakash Shukla Vs UOI & Anr.

Sahil David Vs Union of India & Ors.

S Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Hav. Jawan Singh (Retd.) (No. 01586159L)

Heigrujam Manglem Singh Vs Jawahar Lal Nehru University and Anr.

Dr Gopal Jha and Others Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mr Ram Kumar Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Nuclear Medicine Physicists Association of India Nmpai and Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dr. Manu Banga Vs Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women