UNION OF INDIA vs OKHLA FACTORY OWNERS' ASSON. . — C.A. No. 1688/2007
Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010024672003
Filing Date
01-Feb-2003
Registration No
C.A. No. 1688/2007
Diary Number
2467/2003
Order Date
05-Sep-2011
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA
Adv. SHREEKANT NEELAPPA TERDAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.OKHLA FACTORY OWNERS' ASSON. .
Adv. ANIL KATIYAR B. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON RAJAN NARAIN SAHARYA & CO.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-May-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jul-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Apr-2009
ROPView PDF
-
20-Mar-2009
ROPView PDF
-
30-Jan-2009
ROPView PDF
-
19-Jan-2009
ROPView PDF
-
13-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Dec-2008
ROPView PDF
-
02-May-2007
ROPView PDF
-
22-Mar-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Mar-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Feb-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Nov-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Oct-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Sep-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Jul-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-May-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Dec-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-May-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-May-2005
ROPView PDF
-
08-Apr-2005
ROPView PDF
-
15-Mar-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Aug-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Jul-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Jul-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2003
ROPView PDF
-
03-Mar-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Feb-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Feb-2003
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 1688/2007
Case Summary: C.A. No. 001688/2007 Outcome: The Supreme Court rejected applications filed by the Yamuna Removal of Encroachments Monitoring Committee seeking impleadment as a party and clarification of the Court's September 7, 2010 order in the already-disposed case. The Court found the impleadment prayer misconceived since the applicant was never a party before the High Court or Supreme Court and there was no valid justification for entertaining such requests in a concluded matter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts