LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs JITENDRA MOHAN — C.A. No. 2502/2011

Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010176252008

Filing Date

01-Jul-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 2502/2011

Diary Number

17625/2008

Order Date

06-Aug-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW

    Adv. M. C. DHINGRA (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JITENDRA MOHAN

    Adv. KRISHNANAND PANDEYA[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 06-Aug-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

  4. 16-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 16-Nov-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 05-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 05-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 07-Jul-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 07-Jul-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 11-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 07-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 12-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 26-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 08-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 18-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 01-Sep-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 18-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 03-Jul-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 01-Jul-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2502/2011

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Lucknow Development Authority v. Jitendra Mohan (C.A. No. 2502/2011) The Supreme Court allowed Lucknow Development Authority's appeal against the Allahabad High Court's order that had imposed Rs. 2 lakhs cost on the Authority for filing false affidavits and misleading the court. The Court set aside this cost imposition on the ground that no notice was issued to the Authority before making adverse comments and imposing exemplary costs, finding such procedural safeguard essential before such action. The Court declined to remand the matter given the considerable time elapsed, thereby providing complete relief to the appellant Authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case