U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD vs RAM AWASTHI . — SLP(C) No. 26626/2004
Case under Section XI. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010224432004
Filing Date
12-Oct-2004
Registration No
SLP(C) No. 26626/2004
Diary Number
22443/2004
Order Date
02-Jul-2012
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 30-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD
Adv. P. K. JAIN
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAM AWASTHI .
Adv. P. N. GUPTA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Dec-2011
ROPView PDF
-
17-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Sep-2011
ROPView PDF
-
09-Aug-2011
ROPView PDF
-
08-Jul-2011
ROPView PDF
-
13-Apr-2011
ROPView PDF
-
10-Mar-2011
ROPView PDF
-
08-Nov-2010
ROPView PDF
-
06-Aug-2010
ROPView PDF
-
11-May-2010
ROPView PDF
-
15-Apr-2010
ROPView PDF
-
18-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Dec-2009
ROPView PDF
-
03-Nov-2009
ROPView PDF
-
05-Oct-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Aug-2009
ROPView PDF
-
17-Jul-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Aug-2008
ROPView PDF
-
10-Jul-2008
ROPView PDF
-
14-May-2008
ROPView PDF
-
14-May-2008
ROPView PDF
-
04-Jan-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Nov-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Nov-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Oct-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Sep-2007
ROPView PDF
-
03-May-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Apr-2006
ROPView PDF
-
30-Sep-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Aug-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Apr-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Dec-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Oct-2004
Case filed
Registration No. SLP(C) No. 26626/2004
Summary of SLP(C) No. 26626/2004 On 02/07/2012, the Supreme Court heard a group of special leave petitions filed by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad against Ram Awasthi and others, arising from a High Court judgment dated 13/02/2004. The Court found that the controversy was covered by the precedent decision in Sardar Jogendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2008 (17) SCC 133, and consequently dismissed all the petitions. Delay was condoned, substitution was allowed, and all pending applications stood disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts