GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI vs OKHLA FACTORY OWNER'S ASSON.. — C.A. No. 1691/2007
Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010039052003
Filing Date
18-Feb-2003
Registration No
C.A. No. 1691/2007
Diary Number
3905/2003
Order Date
05-Sep-2011
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Adv. SUDARSHAN RAJAN
Respondent(s)
-
1.OKHLA FACTORY OWNER'S ASSON..
Adv. SAHARYA & CO. B. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON V. K. VERMA RAJIV MEHTA RAJAN NARAIN SURESH CHANDRA TRIPATHY
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
-
18-Feb-2003
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 1691/2007
Summary: C.A. No. 001691/2007 The Yamuna Removal of Encroachments Monitoring Committee filed applications seeking impleadment as a party and clarification of the Court's September 7, 2010 order in the already-disposed civil appeals. The Supreme Court rejected both applications, holding that impleadment in a disposed matter was misconceived and unjustified since the Committee was never a party before the High Court or Supreme Court. Consequently, the clarification prayer was also rejected (September 5, 2011). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts