SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 240

M. R. SHAH, NAGARATHNA
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary, Land and Building Department – Appellant
Versus
K. L. Rathi Steels Limited – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Qurratulain, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratish Goel, Adv. Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Adv. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. M/S. Saharya & Co., AOR Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. B P Singh, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Puneet Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv. Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Bhavana Moolchandani, Adv. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. S. K. Rajora, Adv. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Narendra Pal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR Mr. Sudeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Malik, Adv. Mr. Akul Mahendru, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Sethi, Adv. Mr. Sameeer Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, AOR Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Dr. Sham Chand, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nina R Nariman, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Ragini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. R.P Bansal, Adv. Mr. R.jawaharal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Adv. Mr. Anuj Goel, Adv. Mr. Mohit, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Ms. Abha Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankur Bansal, AOR Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Anirudh Bakru, Adv. Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv. Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv. Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Goyal, AOR Mr. Mayank Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Divya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, AOR Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. AVS Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Rachita Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Awdesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shubham Hasija, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Abhishekaran Roy, Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Nishit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Omkar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivam Goel, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Govind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ameet Siingh, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. B. V. Niren, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR

Table of Content
1. overview of proceedings (Para 1 , 2)
2. purpose of the review applications (Para 3)
3. basis of arguments for review (Para 4)
4. counterarguments against review (Para 5)
5. court observations on maintainability (Para 6 , 7)
6. reaffirmation of review criteria (Para 8)
7. final order and implications (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 56)

ORDER :

1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of applications/petitions, all these applications/petitions are decided and disposed of together by this common order.

3. All these applications under Article 137 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 47 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) have been preferred by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority to review and recall the orders passed in the respective Civil Appeals in dismissing/disposing off the same and to restore the same to their original files to consider the same on merits.

4.1 It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that this Court in the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 412, while holding that the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top