Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gian Chand (Decd) Through: His Lr. Vs.union of India & Ors.

Gian Chand (Decd) Through: His Lr. vs Union of India & Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 12, 2018
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1212715

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gian Chand (Decd) Through: His Lr.

Respondent

Union of India & Ors.

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi + la.app. 71/2012 date of order: february 12, 2018 gian chand (decd) through: his lr. ..... appellant through: mr. somvir singh deswal, advocate versus union of india & ors. ........ respondents through: mr. sanjay singh, advocate for respondent-dda coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur order (oral) review petition no.67/2018 & c.m. 5447/2018 (delay) & c.m. 5448/2018 (for exemption) 1. there is inordinate delay of five years and 267 days in filing the accompanying review petition. restoration of time barred appeal is sought without explaining the inordinate delay. review of order of 19th march, 2012 is sought while relying upon supreme court’s order of 27th march, 2014 in special leave petition (civil) no.824/2013 nand roop vs. union of india & anr., wherein explanation for delay of nearly one year was found to be satisfactory.2. admittedly, special leave petition against order of 19th march, 2012 (of which review is sought) has been already dismissed vide order of 3rd january, 2013. in view of above, i find that review of order of 19th march, 2012 cannot be sought while relying upon supreme court’s order la.app.71/2012 page 1 of 2 in nand roop (supra). otherwise also, sufficient cause is not shown to condone the inordinate delay of five years and 267 days in seeking review of order of 19th march, 2012.3. in view of aforesaid, while refusing to condone the delay, the review petition is dismissed. pending applications are disposed of as infructuous. february12 2018 r (sunil gaur) judge la.app.71/2012 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 71/2012 Date of Order: February 12, 2018 GIAN CHAND (DECD) THROUGH: HIS LR. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for respondent-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER (ORAL) Review Petition No.67/2018 & C.M. 5447/2018 (delay) & C.M. 5448/2018 (for exemption) 1. There is inordinate delay of five years and 267 days in filing the accompanying review petition. Restoration of time barred appeal is sought without explaining the inordinate delay. Review of order of 19th March, 2012 is sought while relying upon Supreme Court’s order of 27th March, 2014 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.824/2013 Nand Roop Vs. Union of India & Anr., wherein explanation for delay of nearly one year was found to be satisfactory.

2. Admittedly, Special Leave petition against order of 19th March, 2012 (of which review is sought) has been already dismissed vide order of 3rd January, 2013. In view of above, I find that review of order of 19th March, 2012 cannot be sought while relying upon Supreme Court’s order LA.APP.71/2012 Page 1 of 2 in Nand Roop (Supra). Otherwise also, sufficient cause is not shown to condone the inordinate delay of five years and 267 days in seeking review of order of 19th March, 2012.

3. In view of aforesaid, while refusing to condone the delay, the review petition is dismissed. Pending applications are disposed of as infructuous. FEBRUARY12 2018 r (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE LA.APP.71/2012 Page 2 of 2

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial