I.A. Nos. 41-49, 51-54 and 62 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21000 of 1993. Case: Delhi Development Authority Vs Skipper Construction and another. Uttarakhand High Court Supreme Court Case

Case NumberI.A. Nos. 41-49, 51-54 and 62 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 21000 of 1993
JudgesM. Jagannadha Rao, J. and U. C. Banerjee, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 32
CitationAIR 1999 SCW 4870
Judgement DateAugust 02, 1999
CourtUttarakhand High Court Supreme Court Case


  1. After hearing counsel, we are issuing the following directions:

  2. Henceforth all applications in connection with the Skipper group of companies, be presented by the applicant before the learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Joseph Vellapally and in case the latter makes an endorsement that they can be entertained by this Court in this batch of cases, the Registry shall then register such applications and list them along with this matter.

  3. If any of the claimants has already filed application(s) and that is lying unregistered with the Registry, without endorsement of the learned Amicus Curiae, such a case may, however, be listed before the Court.

    Notice to the Union of India:

  4. By the order dated 19-7-1999, we had directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to place before the Court, by way of an affidavit, as to the steps taken against the DDA officers consequent upon the report submitted by Hon'ble Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy. Learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits that some of the officers in DDA were in the service of the Union of India and were on deputation in the DDA from the Government of India and some of them having gone back to their parent office, DDA is not able to pass any orders in respect of such officers. In that view of the matter, we direct that a notice be issued to the Department of Personnel, Government of India to state by way of an affidavit as to the steps taken against the officers of the Union of India who were on deputation to the DDA at the relevant point of time, consequent to the Report submitted by Justice Chinappa Reddy Commission. DDA will give its response in regard to the action taken against its own officers within the same time-frame.

    I.A. No. 41/96

  5. The applicant-petitioner alleges in para 3 of her application that the respondent assured her that she would be given the entire 5th floor in a building to be constructed "Bhai Makhan Singh Building" at Jhandewalan, New Delhi. The office report shows the notice had been sent to the applicant-Dr. Dhanwanti Vasvani by a Special Messenger which notice has been received back unserved with the remarks that the applicant has expired. Inasmuch as no further application has been filed by anybody to come on record in her place, this application is rejected.

    Submissions filed by the Amicus Curiae and decision to appoint another Commission:

  6. The learned Amicus Curiae has filed a Note of Submissions mentioning the broad issues which now arise in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT