Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MR. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided
9 September 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 337 · 1994 INSC 375
Also cited as
  • (1994) 6 SCC 97 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The litigation ultimately ended in Civil Appeal Nos. 668-669of1988 dated August, 16, 1993 and the matters were disposed of by a Bench of three Judges of this Court with the following directions :

p. 337, margin F

"We, therefore, partly allow the appeal of Delhi Development Authority in so far as these ten members are concerned and direct that on their depositing the amount in respect of plots calculated at 5% of Rs. 19,759. per square meter the Delhi Development Authority will allot them the plots at or near about the site in question. As the total amount to be paid would depend on the area of the plot, would direct the Delhi Development Authority to communicate the amount which each 9f these ten members will be · required to pay at the above rate and on receipt to such communication the said ten members will make the payment within one such month failing which they will forfeit their right to claim the plots allotted to them. Be it noted that no extension of time will be given because this is the third indulgence given to them. The appeals will stand disposed of as above with no order as to

pp. 337–338, margin F

costs." Now the writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution has been filed contend, that contrary to the orders and also the letter was issued on July 1, 1994 directing the appellants, to pay excess amounts and that, therefore, they should be protected by mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution. The order passed by this Court exercising power under Article· 136, · became final and writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. The writ petition is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and so dismissed with costs of rupees. thirty thousand, which the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee is entitled to recover from the petitioners.

p. 338, margin B

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

p. 338, margin D