{"id":238360,"date":"2020-11-02T12:25:56","date_gmt":"2020-11-02T06:55:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=238360"},"modified":"2020-11-02T13:28:48","modified_gmt":"2020-11-02T07:58:48","slug":"doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/","title":{"rendered":"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Karnataka High Court: <\/strong>S. G. Pandit J., rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The facts of the case are such that the father of the petitioners are the owners\/ landlords of the property situated at Unachageri of Ron Taluk, Gadag district. The lands were inam land and on abolition of inam saranjam and in view of Inam Abolition Act, the name of the father of the petitioners was removed and the name of the Government was entered which was rectified later pursuant to filing of an application under Rule 6(1) of Inam Resumption Rules by the father of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that on 26-08-1974 the husband of respondent 2 filed form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights on grounds being that he was cultivating or tenant of the said land which was ex parte granted by the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms. Challenging the said order, petitioners have preferred this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court observed that the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly and there is an inordinate delay of more than 40 years in preferring this writ petition challenging the order dated 28-03-1977 without any explanation to the effect.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court relied on <em>Santhosh V. Rai v. Legory Saldhana<\/em> 2015 (1) Kar. L.J. 429 and observed<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u201c10. That apart, the impugned order in the instant case is of the year 1981. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order after a lapse of 32 years. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner or his father were unaware of the impugned order. They are residents of Attavar Village. In fact, residents of villages would be aware with regard to occupation, possession and cultivation of agricultural lands, particularly when Tribunal has granted occupancy rights. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is a nullity as it is in violation of principles of natural justice as there is no service of notice on the legal representatives of the petitioners mother Ramaramba. Therefore the writ petition would have to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and as being a speculative exercise.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>The Court further relied on <em>Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, <\/em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/ytSymhlw\">(2000) 2 SCC 48<\/a> and observed that<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>\u201cThe real test for sound exercise of discretion by High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part pf the p[petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or whether the petitioner has moved the Writ court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to disturb unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court in <em>S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/3K2A3032\">(2009) 2 SCC 479<\/a> held that <em>Delay defeats equity<\/em> and that relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the Courts in time.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court held that it is well-settled position cannot be unsettled after decades.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, petition stands rejected.[Shiddanagouda v. Special Tahsildar, WP No. 105092 of 2017, decided on 10-01-2020]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court: S. G. Pandit J., rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches. The facts of the case <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[43944,29785,24144,7272],"class_list":["post-238360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-doctrine-of-delay-and-laches","tag-law","tag-limitation-act","tag-writ-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court: S. G. Pandit J., rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches. The facts of the case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-11-02T06:55:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-11-02T07:58:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/\",\"name\":\"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-11-02T06:55:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-11-02T07:58:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines","og_description":"Karnataka High Court: S. G. Pandit J., rejected the petition on the ground of delay and latches. The facts of the case","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-11-02T06:55:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-11-02T07:58:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/","name":"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-11-02T06:55:56+00:00","dateModified":"2020-11-02T07:58:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/02\/doctrine-of-delay-and-laches-kar-hc-limitation-act-1963-does-not-apply-to-writ-jurisdiction-court-discusses-well-settled-law-regarding-delayed-filing-of-writ-petitions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kar HC | Whether delay and latches be put against a person who approaches the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution? HC determines"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":233455,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/06\/kar-hc-koladamatt-not-entitled-to-registration-of-occupancy-rights-over-disputed-land\/","url_meta":{"origin":238360,"position":0},"title":"Kar HC | Koladamatt not entitled to registration of occupancy rights over disputed land\u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"August 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.V. Nagarathna and Jyoti Mulimani, JJ. reversed a 1993 order, holding that all titles, rights and interests of the Koladamatt over the land in question had been extinguished by a government notification which vested the land in the State Government following the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":294914,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/19\/sc-partition-suit-civil-court-question-of-title-fundamental-claims\/","url_meta":{"origin":238360,"position":1},"title":"In a suit for partition, Civil Court cannot go into the question of title, unless the same is incidental to fundamentals of claim: SC","author":"Editor","date":"June 19, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court said that allegations of fraud require special pleadings in terms of Order VI, Rule 4 CPC, 1908.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"partition suit","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/partition-suit.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/partition-suit.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/partition-suit.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/partition-suit.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213143,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/03\/raj-hc-court-to-take-into-account-reasons-while-determining-revision-filed-after-significant-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":238360,"position":2},"title":"Raj HC | Court to take into account reasons while determining revision filed after significant delay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., allowed the writ petition filed to challenge the order passed by the District Collector whereby revision petition was allowed and the valid pattas issued to the petitioner were cancelled. The facts of the case were that the petitioners were in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":299552,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/17\/calcutta-hc-restrains-encroachment-of-private-land-by-respondent-authorities\/","url_meta":{"origin":238360,"position":3},"title":"Calcutta High Court restrains Irrigation and Waterways Department from encroaching private land","author":"Ritu","date":"August 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the respondents had not acquired the land in question and issued a writ of mandamus to restrain the encroachment.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235897,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/17\/kar-hc-unless-fraudulent-act-proved-limitation-for-suits-by-or-on-behalf-of-state-or-centre-not-maintainable-after-30-years\/","url_meta":{"origin":238360,"position":4},"title":"Kar HC | Unless fraudulent act proved, limitation for suits by or on behalf of State or Centre not maintainable after 30 years","author":"Editor","date":"September 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: M.I. Arun, J. allowed the writ petition and declared the show cause notice or any subsequent proceeding as null and void. According to the brief facts of the case, the petitioners were granted the impugned land in 1975 for non-agricultural purposes and had since been in peaceful\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":194511,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/29\/delhi-hc-scope-and-object-of-ss-164-and-248-of-the-companies-act-2013-to-be-analysed\/","url_meta":{"origin":238360,"position":5},"title":"Delhi HC: Scope and object of Ss. 164 and 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 to be analysed","author":"Saba","date":"March 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Gita Mittal, Actg, CJ and C. Hari Shankar, J., adjudicated upon and listed matters relating to the Companies Act, 2013 for further hearing on 24.07.2018. The writ petitions adjudicated upon jointly were filed against notices dated 06.09.2017 and 12.09.2017 issued under Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238360","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=238360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}