Delhi High Court · 2025-12-03
S.P. SINGH DHILLON vs DELHI CAPITAL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- LPA-329/2021 2025:DHC:10752-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- S.P. SINGH DHILLON
- Respondent
- DELHI CAPITAL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 03.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 03.12.2025 + LPA 329/2021, CM APPL. 32033/2021, CM APPL. 28035/2024, CM APPL. 21063/2025, CM APPL. 44206/2025, CM APPL. 44207/2025 and CM APPL. 44281/2025 S.P. SINGH DHILLON .....Appellant Through: Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, Ms. Aakanksha Sinh and Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Advs. versus DELHI CAPITAL BADMINTON ASSOCIATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Ms. Swapnil Shukla, and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Anshul Malik and Mr. Ayuushman Arora, Advs. Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari and Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Advs. Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Ms. Srutee Priyadarshini, and Ms. Bhavya Jain, Advs. for R-6. + W.P.(C) 16967/2024 and CM APPL. 71863/2024 AJEET PANDEY & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tishampati Sen, Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, Mr. Anurag Anand and Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI LPA 329/2021 and connected matter Page 1 of 34 NARAYAN Signing Date:03.12.2025 15:37:28 Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj CGSC along with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Bharat Gupta, Ms. Swapnil Shukla, and Mr. Amit Gupta, Advs. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Anshul Malik and Mr. Ayuushman Arora, Advs. Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Ms. Srutee Priyadarshini, and Ms. Bhavya Jain, Advs. for R-4 to 13. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Through the present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patents Act and a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Appellant/Petitioner not only assails the correctness of the Impugne