JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)April 21, 1993

T-145 de 1993

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz

✓Claimant Sociedad Bradfor Y Rodriguez Ltda

✓
Topic · hard data
Habeas Data. Debido Proceso. Cancelacion De Inscripcion En El Registro De Constructores. Concedida
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

8 topics · 5 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

See the operative part (4 points)
  1. R E S U E L V E
  2. PRIMERO. REVOCAR la sentencia de noviembre 13 de 1992, proferida por el Juzgado 30 Civil del Circuito de Santa Fe de Bogotá y, en consecuencia, CONCEDER TRANSITORIAMENTE la tutela solicitada hasta la resolución definitiva de las acciones judiciales pertinentes, para cuya interposición el afectado dispone de cuatro (4) meses a partir de la ejecutoria de la resolución acusada.
  3. SEGUNDO. ORDENAR al Director de Licitaciones y Contratos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transporte oir al representante legal de la sociedad BRADFORD Y RODRIGUEZ LTDA., con miras al ejercicio oportuno de su derecho de defensa, antes de desatar los recursos interpuestos contra la resolución que canceló su inscripción en el registro de proponentes de dicha entidad.
  4. TERCERO. LIBRESE comunicación al Juzgado 30 Civil del Circuito de Santa Fe de Bogotá con miras a que se surta la notificación de esta providencia, según lo establecido en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Separate opinions — text available1
ConcurrenceJosé Gregorio Hernández Galindo
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.