Disposed

Dr. (Km.) Madhu Tandon v. Shri Daya Prasad Sachiv Prayag Raj Development Authority and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2021CAPL/1608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought contempt proceedings against opposite parties for demolishing construction on disputed land despite an injunction. The court directed the applicant to file an urgency application within ten days for expeditious disposal of the pending writ petition before the Writ Court and dismissed the present application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to move urgency application for listing of pending writ petition within ten days; present application disposed of.

Dr. (Km.) Madhu Tandon Vs Shri Daya Prasad Sachiv Prayag… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1608 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dr. (Km.) Madhu Tandon Opposite Party :- Shri Daya Prasad Sachiv Prayag Raj Development Authority And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Mohan

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for willful disobedience of the order dated 07.08.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.11981 of 2019 (Dr. Madhu Tondon Vs. Prayag Raj Development Authority And Others ). The aforesaid order is quoted below:-

¶7

"Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has put in appearance today.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 pray for and are granted a weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall thereafter file rejoinder affidavit within three days.

¶9

Put up in the additional cause list on 19.08.2020.

¶10

Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has stated that the respondent no. 1 has not taken any steps for development on the plot in question and is not interfering in view of the injunction issued by the civil court."

¶11

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that in spite of the aforesaid order, the entire construction made on the disputed land was demolished. It is argued that the aforesaid writ petition is still pending and counter affidavit along with stay application has been filed.

¶12

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to move an urgency application for listing of the aforesaid writ petition within a period of ten days from today.

¶13

In case, the urgency application would be filed within stipulated, the Writ Court

¶14

is requested to look into the matter and consider and decide the aforesaid writ petition, expeditiously.

¶15

In view of the same, present petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.8.2021 saqlain

Dr. (Km.) Madhu Tandon v. Shri Daya Prasad Sachiv Prayag Raj Development Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. (Km.) Madhu Tandon v. Shri Daya Prasad Sachiv Prayag Raj Development Authority and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Doneria Vs Mr. Ayush Kumar and Another

Smt. Sudha Parihar Vs Ravindra Singh, District Inspector of Schools

Mukesh Khanna and 5 Others Vs Manoj Singh, Principal Secretary

Vijay Pal Vs Ravinder Kumar, D.M. and 2 Others

Km Laxmi Devi Vs Renuka Kumar, Secretary (Basic Education) and 2 Others

Ratan Nath Mishra Vs Pradeep Agnihotri, Secretary Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. and 2 Others