Disposed

M/S v. & K Associates v Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Nov 2016W.P.(C)/4959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court condoned a 35-day delay in filing a rejoinder. In W.P.(C) 4959/2016, agreeing to consent of parties, the impugned order was set aside, possession restored to the petitioner, and DRT Receiver discharged.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 35-day delay allowed. Impugned order set aside; Recovery Officer order restored; possession to be handed over within two weeks.

M/S v & K Associates Vs Union of India & Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 4959/2016 M/S V & K ASSOCIATES ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Arvind Kumar & Mr. C.S. Chauhan, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr. Atul Sheopuri & Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocates for respondent No. 1. Ms. Lucky Palta, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA O R D E R

¶6

% 15.11.2016

¶7

CM No. 42320/2016 (delay of 35 days in filing rejoinder)

¶8

For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 35 days in filing the rejoinder is condoned.

¶9

The application is allowed and disposed of. Rejoinder is taken on record.

¶10

W.P.(C) 4959/2016

¶11

With the consent of the petitioner and the respondent No.1, the impugned order dated 28.07.2015 in Appeal No. 238/2015 is set aside and order of Recovery Officer dated 28.02.2013 in R.C No. 22/2007 is restored. The learned Receiver appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal/Recovery Officer shall restore possession of the property being the subject matter of the present suit to the petitioner within two weeks and shall file a report before Recovery Officer within two weeks regarding status of the property with its fixtures and movables.

¶12

W.P.(C) 4959/2016

¶13

page 1 of 2

¶14

Respondent No. 1 is at liberty to proceed against other properties of Judgment Debtor before DRT in accordance with law. It is noted that petitioner in the present writ petition is not the Judgment Debtor. The petitioner will not alienate the property and will not surrender possession thereof except on the direction, and/or order of any Court of law. The Receiver appointed by DRT will stand discharged after handing over the property to the petitioner.

¶15

Needless to mention that the petitioner shall comply with his obligation of payment of occupation charges/rates/maintenance charges in place of the respondent No. 1 before the date of making over of possession to the petitioner.

¶16

CM No. 20607/2016 (stay)

¶17

In view of the order passed by the consent of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, the application being CM No. 20607/2016 has become infructuous.

¶18

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

¶19

ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA, J

¶20

NOVEMBER 15, 2016

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C) 4959/2016

¶23

page 2 of 2

M/S v. & K Associates v Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S v. & K Associates v Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ved Prakash Gupta

Mohinder Kumar V.M. Vs UOI & Ors.

B.L. Jain & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Pinnacle Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Rajbir Singh Vs UOI & Ors.

Viown Mettube Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner,Trade & Taxes, & Anr.

Vijai Prakash Agrawal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Subhash Chandra Vs Punjab Natiional Bank and Ors.

Pinnacle Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravinder Kumar Wali Vs Union of India

Roopi Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rambabu Bantumilli Vs Union of India and Ors.

Zakaria Ahmed Vs Union of India & Ors.