Koushilya Bai v. M C D and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner's challenge to a notice regarding potential property sealing was declared infructuous as a sealing order dated 19.5.2016 was already passed and intimated. Liberty to challenge said order separately was granted.
What did the court decide?
Liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action against the sealing order dated 19.5.2016 before the appropriate forum.
What the court decided
$~11
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- W.P.(C) 5659/2016 KOUSHILYA BAI
..... Petitioner Through Dr.Jose P.Vergeesh and Mr.Dhruv Jose Jawahar Singh, Advocates.
versus
M C D AND ORS
..... Respondents Through Mr.Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for SDMC.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR O R D E R % 08.07.2016
File taken up today as 07.7.2016 was declared holiday.
This petition has become infructuous. It has challenged the notice to show cause as to why sealing of the petitioner’s property be not effected.
After that date, learned counsel for the SDMC, points out that a sealing order has been passed and copy of that order dated 19.5.2016 has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is without prejudice to the submission made by learned counsel for the SDMC that the order dated 19.5.2016 has already been intimated to the petitioner.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Koushilya Bai
- respondent
M C D and Ors.
Coram
Indermeet Kaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court