Ehtashamuddin Ahsan & Anr. v. Ilyas Azmi & Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought execution of an order directing the respondents to deposit money and not lock a basement. The court noted the respondents filed an application for modification but the issue was resolved per incuriam.
What the court decided
$~17
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CONT.CAS(C) 845/2016 & CM 24927/2016
EHTASHAMUDDIN AHSAN & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr J.H.Jaferi, Mr A. Hassan and Mr Abrar Ahmed, Advocates.
versus
ILYAS AZMI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL O R D E R
% 18.07.2016
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that this court by way of order dated 31.03.2016 had, subject to the appellants (respondents herein) within four weeks from that date depositing in court a sum computed @ Rs.1,00,000/- per month with effect from the month of February, 2015 till the month of April, 2016 and further subject to the appellants (respondents herein) with effect from the month of May, 2016 continuing to deposit in this court a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month by the 15th day of the month, stayed the execution of the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal.
Counsel would urge that the appellants (respondents herein) did not comply with the direction issued by this court by way of order dated 31.03.2016 and rather instituted an application seeking modification of the said order dated 31.03.2016.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
EHTASHAMUDDIN AHSAN
- respondent
ILYAS AZMI
Coram
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court