Arti Uppal v. Arvind Uppal
Case brief
What is this about?
The Division Bench held that suit CS(OS) 304/2016 must be transferred to the family court at Saket following Amina Bharatram. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal disposed of.
What did the court decide?
Suit CS(OS) 304/2016 transferred to family court at Saket; impugned order set aside; matter listed for 15.12.2016.
What the court decided
$~16
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- FAO(OS) 304/2016 & CM 39109/2016 ARTI UPPAL ..... Appellant Through: Ms Kamlesh Mahajan, Adv.
versus
ARVIND UPPAL ..... Respondents Through: Ms Malvika Rajkotia, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR O R D E R % 08.12.2016
In view of the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Amina Bharatram v Sumant Bharatram and Ors. decided on 19.07.2016 on a reference in CS(OS) 411/2010, the present suit being CS(OS) 304/2016 would have to be transferred to the concerned family court at Saket. Furthermore, in view of the said decision the impugned order has to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside.
The appeal is also disposed of with the direction that CS(OS) 304/2016 be transferred to the concerned family court at Saket. It will be open to the parties to make submissions with regard to jurisdiction before the said family court. In the first instance this matter should be listed before the concerned family court on 15.12.2016.
The appeal stands disposed of.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suit CS(OS) 304/2016 must be transferred to the family court at Saket pursuant to Amina Bharatram v Sumant Bharatram
Whether the impugned order should be set aside
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Arti Uppal
- respondent
Arvind Uppal
Coram
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court