The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted the appeal was not maintainable because it challenged an order refusing an extension of time in the context of undertakings given to vacate premises under a final order.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the appellants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~9
AMIT GUPTA & ORS ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate alongwith Ms. Harleen Singh, Advocates.
versus
NORTH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI.... Respondents Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel, North DMC alongwith Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
O R D E R % 26.02.2016
Since the appeal is not maintainable as it is directed against the order refusing extension of time in the context of a previous final order pursuant to which concededly undertakings to vacate the premises were given by the present appellants, learned counsel sought liberty to withdraw these proceedings and approached the respondents with a representation.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
sapna
Amit Gupta & Ors.
North Municipal Corporation of Delhi
S. Ravindra Bhat
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
