Petitioners sought extension of time granted to vacate premises, relying on Supreme Court directions in similar cases. The Court dismissed the application, holding that since the case was disposed of on an undertaking to vacate by December 31, 2019, no extension application lay.
Application for extension of time to vacate premises dismissed.
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
KARAM CHAND & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Shauray Sahay, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar with Ms. Shweta Anand, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 28.01.2020
CM APPL.119/2020 (for extension of time)
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 28, 2020 st
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for extension of time to vacate premises can be permitted when the petition was disposed of on an undertaking by the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baljeet Singh And Anr. vs. Delhi Development AuthorityReferred¶3
Baljeet Singh And Anr. vs. Delhi Development Authority Through its Vice Chairman And Anr. ( SLP 3349033492/2016)
Karam Chand & Anr.
Delhi Development Authority
Sanjeev Sachdeva
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
