Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior order directing the respondent to facilitate inspection of a property. Respondent claimed compliance; no further orders found necessary.
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.
$~44
versus
PUNEET KUMAR GOEL ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Mini Pushkarna, SC with Mr. O.P. Gupta Ms. Anushruti and Ms. Swagata, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of order dated April 24, 2017 in LPA 523/2016. The directions of the Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal are as under:-
“8. In view thereof, the present appeal is disposed of with the direction to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation to forthwith conduct an inspection of the entire construction standing on the property no. B-1/26, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and to pass a formal order respectively showing portions of the front and the rear portion which are compoundable/regularisable as well as the terms of regularisation which shall be communicated to both the respondents who shall ensure compliance.
9. The respondent shall ensure that every cooperation is rendered to the officials of the SDMC who shall be permitted to conduct an inspection on a pre-informed date and time in writing to the parties.
10. It is made clear that the inspection and the communication of the terms of regularisation shall not impact the claimed
rights, title and interest of the parties in the respective portions of the building.
In view of the above, no further directions are called for in all pending applications and the same are hereby disposed of. Dasti to parties.”
Ms. Pushkarna, who appears for respondent on advance notice state that the order has been complied with on 23.06.2017 when the SDMC has communicated to the petitioner as well as Shri Om Prakash Gupta to submit their proposal for regularisation of the construction in accordance with the provisions of building byelaws/M.P.D. 2021/law. According to her till date neither the petitioner nor Mr. Gupta have submitted any proposal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall submit the proposal in accordance with the said order. It is expected that the respondent shall consider the same and pass orders.
No further orders are required to be passed in the contempt present.
The same is disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
APRIL 03, 2018 /pv
LALIT MOHAN MADHAN
PUNEET KUMAR GOEL
V. KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
