Disposed

Mukesh Sethi v. Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Apr 2018CONT.CAS(C)/862/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of previous orders regarding a representation submission, the Court directed NDMC and DSIIDC to consider the matter jointly after hearing all parties and stayed coercive action pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to NDMC and DSIIDC to consider the representation jointly after an opportunity of hearing and staying coercive action pending disposal.

Mukesh Sethi Vs Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 862/2017 MUKESH SETHI

¶4

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Adv. with Ms. Rishika Arora, Ms. Ashmita & Ms. Savi Abbot, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA & ORS

¶7

..... Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. with Mr. Kapil Dutta, Adv. for NDMC Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Av. with Mr. Sumant De & Mr. Mohit Bhandari, Advs. Ms. Renuka Arora, Adv. with Ms. Nikita Salwan, Adv. for DSIIDC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶11

O R D E R % 11.04.2018

¶12

The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated October 07, 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 9351/2016 and order dated May 01, 2017 on an application No. 16441/2017 in the same writ petition.

¶13

Suffice to state, a reading of both the orders would reveal that the Court had directed the respondent No.1 NDMC to decide the petitioner’s representation dated August 29, 2016 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.3 namely Mr. Rajan Dhall. It

¶14

is noted from the orders, an issue has arisen as to whether it is DSIIDC or the NDMC which is competent to consider the representation.

¶15

Mr. P.S. Bindra and the counsels appearing for the respondents state, they would be satisfied if the representation is considered jointly by NDMC and DSIIDC by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.3. If that be so, it is directed that the representation dated August 29, 2016 shall be considered by the NDMC and DSIIDC by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.3 Rajan Dhall before the Executive Engineer (Works), Karol Bagh of NDMC and Executive Engineer, CD-11 (IA) of DSIIDC on April 23, 2018 at 11 am, which shall be at TC Building, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi, which is the office of the DSIIDC. It is expected that the NDMC/DSIIDC shall pass an order within four weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of the representation, no coercive action with regard to staircase at the property shall be taken. The contempt petition is disposed of.

¶16

Dasti.

¶17

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶18

APRIL 11, 2018 /ak

Mukesh Sethi v. Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Sethi v. Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shoaib Vs S K Singh and Anr.

Rakesh Filling Station Vs Indraprastha Gas Limited & Anr.

Raaj Muttreja Vs Gurkripal Singh & Ors.

Ex Cpl B S Siddha Vs L C Goyal & Anr.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs G L Meena & Anr.

Dinesh Singh Rawat Vs Mamta Nanda & Ors.

Indosolar Vs J S Deepak & Ors.

Siraj Ahmed & Ors. Vs Mehboob Alam & Ors.

Shoaib Vs S K Singh and Anr.

Rakesh Filling Station Vs Indraprastha Gas Limited & Anr.

Raaj Muttreja Vs Gurkripal Singh & Ors.

Geeta Chawla & Ors. Vs Anshu Prakash Chief Secretary & Ors.

Sunita Khanna Vs Madhup Vyas

M/S Renaissance Aqua Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.