Disposed

Randhir Singh & Ors. v. Pushpender Singh

Delhi HC24 Apr 2019CONT.CAS(C)/125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking de-sealing of premises. The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking via affidavit affirming no industrial or illegal activity would occur. Upon filing the affidavit and payment of costs intimated by the respondent within one week, the property shall be de-sealed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file affidavit undertaking of no industrial/illegal activity within one week; upon filing and payment of costs, property to be de-sealed.

Randhir Singh & Ors. Vs Pushpender Singh — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:18.10.2024 16:10 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

respondentto de-sealthe Subjectproper, i.e. CB-164, Naraina, Ring Road, New Delhi-110028,on just terms and conditions,in the interest ofjustice. (b) Pass an appropriate interim order directing the respondentto de-seal the subjectpropertyas mentionedabove till the disposal of thepresent petition. Pass any such and further order or direction, which this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case. "

¶3

Learnedcounsel for the petitionerhas relied upon an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on September 5, 2018 in W.P. (C) 9305/2018 wherein the Court has disposed of the petition in terms of the following directions:

¶4

"9. In view of the above, the presentpetition is disposed of by directing the petitionerto file an undertakingby way of an affidavit unequivocally affirming that no industrialactivity or illegal activityshall be carried out from thepremises.It is pointedout that thepetitionerhad alreadyfurnished an affidavit dated 05.03.2018 to the Delhi Cantonment Board, inter alia, affirming that no industrial activityshall be carried outfrom thepremises. In addition, the petitionerwould alsofurnish an affidavit statingthat the petitionerwouldnot carry out any illegal activity from the premises. Let the said affidavits/undertakingsbe filed within a period of one weekfrom today. 10. On the aforesaidaffidavits/undertakingsbeingfiled, respondentno.2 shallde-sealthepremises. Thepetitioner would also pay the necessarycostfor sealing/de-sealing of the premises which shall be informed by the respondents to thepetitioner. 11. It isfurtherclarifiedthat this ordershallnotpreclude the respondents from taking any other steps in

¶5

accordance with law and this order shall not be construed as absolving the petitioner of any of the consequences of running an industrial unit from the premises."

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners state that similar order be passed in these petitions as well. He also states that petitioners are ready and willing to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit unequivocally affirming that no industrial or illegal activity shall be carried out from the premises in question and that he is ready to pay the necessary cost for sealing / desealing of the premises which shall be informed by the respondent to the petitioners.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states, he has no objection if similar order is passed in these petitions. I also note that similar petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated April 03, 2019 relying upon the order passed on September 05, 2018.

¶8

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit with the respondent unequivocally affirming that no industrial or illegal activity shall be carried out form the premises in question. Let the affidavit be filed within one week from today. On the aforesaid affidavit / undertaking being filed, and paying the cost of de-sealing / sealing of the property within one week of intimation by the respondent from today, the

¶9

propertyshall be de-sealed.

¶10

It is further clarified^thatthis order shall not precludethe respondent from taking any other steps in accordancewith law and this order shall not

¶11

be construed as absolving the petitioners of any of the consequencesof

¶12

runningan industrialunit from the premises.

¶13

Withthe aforesaid,the petitionsaredisposedof.

¶14

V.KAMESWARRAO, J

¶15

APRIL 24, im/aky

¶16

Randhir Singh & Ors. v. Pushpender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Singh & Ors. v. Pushpender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palash Goswami Vs Dr Asharam Sihag & Anr.

Khaitul Abyez Vs Rajender Sharma & Anr.

Anita Gaba Vs Saumya Gupta Directorate of Education (Govt of NCT of Delhi ) & Anr.

Urmila Sharma Vs Amjad Tak & Ors.

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital & Ors. Vs V.K Tiwari & Anr.

Usha Passi Vs Manoj Kuamr Gupta & Ors.

Exxon Mobil Corporation & Anr. Vs Shailesh H Mehta & Anr.

Exxon Mobil Corporation & Anr. Vs Shailesh H Mehta & Anr.

Shri Ram Singh Saini Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shama Khatoon & Ors. Vs Shamim Bano & Ors.

M/S Ours Aariya Bhavan Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sportsfit World Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nitin Marwah Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Sudha Nauman Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors.