Sohan Pal v. D.D.A.
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court disposed of four appeals and related CMs challenging Single Judge's orders. Court allowed appellants to continue provided they file within one week an undertaking to vacate Delhi properties by December 31, 2019, copying respondent. Appeals disposed; other CMs dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Appellants allowed to continue subject to filing an undertaking within one week to vacate properties by 31.12.2019; other CMs dismissed as infructuous.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Date of decision: 8th January, 2019
- LPA 1/2019 & CM. Nos. 3/2019, 4/2019 and 5/2019
SOHAN PAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv.
AND
- LPA 2/2019 & CM. Nos. 26/2019, 27/2019 and 28/2019
BALJIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs.
versus
D. D. A. (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY) ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms. Komal Sorout, Adv.
AND
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in filing appeals is permissible when appellants agree to vacate properties by a specific date under Supreme Court supervision.
Whether the High Court can allow appellants to continue pending proceedings subject to filing an undertaking to vacate specified government properties.
How the Single Judge's rejection of modification applications should be viewed where applicants voluntarily offered to vacate premises.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sohan Pal, Baljit, Mahender Singh, Madan Lal
- respondent
D.D.A. (Delhi Development Authority)
Coram
V. KAMESWAR RAO
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court