Disposed

Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee and Others

Delhi HC14 Oct 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1575/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged contempt due to a violation of a status quo order regarding chamber possession. The Court found that possession had been allotted to another advocate and the underlying petition was dismissed, resulting in no established grounds for contempt.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is disposed of as the Petitioner failed to establish grounds for contempt.

Anita Gupta Sharma Vs Chamber Allotment Committee and Others — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CONT.CAS(C) 1575/2024 ANITA GUPTA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Mr. Dharam Vir, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. R. P. Singh and Mr. Sameer Vatts, Advocates with Petitioner in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE AND OTHERS

¶6

.....Respondents Through: Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Devender Kumar, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ms. Vidhi Gupta and Ms. Kiran Sharma, Advocates for R-4 with R-4 in person. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Passey, R-5 in person. Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R % 14.10.2024

¶9

The present petition alleges contempt of order dated 9^th September, 2024 in W.P.(C) 12611/2024 wherein this Court had directed to maintain status quo concerning the possession of Chamber No. 103 to Respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, as of the date of the order in

¶11

CONT.CAS(C) 1575/2024 Page 1 of 2

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 04:53:59

¶14

question, Respondents No. 4 and 5 were not in possession of Chamber No. 103. However, they are now actively seeking to take possession of the chamber, which constitutes a violation of the Court’s direction to maintain status quo . To substantiate this claim, reliance is placed on photographs annexed to the petition, allegedly showing Respondent No. 4 attempting to take possession of the chamber in question.

¶15

In response, Mr. Satyakam, ASC, apprises the Court of the letter dated 31^st August, 2024 issued by the Office of Principal District and Sessions Judge (South General Branch), District Courts, Saket whereby the 2^nd slot of Chamber No. 103 was duly allotted to Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocate. A copy of the said communication is handed over across the Board and taken on record.

¶16

Upon careful consideration of the facts, and in light of the aforementioned communication, it is evident that possession of Chamber No. 103 has already been handed over to Mr. Singh. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s plea for setting aside the allotment of Chamber No. 103 to Respondents No. 4 and 5 was declined by a separate order passed today in W.P.(C) 12611/2024. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Court, the Petitioner no grounds for contempt have been established by the Petitioner.

¶17

In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of.

¶18

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶19

OCTOBER 14, 2024 ab

¶20

CONT.CAS(C) 1575/2024 Page 2 of 2

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 04:53:59

Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee and Others

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

Vijay Malhotra Vs Sanjay Goel & Ors.

Rn Pvt. Iti & Anr. Vs Ms Trishaljit Sethi Director General Directorate General of Training & Anr.

Sukhram Soy Vs Shri Rahul Rasgotra Director General Itbp & Anr.

Reena Dhall Alias Reena Arora Vs Pawan Kumar Dhall

Shri Satish Kumar Vs Sh Alok Kumar Sdm North West and Others

Smcc Construction India Limited Vs Ms Jayam Engineers

Rakesh Sharma Vs Rajnish Khosla

Daljit Singh Vs Praveen Singh and Ors.

Cms It Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt. Navpreet Kaur Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Uttam Indane Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Bhagwan Prasad Mishra Vs Dwarka Court Bar Association (Regd.) Executive Committee & Ors.

Anita Gupta Sharma Vs Chamber Allotment Committee & Others

Manni Mahesh and Co. & Anr. Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Anr.