Disposed

Gyan Mandir Society & Anr. v. Mr. Suvasish Das & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2024CONT.CAS(C)/600/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-supply of calculation basis for a demand letter. Directing the respondent to supply specific documents mentioned in an April 5 order at their office.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to visit respondent office on 16.04.2024 at 11:00 AM to receive documents mentioned in respondent's order dated 05.04.2024.

Gyan Mandir Society & Anr. Vs Mr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 600/2024 & CM APPL. 21135/2024

¶4

GYAN MANDIR SOCIETY & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Ms. Adyanshi Kashyap, Ms. Nicole Gomez, Mr. Harsh Jaiswal, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

MR. SUVASISH DAS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Jain, SPC with Mr. Krishna Sharma, Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, Mr. M.N. Mishra, Advocates (M:9990710127)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

O R D E R % 09.04.2024

¶9

CM APPL. 21135/2024 (For Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶11

Application is disposed of.

¶12

CONT.CAS(C) 600/2024

¶13

The present petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 15^th January, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 5526/2023. By way of the aforesaid order, directions had been issued to the respondent-L&DO to give the basis of the calculations to petitioners within a period of four weeks, to enable the petitioners to file a meaningful challenge to the demand letter dated 02^nd November, 2023 issued by the respondent.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the earlier demand raised by the respondents, was incomprehensible and not discernible. By

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 22/04/2024 at 12:38:38

¶17

way of the order dated 15^th January, 2024, clear directions had been issued to the respondents to give the basis of the demand and calculations to the petitioners.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the present petition was served upon the respondents, an order dated 05^th April, 2024 has been issued by the respondents. By referring to the aforesaid document, he submits that the said document again makes mention of certain documents, which have not been provided to the petitioners.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice submits that the order dated 15^th January, 2024 passed by this Court has been complied with. He submits that the speaking order dated 05^th April, 2024 has been issued by the respondents, wherein the basis of the calculations, have been given to the petitioners.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall be satisfied if all the documents that are mentioned in the order dated 05^th April, 2024, issued by the respondents are supplied to him. 8. This Court notes that by order dated 15^th January, 2024, the following directions had been issued:

¶21

“xxx xxx xxx

¶22

3. This Court vide Order dated 20.09.2023 after noticing that charges are due and payable by the Petitioner, directed the Petitioner to approach the authorities for the purpose of quantification of charges as on 05.10.2023. In compliance of the said Order dated 20.09.2023, a demand letter dated 02.11.2023 has been filed in this Court by the Respondent/L&DO stating that a sum of Rs.10,17,21,565/is recoverable from the Petitioner.

¶23

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has handed over a letter dated 14.11.2023 submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent/L&DO praying for the relevant documents, notifications and orders based on which the said amount has been quantified by the Respondent/L&DO.

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 22/04/2024 at 12:38:38

¶26

5. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 14.11.2023, a copy of the detailed calculation was given to the Petitioner and the same has also been handed over in Court by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that a perusal of the said document does not reflect the basis on which the amount has been calculated by the Respondent/L&DO. He states that there are only scribblings which cannot be discerned by anyone.

¶27

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid document given by the Respondent/L&DO, the Petitioner has sent another letter dated 11.12.2023 to the Respondent/L&DO stating that the calculation given by the Respondent/L&DO is indecipherable and a year wise computation of the calculations along with reference to the relevant clause of the perpetual lease deed may be given to the Petitioner with respect to the demand letter dated 02.11.2023.

¶28

7. In view of the above, the Respondent/L&DO is directed to give the basis of the calculations to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today to enable the Petitioner to file a meaningful challenge to the demand in accordance with law.

¶29

xxx xxx xxx”

¶30

Reading of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the basic grievance of the petitioners was that the calculation given by the respondent-L&DO was indecipherable. Thus, categorical directions had been issued to the respondent to give the basis of calculations to the petitioners, so that the petitioners were able to file a meaningful challenge to the demand raised by the respondents.

¶31

Today, copy of the speaking order dated 05^th April, 2024 has been handed over to this Court, which according to the respondents, is in compliance of the order dated 15^th January, 2024. The said order dated 05^th April, 2024 issued by the respondent-L&DO, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, is taken on record.

¶32

Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that all the documents which have been mentioned by the respondent in its order

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 22/04/2024 at 12:38:38

¶35

dated 05^th April, 2024, shall be supplied to the petitioners. 12. For this purpose, the petitioners shall visit the office of the respondents on 16^th April, 2024 at 11:00 AM and meet the Deputy Land and Development Officer (“Dy. L&DO”), who shall provide the requisite documents to the petitioners.

¶36

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶37

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶38

APRIL 9, 2024 /au

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 22/04/2024 at 12:38:38

Gyan Mandir Society & Anr. v. Mr. Suvasish Das & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyan Mandir Society & Anr. v. Mr. Suvasish Das & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Vs Pinki Rani

Rajiv Kohli Vs Shri Radha Krishan Director Estate 1 Department

Nagar Nigam Sewa Nivrit Karmchari Kalyan Samiti and Ors. Vs Gyanesh Bharti

Sh. Mumtaz Saifi Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Akash Sejwal Vs Shri Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Mohd Arslan Vs Shri Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Dr Ashu Agarwal Vs Perfect Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Dr. Hemant Kumar Shinde Vs Sh. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

Sunil Vs Pinki Rani

Rajiv Kohli Vs Shri Radha Krishan Director Estate 1 Department

Sh. Mumtaz Saifi Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Poonam Vs Waqil & Anr.

Aradhana Khanna Vs Rohan Mayor & Ors.

Fareed Farooqi & Ors. Vs Union Bank of India