The appellate court clarified the impugned single judge's order regarding the sale or mortgage of the suit property, ruling that prior permission, not just intimation, was required from the Single Judge.
Clarification granted that prior permission from the Court is required before selling or mortgaging the suit property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~63
versus
SH. VIJAYINDER KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Nagar, Advocate for R1.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
O R D E R % 19.12.2024
CM APPL. 74507-74508/2024
FAO(OS) 180/2024
This is a digitally signed order. 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 23:57:59
REKHA PALLI, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
DECEMBER 19, 2024/ uk
This is a digitally signed order. 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 23:57:59
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the term 'prior intimation' in the impugned order required prior permission from the Court before selling or mortgaging the suit property?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SH. SUBHASH CHANDRA JARODIA
SH. VIJAYINDER KUMAR
ORS.
Rekha Palli
Saurabh Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
