Vjk v. Lbn
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellant in a matrimonial appeal sought a further extension of time to vacate the shared property despite an earlier settlement and prior extension. The court noted repeated violations of undertakings, found no sufficient reason shown, and dismissed the application.
What did the court decide?
None; application for extension of time to vacate the property was dismissed.
What the court decided
$~93
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 411/2024 VJK .....Appellant
Through: MrPrashant Mendiratta and Ms.Somyashree, Advs. with appellant in person
versus
LBN .....Respondent Through: Counsel (Appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
O R D E R % 02.04.2025
CM APPL. 19237/2025 (Exemption)
- Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 19236/2025
- This application has been filed by the appellant seeking an extension of time for vacating the property bearing no. B-6/10, Third Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Should the appellant be granted a further extension of time to vacate the Safdarjung Enclave property?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
VJK
- respondent
LBN
Coram
Navin Chawla
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court