K. L. Manhas v. M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC19 May 2025CM(M)/938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition; corrigendum; omission of observation from earlier order dated 19.05.2025; NCDRC complaint; delivery of possession of apartment; no monetary relief sought; consumer dispute against builder; Skystar Buildcon; K. L. Manhas in person; Delhi High Court; Manoj Jain, J.; CM(M) 938/2025; Review Pet. 322/2025; CM APPL. 31916/2025 exemption allowed.

What did the court decide?

Review Pet. 322/2025 disposed of by directing that the last line of para 3 of the order dated 19.05.2025 stands omitted; all other observations (including para 4) remain intact; the order to be uploaded as corrigendum to the order dated 19.05.2025. ¶¶20

K. L. Manhas Vs M/S Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the last line of para 3 of the order dated 19.05.2025 ('Mere fact that complainant has to recover his hard-earned (sic) money would not mean anything substantial, in present context') should be clarified/omitted, given the petitioner's assertion that he seeks only delivery of possession of the apartment before the NCDRC and no monetary relief, and that the observation prejudices his case.

¶¶18

Court's answer

The last line of para 3 of the order dated 19.05.2025 ('Mere fact that complainant has to recover his hard-earned (sic) money would not mean anything substantial, in present context') stands omitted from the order.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

All other observations in the order dated 19.05.2025, including the observation in para 4 thereof, remain as they are.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The present order is to be uploaded as a corrigendum to the order dated 19.05.2025.ratio¶¶22
CM APPL. 31916/2025 (exemption) is allowed subject to all just exceptions.ratio¶¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Jain, J.), CM(M) 938/2025, order dated 23.05.2025 — Review Pet. 322/2025 by K. L. Manhas (petitioner in person) against M/s Skystar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (unrepresented) — Review of order dated 19.05.2025 whereby the Court had recorded in para 3 that 'Mere fact that complainant has to recover his hard-earned (sic) money would not mean anything substantial, in present context' — Petitioner, who has a complaint pending before the learned NCDRC seeking delivery of possession of the apartment, stated he seeks no monetary or refund relief and that the observation prejudiced his case — Held: the last line of para 3 of the order dated 19.05.2025 stands omitted; all other observations, including that in para 4, remain as they are; order to be uploaded as corrigendum to the order dated 19.05.2025. CM APPL. 31916/2025 (exemption) allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 938/2025

¶4

K. L. MANHAS .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Petitioner in person.

¶6

versus M/S SKYSTAR BUILDCON PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶8

O R D E R % 23.05.2025

¶9

CM APPL. 31916/2025 (exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed subject to all just exception.

¶11

REVIEW PET. 322/2025

¶12

Petitioner seeks review of order dated 19.05.2025. He submits that he is not seeking to recover any money and is not seeking refund of any nature whatsoever and his mere request before the learned NCDRC is with respect to delivery of the possession of the apartment in question.

¶13

When the abovesaid petition was disposed of by this Court, this Court had recorded in para 3 of order dated 19.05.2025 that “ Mere fact that complainant has to recover his hard-earned (sic) money would not mean anything substantial, in present context .”

¶14

The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the

¶15

CM(M) 938/2025

¶16

¶17

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 01/07/2025 at 00:49:17

¶18

abovesaid aspect be clarified as he does not seek for any monetary relief. He also submits that the abovesaid observation would rather prejudice his case.

¶19

In view of the prayer made by the complainant pending adjudication before learned NCDRC, and in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the application is disposed of with direction that the last line of para 3 i.e. “ Mere fact that complainant has to recover his hard-earned (sic) money would not mean anything substantial, in present context. ” stands omitted from the order.

¶20