Disposed

Sushila Sharma v. Sunil Kumar Sharma

Delhi HC16 Mar 2026CONT.CAS(C)/359/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition alleging non-compliance of an interim order in a pending commercial appeal, requiring the respondent to deposit the decretal amount with interest. On the respondent's counsel stating the balance would be deposited with the Registrar General within two days, the court closed the contempt proceedings with liberty to pursue enforcement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sushila Sharma Vs Sunil Kumar Sharma — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 16.03.2026

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 359/2026 CM APPL. 13901/2026

¶5

SUSHILA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratap Ranjan Sahani and Ms. Shahina, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. D P Kaushik, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶10

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

¶11

This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by this Court in FAO (COMM) No. 91/2024. The paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the order of non-compliance are reproduced as under:-

¶12

“4. Nothing the submission and after hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the entire decretal amount as directed in the order dated 15.05.2024 shall be deposited with an additional interest at the rate of 5% per annum, effective from 15.05.2024 till date with the Registrar General of this Court, within eight weeks, subject to adjustment of Rs. 6 lakhs which we are informed, has been paid to the respondent.

¶13

5. If such a deposit is made, the enforcement proceedings shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal. It is made clear

¶14

CONT.CAS(C) 359/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.03.2026 11:48

¶18

that if the amount is not deposited within eight weeks, the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with the enforcement proceedings initiated by the respondent.”

¶19

The learned counsel for the Respondent contends that an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs has been paid to the Petitioner before the Executing Court.

¶20

The learned counsel submits that further amount of Rs. 7.75 lakhs shall be deposited with the Registrar General of this Court.

¶21

In view of the order passed by this Court, more specifically paragraph no. 5, permitting the Respondent to deposit the amount of Rs. 7.75 lakhs with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of two days from today, we close these proceedings giving liberty to the petitioner to proceed with the enforcement proceedings initiated before the executing court.

¶22

The amount to be deposited with the Registrar General shall be invested in an interest-bearing FDR of a nationalised bank with periodical renewals till further orders in the FAO (COMM) No. 91/2024.

¶23

The petition, along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

¶24

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶25

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶26

MARCH 16, 2026/rhc

¶27

CONT.CAS(C) 359/2026

¶28

Page 2 of 2

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:MAHIMA SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.03.2026 11:48

Sushila Sharma v. Sunil Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sushila Sharma v. Sunil Kumar Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuj Malhotra Vs State

M/S. Triune Projects Private Limited Vs Mr Nikhil Kumar Commissioner of State GST and Vat, Department of Trade and Taxes, Delhi

Geeta Panwar & Ors. Vs Vedita Reddy

Suneet Dargan and Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Gurpreet Kaur Sandha Vs Sanjeev Khirwar and Ors.

Rajender Lohiya @ Rajender Choudhary Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Harsaran (Deceased) Thorugh His Lrs and Ors. Vs Sh. Vimal Verma

Ashok Kumar Tyagi & Ors. Vs Dr. Mohit Tandon & Ors.

Asst. Comdt. Jay Pratap Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S. Bptp Limited Vs Vijyant Agarwal and Anr.

M S Jk Infrastructure through Its Sole Proprietor Mr Jugal Jamnadas Karia Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Commissioner Tender Inviting Authority

Dr Mandeep Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Khali Vs Union of India and Others

Rajesh Bhandoria Vs Union of India and Ors.