Disposed¶25

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd) & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Apr 2026CONT.CAS(C)/687/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition disposed; compliance found with directions dated 17.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 2211/2026; MCD order dated 13.04.2026 disposing of petitioner's representation; DDA speaking order pursuant to same directions; demolition action reasons and personal hearing; liberty to pursue legal remedies against MCD and DDA speaking orders; High Court of Delhi; Justice Sachin Datta; CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026.

What did the court decide?

No further orders; petition disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the speaking orders passed by the MCD and DDA. ¶25

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP Vs Municipal… — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further orders; petition disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the speaking orders passed by the MCD and DDA.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities committed wilful disobedience / non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2211/2026.

¶11

Court's answer

The directions contained in the order dated 17.02.2026 have been complied with: an order dated 13.04.2026 has been issued disposing of the petitioner's representation.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

A speaking order has been passed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 17.02.2026.

¶24

Key takeaways

Since the directions stand complied with, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition, which is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶25
The petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the aforesaid speaking orders passed by the MCD and DDA.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt/compliance petition (CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026, High Court of Delhi, Sachin Datta, J., decision dated 21.04.2026) alleging wilful disobedience of the Court's order dated 17.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 2211/2026, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 were directed to treat the petitioner's writ petition as a representation, grant a personal hearing and inform the petitioner of the reasons and basis for a demolition action on the concerned premises. At the hearing it transpired that the directions had been complied with: MCD issued an order dated 13.04.2026 disposing of the petitioner's representation, and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) separately passed a speaking order pursuant to the same directions; copies of both were handed over to petitioner's counsel. Holding that no further orders were required, the Court disposed of the petition while leaving the petitioner at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies, if aggrieved by the speaking orders of the MCD and DDA.

¶1

$~121

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 21.04.2026

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026 M/S AASTHA GILL MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES LLP.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yash Anand, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (MCD) & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Yadav (SPC) along with Ms. Anjupriya Yadav, Mr. Kush Garg, Mr. Rythem Nagar, Advs. Mr. Kapil Datta (SC) along with Ms. Akansha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur (SC) along with Mr. Aditya Verma, Ms. Aiyma Sharma, Advs. for R2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶10

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/non-compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2211/2026. By way of the said order, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were directed to treat the petitioner’s writ petition as a representation, grant him a personal hearing and inform him of the reasons and basis for the demolition action on the concerned premises. The operative directions therein read as under:-

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 13:28:16

¶16

It transpires during the course of hearing that the aforesaid directions are complied with and an order dated 13.04.2026 has been issued whereby the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of. The same reads as under:-

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 13:28:16

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 13:28:16

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

A copy of the same has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing.

¶24

A speaking order has also been passed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 17.02.2026. The copy of the same has also been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing.

¶25

As such, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶26

Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved by the aforesaid speaking orders passed by the MCD and DDA.

¶27

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶28

APRIL 21, 2026/ uk

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

CONT.CAS(C) 687/2026

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:2 8.04.2026 13:28:16

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Mcd) & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia Bhaskar Vs Yes Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Routu Kishore Kumar Vs Sh. Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor, Dg Itbp

Deepak Luthra Vs Sushil Suri & Ors.

Tui India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Krishan Kumar Singh

Dr. Vivek Virendra Singh Vs Shri Suresh Yadav & Ors.

Jwo (Retd) Akhilesh Kumar Jha (763441 B) Vs Air Chief Mshl Ap Singh and Anr.

Rohit Chechi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kapil Kumar Gupta Vs Mr. Dilkhush Meena & Ors.

Routu Kishore Kumar Vs Sh. Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor, Dg Itbp

Deepak Luthra Vs Sushil Suri & Ors.

Mr. Deepak Luthra Vs Shri Sushil Suri & Anr.

Mukesh Kumar Gupta Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar and Ors.

Lavanya S and Anr. Vs Mr Ashok Kumar Nagawat Vice Chancellor Dseu

Sunita Devi Vs Parveen Kumar Director General, Bsf & Ors.