Advocates:
BINA GUPTA, KAPIL SIBAL, MONIKA MOHIL, R.M.Bagai, R.P.SHARMA, RANJIT GHOSAL, V.SHEKHAR

Key Points: - The court notes that no court shall entertain suits, applications or orders for injunction against the Commissioner's orders under certain sections, with appeals to the appellate tribunal and administrator as the remedy; courts should ordinarily direct aggrieved persons to pursue those remedies (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses requirements for granting temporary injunctions, including that ex parte orders must have reasons recorded, must be limited in duration with service of notice, and a strong prima facie case is required for maintainability and balance of convenience (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that where a statute provides a complete machinery and bars civil court jurisdiction, the remedy provided therein must be followed, though a court may entertain a jurisdictional challenge on grounds of jurisdictional error or non-application of the act; the exact scope depends on whether the act creates a right/liability and provides remedies within the statute (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the jurisdiction of courts vs. appellate tribunals under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act regarding demolition orders and sealing of unauthorised constructions?

What are the conditions and requirements for granting ex parte temporary injunctions in proceedings challenging demolition orders?

What constitutes a valid remedy or forum for aggrieved parties under Section 343 and related provisions when dealing with demolition/sealing orders?