SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Del) 824

MUKUL MUDGAL, MADAN B.LOKUR
JUGAN K. MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
S. S. GULATI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL K.KHER, PANKAJ AGARWAL, S.P.KALER, Sanjeev Sindhwania, Valmiki Mehta

MUKUL MUDGAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION FILED BY THE ORIGINAL plaintiff IS BASED ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE EX parte ORDER OF STATUS QUO OF THIS COURT DATED 2nd APRIL, 2002 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY his ORDER DATED 25th AUGUST, 2003 PASSED AFTER HEARING both SIDES AND WHICH ORDER IS NOW PENDING IN APPEAL before THE DIVISION BENCH. THE SUIT WAS INTER ALIA FOR partition AND AVERRED THAT THE TWO BROTHERS OF THE plaintiff (WHO IS THE MARRIED SISTER) I. E. DEFENDANT NO. 1 SHRI SHAM SUNDER GULATI, DEFENDANT NO. 3 SHRI RAJ KUMAR gulati AND DEFENDANT NO. 4 SHRI CHINTU GULATI WHO ARE legal REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE PRAKASH GULATI, ANOTHER brother OF THE PLAINTIFF HAD SOLD THE SUIT PROPERTY AT 31, BUNGLOW ROAD, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI TO DEFENDANT NO. 7- smt. NEELAM SABLOK IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF s rights.

( 2 ) IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY HAS BEEN demolished VIOLATING THE ORDER OF STATUS QUO. THE demolition IS AVERRED TO BE WITHOUT ANY VALID SANCTION and PERMISSION. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT IF RESPONDENTS are ALLOWED TO CONTINUE REBUILDING OF SUIT PREMISES IT would RESULT IN UNDUE HARASSMENT AND IRREPARABLE INJURY to THE PLAINTIFF.

( 3 ) THE RESPOND










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top