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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2068

MINI PUSHKARNA
Anju Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punam – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
None, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Santwana Agarwal, Ms. Saumya Agarwal, Advocates, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral):

CM APPL. 24508/2022 (u/Order XXII Rule 3(2) read with Section 151 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the respondent under Order XXII Rule 3(2) read with Section 151 CPC for abatement of case and discharge of the Bank Guarantee.

2. The appellant had challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.08.2013 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Distt. Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, whereby the summary suit filed by the respondent has been decreed against the appellant. In the present appeal, the High Court had stayed the execution of the decree, vide order dated 29.01.2014, subject to deposit of the decreetal amount along with interest and costs by the appellant.

3. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the appellant herein had deposited the decreetal amount. Thus, the respondent moved an application being CM APPL. No. 12406/2014 praying for directions to release the decreetal amount as deposited by the appellant.

4. Vide order dated 12.08.2014, this Court directed the release of the said amount in favour of the respondent subject to furnishing of security. Pursuant thereto, the resp

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