Nandita Sengupta vs Seema Dasgupta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Nandita Sengupta – Appellant
Versus
Seema Dasgupta – Respondent

Table of Content
1. background on property leasing and family agreements. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners argue lack of exclusive rights by respondent. (Para 3)
3. respondents counterclaim exclusive ownership of terrace. (Para 4)
4. court's analysis on occupancy rights and interim measures. (Para 5 , 6)
5. no prima facie case established for injunction. (Para 7 , 8)
6. court's final observation and petition disposition. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):--The present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'], has been filed seeking the following interim reliefs:

"PRAYER

1. Pass an interim order directing the Respondents to not obstruct and create any hindrance in the use of the Terrace over the Third Floor of the Property No. J-1878, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 by the Petitioners and their family members and domestic helpers in any manner whatsoever;

2. Pass an interim order directing the Respondents to not initiate any construction on the terrace above the Third Floor of the Property No. J-1878, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019;

3. Pass an interim order for directing the Res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSANJEEV NARULANandita Sengupta – AppellantVersusSeema Dasgupta – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Nandita Sengupta – Appellant
Versus
Seema Dasgupta – Respondent