Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Sitanshi Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Vandana Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preservation of cdr sought in support of claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial court's reasoning on relevance and privacy. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. supreme court's guidance on cdr preservation. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. order dismissing the application is upheld. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
CM No.32398/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 626/2021 and CM No.32397/2021 (for interim directions)
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 21st August, 2021 passed by the Civil Judge-08 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No.1369/2020, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1 (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the `petitioner') under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking directions to Bharti Airtel Limited to preserve and produce the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the mobile number of the respondent No.3/defendant No.2 (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the `respondent No.3'), being the husband of the petitioner, for the period from 08th October,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
