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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Raj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Waqf Board - Respondent
W.P(C) 3017 of 2022 & CM Appls. 8764-65 of 2022
Decided On : 18-02-2022




Undertakings by parties can effectively resolve legal disputes, allowing for the dismissal of petitions when primary issues are adequately addressed.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Waqf Act - Seal on premises - Petitioner seeks declaration regarding illegal sealing of shops and direction for de-sealing. The respondent confirmed the removal of the seal. Allegations of sub-letting were also addressed, with petitioner undertaking not to sub-let. Court disposed of the petition as no further orders are required. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Undertakings by parties - An undertaking by a party may resolve disputes and prompt dismissal of a petition if the primary issue is resolved. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, claiming illegal sealing of shops by the respondent, requests de-sealing and addresses concerns of potential sub-letting.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the respondent's confirmation of de-sealing and the petitioner's undertaking, deeming further orders unnecessary.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the seal placed by the respondent and the potential sub-letting of the property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of undertakings in resolving disputes, indicating that resolving core issues diminishes the need for further court intervention.

Result: Petition disposed of.

Table of Content
1. petition for de-sealing premises (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding sealing and sub-letting (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. acceptance of undertaking (Para 5)
4. disposition of petition (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks a declaration that the seal placed by the respondent on shop Nos. 1462-63, Lal Masjid, Dariba Kalan, Delhi has been illegally put and further seeks a direction to de-seal the premises.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on 17.02.2022 had sought time to take instructions.

3. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that submits that the seal has been removed. He submits that there is an apprehension that petitioner has sub-let the premises or is likely to sub-let the premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions undertakes that petitioner has neither sub-let the premises nor intends to sub-let the same to any third party.

5. The undertaking is accepted.

6. Since the property has been de-sealed, no further orders are called for in the petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top