Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
Parveen Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
D.R. Meena – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural compliance and historical background of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention regarding compliance with previous interim stay orders. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. directions for interim relief adjudication and order disposal. (Para 6 , 7) |
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.28067/2026 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CONT.CAS(C) 734/2026
3. The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment/ order dated 24.09.2025 passed in CM(M) 1903/2025. The said judgment/ order reads as under:
“1. Petitioners have approached this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction because the Appellate Tribunal MCD is currently not functional and is awaiting appointment of a Presiding Officer.
2. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that in case their appeal is not heard, the subject property may be demolished by the respondent MCD. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the appeal was filed on 02.09.2025 before ATMCD but the same got adjourned on
03.09.2025 by the Reader because the new Presiding Officer is yet to join.
3. Learned counsel for respondent MCD appearing on
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
