VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2010 › High Court of Delhi

General Taxi Stand Association v. New Delhi Municipal Council Committee & Ors

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
5 July 2010
Bench
V.B. Guptaauthor
Case no.
CM(M) 835/2010

Judgment

V.B.GUPTA, J. ab

Case details

Parties and counsel

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No.835/2010 & CM No.11257/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 2nd July, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 5th July, 2010 The General Taxi Stand Association (Regd.) Front of Kothi No. 57, Near IIC Lodhi Enclave, New Delhi. Through its Hon. Secretary, New Delhi. ….Petitioner. Through: Mr. S. D. Ansari, Adv. Versus 1. New Delhi Municipal Council/Committee, Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. (Through its Secretary) 2. Goswami Taxi Service, Chaar Dukanay, Krishana Menon Lane, New Delhi- 110002. (Service through Shri Bhupinder Giri Goswami) 3. Shri Anil Kumar, SHO, PS Tuglak Road. New Delhi. 4. Shri Sohan Lal, S/o Shri Panna Lal. 5. Shir Bankey Lal, S/o Shri Panna Lal, Both of Gate No. 1, I.I.C., Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. ….Respondents. Through: Vinod Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.1. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against orders dated 3rd May, 2010 and 29th May, 2010, vide which the Commercial Civil Judge, New Delhi fixed the matter for 26th July, 2010 without granting the interim relief as prayed and further dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 29th May, 2010 for urgent hearing without making any order on the interim relief filed in contempt petition. 2. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent nos. 1 and 2, along with application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC. 3. Vide order dated 2nd January, 2008, Sh. Soni Agnihotri, the then Sub Judge, directed the parties to maintain status quo. 4. Since, respondent no.2 in collusion with respondent no. 3, prevented petitioner from parking their taxis in the premises in question, petitioner filed contempt petition against the contemnors/respondent nos. 1 to 5 for initiation of contempt proceedings against them and further prayed relief for restoration of the interim order dated 2nd January, 2008. 5. Trial court adjourned the case to 26th July, 2010 and fixed the matter for recording of evidence on the contempt petition without passing any order on the interim relief/order of status qua ante in terms of status quo order dated 8th January, 2008. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the members of the petitioner association are facing great hardship and immense loss. Without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court dismissed the application on 29th May, 2010. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that during the pendency of the contempt petition, order on the interim relief was necessary to be made in the wake of existing earlier "status quo order". 8. Another contention is that trial court ought to have allowed the application for pre-poning the matter, keeping in view the utmost urgency. 9. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent no. 1, that trial court rightly observed that the question of breach of status quo cannot be decided without leading evidence and matter is already listed before trial court for 26th July, 2010 and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 10. Article 227 of The Constitution of India reads as under; "227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also sett

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.