Madan Mohan v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr

Order dasti.

A * + W.P.(C) 8127/2016

SHAMIMUDDIN Mr. N.S. Vashisht and Mr. Vishal Singh, Advs.

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

Mr. Kapil Dutta, proxy counsel,

%

C.M. No.33625/2016 (Exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exception.

Application disposed of. W.P.(C) 8127/2016

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record his application vide which he had sought sanction of his building plan. Let the said application be placed on record. Copy has been furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent in fact submits that that application is under process and as and when the petitioner deposits his building plan fee, his plan will be considered for a sanction. This payment will be made on-line by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also seeks time to file a counter affidavit/status report. Needful be done within three weeks with advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder before the next date.

Renotify on 03.02.2017.

A * + W.P.(C) 6023/2013

ANANT RAJ PROJECTS LIMITED

Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal, Adv.

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BUILDING) NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Mr. Ajay Arora, Mr. Kapil Dutta, Ms. Surbhi Gupta and Ms. Diksha Lal, Advs for NDMC.

Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Arpita and Ms. Uma Lohray, Advs for the DDA.

%

C.M. Nos 40660/2016 (for amendment) and 40661/2016 (interim relief)

Reply is stated to have been filed. It is not on record. Copy be furnished to the petitioner and non-applicant. The said reply be placed on record. Learned counsel for respondent/NDMC points out that connected petitions are listed before this Court on 11.01.2017.

List on 11.01.2017.

A * + W.P.(C) 5173/2016 & C.M. No.21541/2016

RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION F BLOCK

Mr. Rohan Thawani, Adv.

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS Mr. V.P. S. Charak and Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Advs for R-1. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC with Mr. D. Mukherjee, Adv for R-2.

%

Respondent No.3 has not been served. Process fee was not filed. Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to serve respondent No.3. Counter affidavit has not been filed by respondent No. 1 & 2. Respondent No. 1 & 2 will file their counter affidavit positively within two weeks with advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder before the next date.

Renotify on 10.02.2017.

A * + W.P.(C) 6323/2016

JAI GOPAL GULATI

Mr. Sanjeev Narang, Adv.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar, Adv for R-1.

Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Adv for R-2.

%

Respondent No. 2 seeks time to file counter affidavit. The same shall be filed positively in four weeks. Respondents No. 3 to 5, inspite of service, has not chosen to file their counter affidavits.

Notice of default be issued to the Standing Counsel of respondents No. 3 to 5. Counter affidavit be obtained from the said respondents positively in four weeks with advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder before the next date.

Renotify on 13.02.2017.

A * + C.R.P. 101/2016 & C.M. No.25378/2016

MONIKA Ms. Amit Shukla and Mr. Shakti Vardhan, Advs.

AMIT SABHARWAL ..... Respondent

Mr. Digvijay Kumar, Adv.

%

Reply has not been filed by the respondent. It is stated that the reply is ready and the same shall be filed within three days. Copy be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder before the next date.

Renotify on 08.02.2017.

A * + CM(M) 1347/2010 & C.M. No.12584/2014

RAM NARAIN & ORS

..... Petitioners Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv with Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vp.P. Singh and Ms. Manisha Mehta, Advs

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Ms. Jyoti, Adv. for R-1 Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv for the DDA.

%

Reply has not been filed by respondent No. 1 or respondent No.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that inspite of best efforts, since the records are not traceable in their Department, it may not be possible for them to file counter affidavit/response. She submits that she has instructions to argue the petition on the next date. Meanwhile, one more last opportunity is granted to respondent No. 2 to file counter affidavit. Needful be done within two weeks with advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners who may file rejoinder before the next date. List for arguments on 17.02.2017.

A * + CM(M) 1348/2010 & C.M. No.12614/2014

RAM NARAIN & ORS

..... Petitioners Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv with Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Vp.P. Singh and Ms. Manisha Mehta, Advs

UNION OF INDIA & ORS Ms. Jyoti, Adv. for R-1 Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv for the DDA.

%

Reply has not been filed by respondent No. 1 or respondent No.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that inspite of best efforts, since the records are not traceable in their Department, it may not be possible for them to file counter affidavit/response. She submits that she has instructions to argue the petition on the next date. Meanwhile, one more last opportunity is granted to respondent No. 2 to file counter affidavit. Needful be done within two weeks with advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioners who may file rejoinder before the next date. List for arguments on 17.02.2017.

A * + CM(M) 1240/2016 & C.M. Nos.44314-15/2016

DINESH PUNYANI Mr. Rashmi Bansal, Mr. Anuj Gupta and Mr. Pinki Aggarwal, Advocates

RITIKA ..... Respondent

None

%

Petitioner is seeking early hearing in the matter. He is aggrieved by the fact that dated of 24.04.2017 had been given by the learned Family Court Judge.

Notice of this petition be issued to the non-applicant / respondent. Report of the learned Family Court Judge also be called.

List on 14.02.2017.

gb * + RC.REV. 374/2015

VINOD KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Mr. Sanjay Gupta and Mr. Mudit Sharma, Advocates

AJAY KUMAR SINGHAL ..... Respondent

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate

%

REV. PET. NO. 307/2016

Rejoinder now be filed before the next date.

List on 14.02.2017.

gb * + W.P.(C) 7389/2015

RUSTAM BEG (DECEASED) THR LRS

Mr. Rahul Srivastava, Advocate

THE ESTATE OFFICER & ORS.

None

%

W.P.(C) 7389/2015 and CM APPL. No. 13613/2015

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 23.12.2014. This is an interim order passed by the learned District Judge in pending proceedings under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. That appeal is yet pending before the learned District Judge and the next date fixed before him is 23.01.2017.

Petitioner has confined himself only to that part of the order where his right to cross examine two witnesses namely one Balbir Singh and K.C. Surinder had been denied to him. The statement of Sh. Balbir Singh, Deputy Director-Allotment (Slum & JJ Deptt. MCD) was recorded on oath on 02.02.2010 and statement of Shri K. C. Surinder, Deputy Director, Commercial Estate, DDA was recorded on the subsequent date i.e. 22.04.2010. Both these witnesses were not cross examined. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not permitted to do so. He had moved an application on 07.05.2010 (on record) seeking permission of the Court to cross examine these witnesses. The impugned order had declined this prayer. This Court is of the view that under provisions of Indian Evidence Act the statement of a witness which has been recorded on oath must be tested by cross examination. This is a right which has been prescribed by the Legislature. The Trial Court declining this right to the petitioner has committed an illegality. Even presuming that these witnesses were only formal in nature and do not affect the defence sought to be set up by the petitioner this Court is nevertheless of the view that the petitioner has a right to cross examine the said witnesses. Accordingly, the said witnesses be summoned by the learned Trial Court for a date to be fixed for their cross examination. It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for the said purpose as vehement contention of the non-applicant/ respondent is that the petitioner is only trying to delay the proceedings. Trial Court shall not give any unnecessary adjournment in this regard.

Any other document which the petitioner chooses to rely may be applied under the provisions of Right to Information Act.

No further orders are called for.

Petition disposed of.

gb * + W.P.(C) 5838/2014

SUJATA MALHOTRA ..... Applicant

None

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for SDMC along with Mr. Praney Jain, Advocate

Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for R-3 to R-5

%

CM APPL. No. 20089/2016 (Release of amount)

None has appeared for the applicant.

Matter has been called twice.

Dismissed in default as also for non-prosecution.

gb * + W.P.(C) 3715/2012 and CM APPL. No. 7791/2012

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharya and Mr. Rahul, Advocates

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PROJECTS MCD & ANR. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Niti Jain, Advocate

%

Pleadings are complete.

None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to file certain documents to substantiate his averments which he had made in this petition which as per him relates to the shifting/reallocation charges which as per him are to be borne by the land owning / road owning agency which in this case is respondent no.1/ SDMC.

Let the said documents be placed on record by way of affidavit.

Needful be done within a period of two weeks.

List on 10.02.2017.

gb * + W.P.(C) 8070/2016

DR. NATHU LAL

Petitioner in person

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate

%

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge dated 12.08.2016 under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. His appeal against the order passed by the Estate Officer had been dismissed. He had been directed to vacate the government accommodation which was quarter no. 119, Type-4, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi. Admittedly petitioner is retired from service on 30.11.2015.

At this stage petitioner submits that he has been forcibly evicted from the quarter on 01.12.2015; this does not find mention in the entire body of the petition.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition in these circumstances would not be maintainable and the petitioner would have to approach another fora for getting his grievance addressed.

Counsel for the petitioner is not available today. At request list on 07.02.2017 for consideration.

gb * + CM(M) 1249/2016 & C.M. No.44885/2016

GAURAV ARORA

Petitioner in person

KUMKUM SHARMA & ANR

None

%

Petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Family Court Judge. He is particularly aggrieved by the order passed on 05.10.2016 vide which his application seeking transfer of the proceedings to another Court had not been considered sympathetically. That application is yet pending before the learned Family Judge. The second grievance of the petitioner as emanates from the prayer made in this petition is that his application under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act has not been decided.

Learned petitioner (arguing in person) submits that admittedly there are no substantive proceedings pending before the learned Family Court Judge. Petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the estranged wife had been withdrawn on 23.10.2015. The Bench of this Court (in CM No. 1228/2015) had noted that the right of the wife / respondent to withdraw her petition under section 9 of the HMA cannot be interfered with and at best the petitioner could have pressed for costs.

This Court is of the view that since there are no substantive proceedings pending under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, the application under Section 24 would not be maintainable. Petitioner seeks time to satisfy this Court on this proposition.

List on 01.02.2017.

gb * + CM(M) 1092/2016 and CM APPL. No. 40040/2016

SHEETAL MALHOTRA

Mr. Govind Singh, Advocate

SUMIT BHARARA ..... Respondent

None

%

Respondent has been served at his Canadian address through courier. He was not served at his Delhi address; it was noted that the respondent was currently in Canada. This Court is of the view that respondent be served through his e-mail as well. Petitioner shall file an affidavit of the e-mail address of the respondent.

List on 08.02.2017.

gb

* + CM(M) 875/2015 MADAN MOHAN Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv with Mr. Sachin Jain, Mr. Ronit Rana and Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advs. KULDEEP SINGH & ANR. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv with Mr. J.K. Jain, Adv. % Review Petition No. 277/2016 This review petition seeks a review of the order dated 26.04.2016. It is premised largely on the submission that this order noting that no document had been filed by the review petitioner along with his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is an incorrect fact; it has also incorrectly noted that on 17.08.2015, this document had been rejected by the Trial Court. Submission being that the review petitioner along with his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had filed the document (Form ST-3 Gulati Sports); this was on 11.02.2015; this document had accompanied his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. On 11.08.2015, a better copy of this document (Form ST-3 Gulati Sports) had been filed. This document had been rejected on 17.08.2015. The earlier document (illegible Review Petition No. 277/2016 document) had not been rejected. This finding of fact had been incorrectly noted in the impugned order. This calls for a review. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the order under review does not call for any interference as facts have been correctly recorded. This Court notes that the order dated 26.04.2016 had set aside the order passed by the Trial Judge vide which the Trial Judge had permitted M/s Gulati Sports to be impleaded as a party. This Court while passing its order on 26.04.2016 had noted that M/s Gulati Sports (through its partner D.S. Gulati) is neither a necessary and nor a proper party in proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA. At best a right would be available to him under Section 25 of the DRCA. This Court had correctly noted that his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had been un-accompanied by any document as the document filed by the petitioner on 11.02.2015 (along with his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code) was wholly illegible and it was for this reason that on a subsequent dated i.e. 11.08.2015, he had chosen to file a better copy of the said document. This better copy had not been taken on record; it was rejected by a speaking order on 11.08.2015. Thus this Court notes that the order passed by this Court on 26.04.2016 has not gone wrong in recording any fact. At this stage, the Court has asked the review petitioner that if he wishes to get his petition under Section 25 of the DRCA adjudicated upon this Court may observe that the said petition will be Review Petition No. 277/2016 dealt with uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in its order dated 26.04.2016. The learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner (under instructions from his client) submits that he does not wish to accede to this proposal; he wishes that an order be passed on merits. At this stage, this Court also notes that the review petitioner had also impugned an order dated 25.05.2016 (relating to an adjacent shop) vide which the application of M/s Gulati Sports under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code had been dismissed by the ARC. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the plea of M/s Galati Sports to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code in separate proceedings under section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had noted the order passed by this Court on 26.04.2016. That Bench (in C.M. (Main) No.815/2016) while disposing of that petition had granted liberty to the petitioner/M/s Gulati Sports to take recourse to proceedings under Section 25 of the DRCA in case any order of eviction is passed against Sh. D.S. Gulati. This Court is of the view that if this review petition is allowed, it would also ineffect set at naught the order passed by the coordinate Bench on 23.08.2016 in C.M. (Main) No.815/2016. The grounds of review are contained in Order XLVII of the Code. Unless and until, there is an error apparent on the