UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court of Delhi Directs Maintenance of Status Quo on Sale of Disputed Property in Gurugram

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court disposed of an appeal by M/S One Qube Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Against the orders passed on 25.01.2024 and 15.12.2023, which directed the attachment and proposed sale of a disputed property in Gurugram, Haryana.

In the case titled EFA(OS) (COMM) 2/2024 and CM APPL. 5170/2024 & 5171/2024, the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, while addressing the preliminary objection about the appeal’s maintainability, stated, “Till such time the application is not disposed of, the sale of the subject property will not be carried out.”

The property in question, described as Plot No.20, Urban Estate, Sector-18, Gurugram, has been at the center of a legal dispute following the orders for its attachment and the direction issued for its sale.

The appellant’s counsel argued that a sale deed dated 02.08.2017 had been executed in favor of the appellant, a point that could not be overlooked unless annulled in a manner known to law. The bench noted the uncertainty regarding a decision by the concerned Court in Gurugram on a similar application by the appellant. Mr. Arvind Nigam, representing the respondent, contended that a decision had been rendered, while the appellant’s counsel argued otherwise.

The High Court's decision came with specific directions. “The learned Single Judge will afford an opportunity to the contesting respondent, i.e., respondent No.1, to file a reply to the application preferred by the appellant,” the bench directed. Furthermore, the application will be listed for directions before the learned Single Judge on 05.02.2024.

The bench also Instructed the appellant to maintain the status quo concerning the sale of the subject property and to refrain from creating any long-term lease exceeding 30 years for the said property.

The matter is set to be examined on its merits, with all rights and contentions of the parties remaining open to be adjudicated by the learned Single Judge.

DECISION DATE : 30.01.2024

M/S ONE QUBE REALTORS PVT. LTD. VS DAIICHI SANKYO LIMITED & ORS.

Latest Legal News