Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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