Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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