Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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