NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court “Possession Follows Title” Not An Absolute Rule When Ownership Is Disputed: Andhra Pradesh High Court ORDER 30 CPC | Appeal Filed by Firm Does Not Abate on Death of Partners: Calcutta High Court Bank Cannot Freeze Customer’s Account Based on Third-Party Dispute: Calcutta High Court Slams Axis Bank

Maintaining Status Quo Paramount in Property Disputes: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court today made a significant observation in the ongoing property dispute case of Madhuri Goel vs Chandra Prakash & Anr., emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo in property disputes. The court’s ruling came as a relief to the petitioner, Madhuri Goel, who had challenged the Trial Court’s order directing her to amend her plaint to include the relief of declaration, possession, and consequential relief of injunction.

In the case presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, the High Court emphasized, “It is essential to respect and maintain the status quo orders in property disputes to ensure justice and prevent illegal dispossession.” This statement came during the hearing of the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Trial Court’s decision.

The petitioner, Madhuri Goel, claimed that she was in constructive possession of the disputed property through her tenants as of the date of the institution of the suit. Her counsel argued that despite the Trial Court’s status quo order dated March 8, 2022, the respondents illegally dispossessed the petitioner on March 10, 2022. Subsequently, an application was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for the restoration of possession, which is pending adjudication.

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the merit in the petitioner’s submissions. Justice Arora stated, “The enforcement of the Trial Court’s directives necessitates prior resolution of the Section 151 CPC application.” The court thus kept the operation of the Trial Court’s order dated August 1, 2023, in abeyance, pending the adjudication of the Section 151 CPC application.

The court further directed that, should the application be dismissed, the petitioner would be required to amend her plaint within four weeks to comply with the Trial Court’s directives.

Date of Decision: 8 December 2023

MADHURI GOEL VS CHANDRA PRAKASH & ANR.

 

Latest Legal News