M/S. PURAN CHAND COMPANY v. SH. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA & ORS.

Delhi High Court · 17 Feb 2025 · 2025:DHC:1039
Manoj Jain
CONT.CAS(C) 241/2025
2025:DHC:1039
civil petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court disposed of a contempt petition after respondents agreed to withdraw a coercive communication issued despite the petitioner furnishing the required undertaking for extension of possession.

Full Text
Translation output
CONT.CAS(C) 241/2025 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th February, 2025
CONT.CAS(C) 241/2025
M/S. PURAN CHAND COMPANY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC
WITH
Ms. Pinky Pawar, G.P., Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Mr. Kashish G. Baweja, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)
CM APPL. 9565/2025
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CONT.CAS(C) 241/2025

1. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents and submits that as per the specific directions given by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner was given additional period of four months to vacate and hand over the unit in question.

2. He submits that the abovesaid order would have been operative only on their furnishing an undertaking to said Court to the above said effect. It is submitted that such undertaking was also furnished and despite same, the respondents, by virtue of communication dated 12.02.2025, have directed CONT.CAS(C) 241/2025 2 them to remove all the structures and to hand over the possession to Railway Administration on 18.02.2025 by 23:59 hours.

3. In view of the above said exigency, it has been prayed that the respondents may be hauled up for committing contempt and above said coercive action may be directed to be stayed.

4. Learned counsel for respondents appears on advance notice and submits that the above said communication might have been issued as the affidavit/undertaking was not given by the petitioner within the requisite period of one week.

5. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner had moved an application before the learned Division Bench and the time was extended and, accordingly, the undertaking was on record.

6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the above said situation, she would instruct the respondents accordingly to withdraw the above said communication dated 12.02.2025.

7. Such statement is taken on record.

8. The petitioner, in view of above, at the moment, does not press for any relief.

9. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

10. Order dasti, under the signatures of Court Master.

JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2025