CS (OS) 1215/2008
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
The order passed in 25.07.2013
Defendant appears in person submits that the plaintiff has not
Complied with the order dated 10.09.2012 whereby the plaintiff was directed to place on record typed copies of dim annexures in compliance
Of order dated 4.7.2008.
Let the plaintiff do the needful within three weeks from today subject to payment of Costs of Rs.3,000/-. Copies of typed annexures if filed are also supplied to the defendant.
As there is no one from the side of the plaintiff, in the interest of justice, renotify on 12th November 2013 for framing of issues.
ADBUL WAHID vs. MOHD ASLAM
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
The order passed in 29.07.2013
By order dated 20th March 2013, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the present suit. The learned counsel states for the plaintiffs that against the said order a special leave also been filed before the Supreme Court and the said petition has also been dismissed.
Accordingly, in terms of the order of Division Bench, the present suit and the pending application are dismissed.
SHRI KESHAV LAL vs. SHRI DEVKI NANDAN Defendants
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
The order passed in 30.01.2019
The parties have settled the matter before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and have entered into a settlement agreement dated 28.01.2019. The parties are siblings and have agreed upon the mechanism for the partition of the suit property in terms of the settlement agreement. The suit is being disposed of because of the foundation of the parties to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. A decree is passed in terms of the Settlement Agreement. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
The order passed in 24.12.2019
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the action of the sealing of his premises bearing No.29/3262, Beadanpura (Basement), Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is pleaded that the petitioner is a goldsmith and as per the policies of the respondent, goldsmiths are allowed to operate from the residential areas. He also states that the petitioner’s activities do not fall within the purview of a polluting industry. Let respondent No.1 treat this writ petition as a representation. Respondent No.1 will go after that passes a speaking order within two months from today. In case the petitioner is not that much satisfied with the speaking order, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the same as per law. The petition stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.