a.no. 05/14
Post on 04-Jan-2022
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A.No. 05/14 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Praveen Uppal, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Jitender Singh, JE(B).
Status report filed by the Ld. counsel for respondent.
Copy supplied.
Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that he will
either file the objections to the status report or will carry out
demolition / rectification as mentioned in the status report.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 13.10.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 430/11 & 547/11 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Jai Kant Prasad, counsel for appellant.
Sh. A.K.Jain / Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for
MCD.
Status report has been filed by Ld. counsel for the
respondent. Copy supplied. As per status report the
property in question was desealed on 21.02.2017 and
resealed on 21.04.2017 and during desealing of the
property on 21.04.2017, it has been observed that the
appellant has carried out only minor demolition.
On the other hand, appellant has filed affidavit in
appeal no. 430/11 that appellant had demolished the portion
of the suit property i.e. stall no.9.
Final arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on
20.07.2017. Both the parties are given liberty to file written
submissions, if any, within six weeks.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 228/13 29.05.2017
Present : Appellant in person.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Surender Singh, AE(B).
Sh. Shailender Sharma, counsel for R-2 &
R-3.
Status report filed by Ld. counsel for respondent. As
per status report the property in question is protected under
the provisions of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) (Second
Amendment) Act, 2014. The department will take action.
Appellant submits that his counsel is not available
today and seeks adjournment.
In the interest of justice case is adjourned to
17.08.2017 for arguments.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 706/15 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. V.K. Bajaj, counsel for appellant.
Sh.A.L.Agnihotri, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Abdul Haq, JLO.
Sh. Praveen Suri, counsel for applicant
alongwith applicant.
Sh. Chanchal Kumar, counsel for DDA
alongwith Sh. Ramesh Chand, Kanungo, Sh.
Dhir Singh, Kanungo and Ms.Neeru Sharma,
Nodal Officer for DDA.
Status report filed by the respondent corporation.
Copy supplied. As per status report no layout plan of Dori
Walan is available.
The respondent corporation has not complied the
further directions i.e. it has not filed status report regarding
the measurement of the property of applicant as well as
appellant.
Further, respondent is also directed to file status
report whether there are windows in plot no. 11298 to 11306
which opened towards the plot no. 14 or not.
The inspection be carried out on 12.06.2017 at 11.00
AM. Both the applicant as well as appellant will cooperate
during the inspection.
The respondent corporation is given last opportunity
to file status report regarding measurement of plot of
appellant as well as applicant, failing which concerned Dy.
Commissioner will appear in person.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent 24.07.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 38/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Sumit Rana, proxy counsel for appellant.
Sh. A.K. Mittal, counsel for North DMC.
Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for applicant.
Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that appellant
want to withdraw the present appeal.
Put up this matter on 17.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
M.No. 81/16 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for applicant.
Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ALO for MCD.
Proxy counsel for R-2 & R-3.
Put up with connected appeal no. 38/17 on
17.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
M.No. 34/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Kailash Sharma, counsel for applicant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith
Sh. Ajay Kumar, AE(B).
Ld. counsel for respondent has filed Vakalatnama.
He also filed status report. Copy supplied. As per
status report this Tribunal has passed the order on
07.03.2017 ordering desealing of the property in question.
After the order the file was processed for desealing and was
sent to Addl. Commissioner through EE(B) on 19.04.2017.
Further, in the status report it is mentioned that as soon as
the approval from the competent authority is received the
property should be desealed.
In my view once this court has passed the order for
desealing of property there is no need for approval from
Senior Officers and if the approval is to be taken, same is to
be taken within stipulated period. The respondent cannot
disobey the order merely on the ground that file has been
sent to Senior Officers. Hence, let show cause notice be
issued against Dy. Commissioner to appear in person and
to explain why the case be not referred to Hon’ble High
Court for initiating contempt proceedings.
Put up this matter for filing of further status report by
the respondent on 04.07.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 173/13, 478/13, 479/13, 1018/15 to 1020/15 & 521/13 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Sachin Sangwal / Sh. Satish Kumar,
counsel for appellant.
Sh.A.L.Agnihotri / Sh. Nirmit Gaur / Sh. Mohit
Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for DDA in appeal
no. 478/13 & 479/13 alongwith Ms. Neeru
Sharma, Nodal Officer for DDA.
Sh. R.K. Singh, proxy counsel for DDA in
1020/15 alongwith Ms. Neeru Sharma, Nodal
Officer for DDA.
None for Monitoring Committee.
Ld. counsel for DDA submits that meetings are going
on at higher level to decide about the allotment of the land
involved in the case under consideration.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that due to
seepage of water in the properties water has been
accumulated and prayed for temporary desealing be done.
Considering these facts, I order the respondent
corporation to deseal the property in question on
05.06.2017 at 11.00 AM and reseal the same on 09.06.2017
at 5.00 PM.
During the said period, appellant shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question and
shall not use the same for any other purpose except for
removal of water, sweeping / cleaning of property.
The concerned officer of the DDA and Director RL &
LM will appear in person in case status report not filed.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent corporation as well as by the DDA on
29.08.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 1209/13 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. K.N.Singh, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has
gone to deposit the charges, but officials of respondent
refused to take the same on the ground that certified copy of
the order is also liable to be filed alongwith the said amount.
He submits that he will deposit the charges soon.
Put up this matter for filing of report by the
respondent and arguments on 11.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 142/14 & 143/14 29.05.2017
Present : Sh.K.B. Gupta, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Assistant for NDMC.
Sr. Assistant submits that counsel is not available
today and seeks adjournment.
In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for
arguments on 05.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 382/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Deepak Vashisht, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply of
the appeal and record. Let the same be filed.
In the meanwhile respondent will not carry out
demolition action in the property in question bearing no. 38,
Gali Kedarnath, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, qua the impugned
demolition order dated 17.05.2017 till next date of hearing.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five days failing which status order
granted shall be deemed to be vacated.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of any
other order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or
Hon’ble High Court.
Put up this matter for filing of reply of appeal and
record by the respondent and final arguments on
06.10.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
Misc. file in A.No. 490/16 to 492/16 29.05.2017
Present : Appellant Ramesh Mittal in person.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, ALO for SDMC.
Appellant submits that he has deposited the costs of
Rs. 50,000/- as directed by this Tribunal.
In view of the same, the file be consigned to record
room.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 354/17 & 355/17. 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Anuj Garg, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD.
Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.
Record of demolition has already been filed.
However, Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record of
Sanctioned Building Plan is lying in Building Head Quarter
as same has been rejected from Head Quarter and seeks
some more time to file the same. Let the same be filed by
next date of hearing.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that after rejection
of Sanctioned Building Plan another application for
regularization of existing permissible coverage has been
filed vide application dated 27.01.2017. Copy of the same
be supplied to Ld. counsel for respondent.
Let respondent to file the status report of the said
regularization application on 11.10.2017. Respondent will
also file status report whether detail of construction given in
the affidavit is correct or not. Copy of the affidavit be
supplied by the appellant to the Ld. counsel for respondent
today itself.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 335/17 & 336/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. S.S. Rana, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that record has
been brought and the same will be filed today itself.
Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks time to inspect
the record.
Hence, case is adjourned for final arguments on
04.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 338/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. S.S. Rana, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, proxy counsel for MCD.
Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that record
has been brought and the same will be filed today itself.
Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks time to inspect
the record.
Hence, case is adjourned for final arguments on
04.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 337/17 & 339/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. S.S. Rana, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, proxy counsel for MCD.
Vakalatnama on behalf Sh. Sh. Naveen Grover,
counsel for MCD filed.
Ld. proxy counsel for respondent submits that record
has been brought and the same will be filed today itself.
Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks time to inspect
the record.
Hence, case is adjourned for final arguments on
04.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 316/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Sunil Kapoor, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Jitender Pal Singh, counsel for EDMC
alongwith Sh. D.P. Sharma, AE(B).
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Final arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarification, if any, / orders on
25.07.2017.
In the meanwhile respondent will not carry out any
demolition action qua the property in question bearing no. E-
641, Gali No.2, Jagjit Nagar, Usmanpur, Delhi-53 qua the
impugned demolition order dated 25.02.2016 till next date of
hearing.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five days failing which status order
granted shall be deemed to be vacated.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of any
other order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or
Hon’ble High Court.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 562/15 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Sanjay Sethi, counsel for North DMC.
Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that matter for
compromise with MCD has taken place in Hon’ble High
Court in a petition filed by Cellular Operators Association of
India and now the same is fixed for orders.
Put up this matter for arguments on 23.10.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 377/12 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD,
Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that matter for
compromise with MCD has taken place in Hon’ble High
Court in a petition filed by Cellular Operators Association of
India and now the same is fixed for orders.
Put up this matter for arguments on 23.10.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 1196/15 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Akansha Dhami, counsel for SDMC.
Arguments heard.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the show
cause notice was signed on 02.09.2013 by the concerned
Dy. Commissioner and same is having dispatch date of
04.09.2013, but there is no proof on record when the said
show cause notice has been sent to the appellant company
or by which mode. He further submits that if it be presumed
that show cause notice was served on 04.09.2013 itself,
respondent JE(B) has initiated the sealing proceedings,
through three days time as mentioned in the notice should
have been given prior to initiating the sealing proceedings,
hence the impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.
Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to clarify by
which mode the show cause notice was sent and also
whether there is error in putting the date in the noting as she
submits that file has been put up to the AE(B) on
19.09.2013.
Put up this matter for filing of proof of service of show
cause notice by the respondent on 13.10.2017.
Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,
as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 851/14 & 873/13 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Gundeep Singh, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Sh. K.K.
Arora / Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Calculation report of misuse charges not filed by the
respondent despite directions.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted to file the same subject to costs of Rs. 2000/-,
failing which concerned Dy. Commissioner will appear in
person.
Put up this matter for filing of calculation report by the
respondent on 21.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 301/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Vikas Chhabra counsel for appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.
Record has already been filed by the respondent.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 08.08.2017.
In the meanwhile respondent will file status report
whether appellant has filed application for regularization or
not by next date of hearing.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 447/16 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. S.S. Rana, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.
Status report filed by the Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Copy supplied.
As per status report demolition order passed on
28.03.2016 but action will be taken after following the
process of law in accordance with the policy of corporation.
This report of AE(B) is completely vague and shows the
inability / connivance of the respondent official in protecting
the unauthorized construction when the respondent has
passed the demolition order way back on 09.03.2016, it
should have taken action for demolition immediately against
the portion other than appellant. More than one year has
gone, therefore, in the circumstances, Commissioner,
NDMC is to look into the matter and initiate vigilance enquiry
against the official who are responsible for not carrying out
demolition despite the fact that except appellant none of
other parties have not challenged impugned demolition
order. Further Dy. Commissioner concerned is directed to
file status report whether it intend to take action in
pursuance of impugned order or not.
Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that status report
qua the existing construction could not be filed as copy of
the affidavit has not been supplied. Let appellant to supply
the same to the counsel for respondent today itself.
Put up this matter for filing of status report by the
respondent and arguments on 13.10.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 847/14 & (M) 31/14 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for appellant alongwith
appellant in person.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta / Sh. Shashikant Sharma,
counsel for MCD.
An application under rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC of DMC
Appellate Tribunal Rules 1986 filed by the appellant in appeal no.
847/14.
Ld. counsel for respondent has no objection to it.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that present appeal has
been filed against sealing order dated 19.09.2014. He further
submits that prior to this appeal appellant has filed appeal bearing
no. 04/12, 05/12 & 353/12 which were decided by Ld.
Predecessor of this Tribunal on 10.01.2012 and my Ld.
Predecessor has restrained the MCD from taking any action for
sealing of the property bearing no. F-51, Ground Floor, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi on the basis of impugned demolition bearing
no. B/UC/WZ/1/2011/121 dated 25.04.2011 and sealing order
dated 28.11.2011. In the said order my Ld. Predecessor has also
permitted the appellant to use the property for permissible use as
per MPD-2021 but respondent in violation of the said order has
passed the impugned sealing order and sealed the property and
also take demolition action. Therefore, respondent has
committed contempt, hence, contempt application vide 31/14 has
also been filed by the appellant.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for respondent submits
that appellant has to maintain status quo of the property in terms
of the order passed by my Ld. Predecessor but appellant has
violated the status quo order, hence, fresh sealing order was
passed against property in question.
In these circumstances, in my view, appeal file no. 04/12,
05/12 & 352/12 are necessary.
Ahlmad is directed to tag these files with this case.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 11.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 380/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Avtar Singh, counsel for appellant.
Record has already been filed by the respondent.
However, no counsel has appeared on behalf of the
respondent.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that inadvertently
notice has been affected to the JE(B) instead of Chief Law
Officer. Hence, fresh notice be issued to the respondent for
02.06.2017. Notice be given dasti as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 1083/15 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. H. K. Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Sh. A.K. Mittal, counsel for MCD.
None for Monitoring Committee.
Ld. counsel for appellant has filed objection to the
status report. He further submits that he has filed an
application under order 22 rule 3 r/w section 151 CPC and
section 17 of Appellate Tribunal Rules for bringing the LRs
of the deceased appellant which is pending for disposal. In
the application, it is stated that appellant was expired on
15.01.2017 leaving behind the following LRs : Smt.
Sudarshan Sharma – Wife, Sh. Bandhu Sharma – Son, Sh.
Arvind Sharma – Son & Ms. Deepti Sharma – Daughter.
Statement of one of the LRs i.e. applicant Sh. Bandhu
Sharma recorded separately in this regard.
Arguments heard.
Considering the facts and circumstances, I allow the
application and substitute above mentioned LRs in place of
appellant.
Amended memo of parties has already been filed by
the applicants. The same is taken on record.
Put up this matter for filing of status report of the
regularization application by the respondent on 11.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 384/17 & 385/17 29.05.2017
Present : Ms. Preeti Dinkar, proxy counsel for appellant.
This is an appeal against the sealing order.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 10.08.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
M.No. 26/17 & 27/17 29.05.2017
Present : None for applicant.
Sh.A.L.Agnihotri, counsel for MCD.
None has appeared on behalf of the applicant.
Put up this matter at 02.00 PM.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017 02.45 PM
Present : As above.
No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant
despite several calls since morning. Hence, application filed
by the applicant for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2017
is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution. File be consigned
to record.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 390/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. P.K. Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against the vacation
notice.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 09.06.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 383/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Satish Kumar, counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against demolition
order dated 08.05.2017.
Ld. Counsel for appellant has filed photographs of
the property in question.
Arguments heard on application for interim stay.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that respondent
has also issued show cause notice to the appellant on
06.03.2007 for covering the open area of 28 m X 3 m of D-
26-28, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi without
obtaining the approval of Chairman, New Delhi Municipal
Council with the help of fiber sheets for covering the open
stare case of 8.5 ft. But it has closed the case in 2008 and
after that respondent after a period of ten years has passed
the impugned order with respect to the same area.
He submits that in the impugned order respondent
has mentioned the covered area of 28 m X 3 m at D-26-28,
First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi whereas he has
not covered anything.
He has relied upon the photographs filed today. He
further submits that the passage / verandah is open and
there is difference of about five feet in his property of the
grill of the roof. He also submits that appellant has not
carried out any unauthorized construction in the property
and he has only change the A.C. Sheets near the lift.
I have considered the arguments and gone through
the record.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my view
it is a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim injunction,
therefore, I order that respondent will not carry out any
demolition action in the property of the appellant bearing no.
D-26-28, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi till next
date of hearing in pursuance of the impugned order dated
08.05.2017 till next date of hearing.
A.No. 383/17
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property
in question within five days failing which status order
granted shall be deemed to be vacated.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any
addition, alteration, repair or construction and shall also not
create any third party interest in the property in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of any
other order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or
Hon’ble High Court qua the property in question.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to
the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)
is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply
of the appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 09.06.2017. Copy of the order
be given dasti, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
M.No. 38/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Deepak Bansal, counsel for appellant.
An application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant Sh. R.K. Jauhar who has expired on 14.03.2017
and the order was passed on 23.03.2017. Therefore, LRs
of the appellant be allowed to file affidavit in place of
deceased appellant.
In these circumstances, notice of the application be
issued to the respondent for 07.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 108/17 & 179/17 29.05.2017
Present : None for appellant.
Sh. Sanjay Sethi / Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, proxy
counsel for Sh. Naveen Grover, counsel for
MCD.
Ld. Counsel for respondent has filed Vakalatnama in
appeal no. 179/17. None has appeared on behalf of
appellant.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for final arguments on 11.10.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 392/15 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. N.P. Vishwakarma, counsel for appellant
alongwith appellant in person.
Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD
alongwith Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.
Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant
has sought time from AE(B) to carry out demolition after
examination of his daughter.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for appellant submits
that appellant seeks time to argue.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted for arguments on 21.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 1007/16 & 1008/16 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Ashish Garg, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Praveen Sharma, counsel for respondent.
Ld. Counsel for appellant seeks some more time to
file objection to the status report.
In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is
granted to file the same on 05.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 282/11 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. H.K. Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Ms. Sarita, proxy counsel for Sh. Umesh
Gupta, counsel for MCD.
Objection against status report filed by the
respondent. Copy supplied.
Put up this matter for final arguments on 05.09.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 391/17 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. Rishipal Singh, counsel for appellant.
Present appeal has been filed against the demolition
order dated 18.05.2017.
Arguments heard on application for interim stay.
Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that appellant has not
carried out any construction in the property in question and the
construction is old. He has relied upon the electricity bill.
I have consider the arguments and gone through the
record.
Considering the facts and circumstances, in my view, it is
a fit case for grant of ex-parte interim injunction, therefore, I order
that respondent will not carry out any demolition action in the
property of the appellant bearing no. 38, Gali No. 3, Prem Nagar,
Delhi till next date of hearing in pursuance of the impugned order
dated 18.05.2017 till next date of hearing.
Appellant is directed to file affidavit giving details of
construction with measurements of the existing construction
alongwith existing site plan and photographs of the property in
question within five days failing which status order granted shall
be deemed to be vacated.
Appellant is also directed not to carry out any addition,
alteration, repair or construction and shall also not create any
third party interest in the property in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of any other
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble High
Court qua the property in question.
Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to the
respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is
directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply of the
appeal on date fixed.
Put up this matter on 14.07.2017. Copy of the order be
given dasti, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 516/13 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. G.S. Narula, counsel for appellant.
Sh.V.K.Aggarwal, proxy counsel for Sh.
Umesh Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.
Kuldeep Chopra, AE(B).
None for Monitoring Committee.
Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has
deposited the misuse charges of Rs. 14,01,910/- as
demanded by the respondent corporation. He has also filed
copy of the G-8 Receipt no. 71758 dated 12.04.2017 in
support of his contention.
Final arguments heard.
Put up this matter for clarifications, if any, / orders on
10.07.2017. Both parties are at liberty to file written
submission, if any, within two weeks.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 861/16, 888/16 & 1013/16 29.05.2017
Present : Sh. G.K. Chauhan, counsel for appellant.
Sh. V.K. Aggarwal / Sh. A.K. Mittal / Sh. A.L.
Agnihotri, counsel for MCD.
File taken up on an application filed on behalf of the
appellant for early hearing and counsel for appellant prays
for temporary desealing of the property to remove goods
from the property in question.
Ld. Counsel for respondent, Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, who
is counsel for respondent in appeal no. 861/16 submits that
he has no objection to this request of the appellant.
Considering the fact, I allow the application and order
the respondent to temporary deseal the property in question
on 06.06.2017 at 10.00 AM and reseal the same on
09.06.2017 at 04.00 PM.
Appellant is directed not to carry out any addition,
alteration, repair or construction except removing the goods
from the premises in question and shall also not create any
third party interest in the property in question.
Put up this matter on the date already fixed i.e. on
28.07.2017. Copy of the order be given dasti to both the
parties, as prayed.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 913/13 29.05.2017
Present : None for the parties.
This case is fixed for orders, however, I am busy in
the dictating order in some other appeal.
Hence, put up this appeal for order/clarification on
27.07.2017.
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
A.No. 1083/15 Statement of Sh. Bandhu Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Dev Sharma, aged 53 years, R/o S-2, Dhruv Apartments, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-85 ON SA
I am son of appellant who has expired on 15.01.2017. Copy of
death certificate is Exb.P-1. He has left behind following LRs :
1. Smt. Sudarshan Sharma wife
2. Sh. Bandhu Sharma son
3. Sh. Arvind Sharma son
4. Ms. Deepti Sharma daughter
He has not left behind any other LRs and has not executed any
Will. This is my true and correct statement. Photo Copy of my Aadhar
Card is Ex.P-2 (OSR).
RO&AC
(SANJEEV KUMAR) Appellate Tribunal:MCD
29.05.2017
top related