* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont.Case (C) No.354/2013 in RSA No.113/2010
Decided on: 27.05.2014
SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Senior
Advocate with
Mr. Amit Andlay & Mr. Arun
K.Sharma, Advocates.
versus
M/S NATIONAL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LTD
..... Respondent.
Through: Mr. P.C. Dhingra, Mr. P.S. Bindra
& Mr. P. Choudhury, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. This is a contempt petition filed by petitioner against the respondents for wilfully disobeying the order of the court dated 19.03.2013. Subsequent to issuance of notice, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 were discharged vide order dated 28.05.2013 and only respondent No.1 Sh.Nitin Mehra, who is the son of late Sh. Vijay Mehra, was directed to file the reply. Vide order dated 19.03.2013 passed in RSA No.113/2010, the court had directed the parties to maintain the status quo on the basis of CM No.4757/2013 filed by the petitioner/Sh.Krishan Kumar Aggarwal. The allegation made in the application was that the respondents were carrying out demolition/construction on the first floor of the property bearing No.M-26, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi with a view to cause damage to the structure.
2. The respondents filed their reply. The petitioner had placed on record certain photographs to show the leakage and seepage of water on the ground of the property in question. No doubt the order of status quo was passed against the respondents but there are allegations of damages having been caused because of which leakage and seepage of water has taken place in the portion of the petitioner. The fact of the matter is that the property is an old property and the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent No.1, who is son of Late Sh.Vijay Mehra who was one of the partners of M/s National Manufacturing Corporation Limited and the legal heirs of late Sh.K.B.Malhotra being on the other hand, who were allowed to be the occupants of the property in question, were locked in a prolonged legal battle with regard to the retrieval of possession of the property in question latter being the alleged tenants. In such hotly contested matters, there are bound to be accusations and counter accusations. Since the appeal has already been allowed, I am not inclined to initiate action on the basis of the present contempt petition. Accordingly, the present contempt notice for having wilfully disobeyed the order dated 19.03.2013 of maintaining status quo is discharged.
V.K. SHALI, J MAY 27, 2014/dm