CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Jamna Datwani vs Janak Datwani And Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 7 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 DEL CK 0052

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Kameswar Rao, J · Anu Malhotra, J
CASE NUMBER
CON. CAS(C) No. 87, 88 Of 2020, Civil Miscellaneous No. 4137, 4138 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 500 words

CM No. 4137/2020 (for exemption) in CON. CAS(C) 87/2020 CM No. 4138/2020 (for exemption) in CON. CAS(C) 88/2020

Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Applications stand disposed of.

CON. CAS(C) 87/2020

CON. CAS(C) 88/2020

1.

The present contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioner alleging violations of orders dated May 02, 2014 and May 16, 2014 passed by this

Court in FAO (OS) 592/2013 and FAO (OS) 593/2013. At the outset, Mr. Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that contempt

petition filed in FAO (OS) 592/2013 would suffice the purpose and he shall withdraw the contempt petition in FAO (OS) 593/2013. If that be so, the

contempt petition being CON. CAS(C) 88/2020 in FAO (OS) 593/2013 is dismissed as withdrawn.

2.

As stated above, the allegation in the contempt petition is of violation of the directions given by this Court in the orders dated May 02, 2014 and May

16, 2014.

3.

In substance, it is his submission that the respondent No.1 is not allowing the petitioner to use / reside in the room / area as directed by this Court in

the said orders. The respondent No.1 has made structural changes in the property in question. It is also his submission that even the amount of Rs.5

Lacs in terms of para 15 has not been fully paid by respondent No.3. He has clarified that only an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- has been paid. Further, the

amount of Rs.35,000/- has also not been paid by the said respondent No.3.

4.

Insofar as the submission of Mr. Khosla that the respondent No.1 is not allowing the petitioner to use / reside in the room / area in question as per

the orders dated May 02, 2014 and May 16, 2014, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 on advance notice, contest the

same and states that his client has never violated the orders passed by this Court. He also states that there are no structural changes, only a dining

table is kept in the room, which is to be occupied by the petitioner. He also states that the petitioner is welcome to use / reside in the room / area as

directed by this Court in the orders dated May 02, 2014 and May 16, 2014.

5.

During the course of hearing, Mr. Khosla has stated that additional CCTV camera has been installed overseeing the room to be occupied by the

petitioner. Mr. Mahajan shall take instructions on that.

6.

Noting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, which also include the submission by Mr. Mahajan that the orders dated May

02, 2014 and May 16, 2014 have not been violated and the petitioner is welcome to use / reside in the room / area, we deem it appropriate to re-notify

the matter on March 13, 2020.

7.

In the meantime, notice shall be issued through all modes including e-mail to the respondent No.3 and his counsel, returnable on March 13, 2020.