Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Represented Respondent No 2 (Government of Haryana). Through this P.I.L the petitioner had leveled allegations against the Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs, Govt. of Haryana for failing to discharge its statutory duty of protecting the interests of athletes.

The Hon’ble Court refused to entertain the petition. No negative direction was issued against the Government despite hearing the Advocates on several dates.

  Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Represented the Respondent (Kanta Thakur). The appellant (H P Housing) had filed this appeal against the order of National Consumer Forum which had ordered that H. P. Housing must deliver the flat to the flat owner.

After hearing both the Advocates, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to allow the appeal or interfere with the order of the National Consumer Forum. Thus, H. P. Housing had to compensate Ms Thakur for delay in delivery of the flat.

  Ld. Principal Judge, Saket Court

Represented the Respondent (Ms Bhatia). An application was filed by a father for obtaining custody of his son under section 12 of Guardians & Wards Act. On the other hand, the child’s mother wanted to keep him in her custody.

After hearing the arguments and reasons of both the lawyers at length, the Ld Judge granted the custody of the boy to the mother.

 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court

Represented the Complainant (KDS Advertising). The complainant had provided services to the accused (C. H. India Pvt Ltd). However, the cheque given by the accused as payment for the services had dishonored. Hence, the present complaint was filed.

Despite summons being issued to accused, he did not appear in court. Thus, at the complainant’s request Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against accused. So the Director of the accused company came and made the entire payment and the matter was compounded.

 Ld Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court

Represented the complainant. (Mr. Pardeep Jain) In this matter, police had not registered the F.I.R despite repeated requests by the complainant. Thus, this complaint was filed before the Magistrate requesting that FIR be registered against the accused.

After examining the complaint and hearing the arguments, the Ld Magistrate was of the view that FIR must be registered. Hence, Police registered the FIR.

 Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Represented Respondent No. 3 (Delhi Development Authority) Through this Writ Petition, the petitioner had requested the Hon’ble Court to declare that the acquisition of his land by the government had lapsed. He alleged that the authorities had not put the land to any use.

The Hon’ble Court declined to grant the prayer of the petitioner. The land acquisition had taken place more than three decades ago. However, he had failed to explain the reasons for filing this petition after such a long delay.

 Ld. Addl. Rent Controller, Saket Court

Represented the Respondent. (Mr Om Prakash) The petitioner had filed this eviction petition against the respondent claiming himself to be the landlord. However, Mr Om Prakash denied that the petitioner was his landlord. Instead, he claimed to be the owner of the premises and alleged that the petitioner had filed a fraudulent case.

The petition was heard on several dates over the course of about 5 years. Eventually, the matter was compromised. The petitioner could not evict the respondent. Further, no rent was ever paid to the petitioner.

 Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Represented the respondent. (Labor Department, Delhi Govt.) The petitioner had filed a Review Petition in a disposed of Appeal.

The petitioner was attempting to file additional documents through this Review without any explanation. Consequently, the Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the Petition.

 Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Represented Respondent No. 1 (Joint CP-Licensing) The petitioner had alleged that his license to run a Guest House was rejected in an arbitrary manner by the municipal and licensing authorities.

The Hon’ble Court was apprised that the license was cancelled since neither the NOC from Traffic Police nor the Trade License was furnished so there was no illegality. No stay was granted by the Court. Subsequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

 Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Represented Respondent No. 3 (Delhi Development Authority) The petitioner was claiming that no compensation had been provided for his land and only a paper possession was taken. Hence the acquisition should lapse.

The Hon’ble Court was informed that the petitioner was raising disputed questions of fact in a writ. Additionally, the petition was filed belatedly. Owing to these reasons the petition was dismissed.