Devika Chopra vs.parvati Chopra

Devika Chopra vs Parvati Chopra

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 25, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1220904

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1220904
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 25, 2019
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devika Chopra

Respondent

Parvati Chopra

Excerpt

.....allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.m.a. 1686/2019 (delay) there is delay of 78 days in re-filing the accompanying petition. for the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. the application is disposed of. crl.m.c. 389/2019 in proceedings under the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as pwdv act), trial court vide order of 16th may, 2016 has held that petition filed by respondent- applicant under the aforesaid enactment is maintainable and it is within the limitation, while observing that the last incident of domestic violence crl.m.c. 389/2019 page 1 of 2 is of 28th september, 2012 and petition under the pwdv act had been filed on 3rd december, 2012. vide order of 10th july, 2018 the revisional court has concurred with the view taken by the trial court. the challenge to impugned order by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that the complaint against petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of the complainant-respondent, is not maintainable as the complainant- respondent had moved out of the matrimonial home in the year 2009 and the instant complainant had been filed in the year 2012. it is also submitted that after having lost the civil proceedings in respect of the subject property, the instant complaint regarding the said property is not maintainable. upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, i find no error in the impugned order requiring interference of this court while invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this case under section 482 of cr.p.c as last incident of domestic violence is of september, 2012 and petition filed in december, 2012 is apparently within limitation. accordingly, this petition is dismissed while not commenting on merits of the case. january25 2019 v (sunil gaur) judge crl.m.c. 389/2019 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 25, 2019 CRL.M.C. 389/2019 DEVIKA CHOPRA Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala and Mr. Vinay Jaidka, Advocates .....Petitioner versus PARVATI CHOPRA Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR .....Respondent ORDER

(ORAL) Crl.M.A. 1685/2019 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 1686/2019 (delay) There is delay of 78 days in re-filing the accompanying petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 389/2019 In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as PWDV Act), trial court vide order of 16th May, 2016 has held that petition filed by respondent- applicant under the aforesaid enactment is maintainable and it is within the limitation, while observing that the last incident of domestic violence CRL.M.C. 389/2019 Page 1 of 2 is of 28th September, 2012 and petition under the PWDV Act had been filed on 3rd December, 2012. Vide order of 10th July, 2018 the Revisional Court has concurred with the view taken by the trial court. The challenge to impugned order by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that the complaint against petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of the complainant-respondent, is not maintainable as the complainant- respondent had moved out of the matrimonial home in the year 2009 and the instant complainant had been filed in the year 2012. It is also submitted that after having lost the civil proceedings in respect of the subject property, the instant complaint regarding the said property is not maintainable. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, I find no error in the impugned order requiring interference of this Court while invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as last incident of domestic violence is of September, 2012 and petition filed in December, 2012 is apparently within limitation. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed while not commenting on merits of the case. JANUARY25 2019 v (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE CRL.M.C. 389/2019 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Devika Chopra vs Parvati Chopra Same Subject Land Acquisition