Ritika Awasty 2 and/or her husband, namely, Mr. Monica Gogia to transfer another property “C-1/2, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi” alleged to be owned by Ms. The partition was affected to the following effect: 3 PORTION OF THE DEMISED PROPERTY NAME OF THE RECEIVER Ground Floor (Front Portion)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/differences-between-parties-and-witnesses-in-a-civil-suit/
Major General (Retd.)
Viren der Awasty First Floor (Front Portion) Shri Vinay Kumar Awasty Second Floor (Front Portion)
Late Shri Hari Das Awasty Rear Portion (Double-storied structure measuring 2670 sq. Veena Awasty and currently the ownership of the property stands as under: PORTION OF THE DEMISED PROPERTY NAME OF THE PRESENT LEGAL OCCUPANT Ground Floor (Front Portion) Major General (Retd.) Virender Awasty First Floor (Front Portion) Shri Veena Awasty (widow of Late Shri Vinay Kumar Awasty) 4 Second Floor (Front Portion) Smt. Manju Awasty (widow of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Awasty) Property – C 1/2, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 4. Ritika Awasty for a consideration of rupees Forty Crores Eighty Lakhs vide a sale deed dated 31.7.2015.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/high-courts-analysis-on-interference-with-arbitral-awards/
Ritika Awasty, who preferred petitions before different fora in which certain orders were passed, including the order dated 26.10.2015 passed in CRMWP No.25356 of 2015 titled as Ritika Awasty Vs.
Venugopal, learned Attorney General submits to this Court that for declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, proceedings should be initiated and a proposal has already been made to attach the following properties in the name of the petitioner and her husband:-
“(1) 5/10 Shanti Niketan, New Delhi Mr.
The present Interlocutory Application is filed seeking modification/vacation of order dated 15.12.2017 in SLP (Crl.) 10244 of 2015 by which this court permitted the attachment of properties “in the name of the petitioner and her husband”, the details of which are as under- (1) S/10 Shanti Niketan, New Delhi (2) 5/1 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It was submitted that the applicants are of distinguished age, have been law abiding citizens and such attachment of property, which does not belong to the petitioner or her husband, has caused prejudice to the absolute rights of the applicants, the rights over which, they have enjoyed for over twenty five years. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by one Mrs Monica Gogia to vacate the stay order issued on 15.12.2017, by which she has been enjoined from transferring the property C-1/2 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The ownership of 5/1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi resting with the applicants in IA No.6484 of 2018 is not a disputed position of fact.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/promotion-policy-for-rank-of-avm-in-indian-air-force/
Monica Gogia being established at least prima facie, and in the absence of any link prior or present of such bona fide owner with the business dealing of the petitioner or her husband, the continued operation of the Order dated 10 15.12.2017 is prejudicially affecting the rights of ownership which the applicant in IA No.58055 of 2021 undoubtedly enjoys. The main matter be listed once the extradition proceedings against Ms.
Case Title: RITIKA AWASTY Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 421)
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-010244-010244 / 2015
