• 3rd Floor, Delhi High Court, Chamber No, S-307, New Delhi, Delhi 110003
  • +91 9810013263
Whatsapp Facebook Instagram X-twitter Youtube Linkedin
Get Appointment

Chambers of Dr. Gaurav Manuja, Advocate Supreme Court

Recent Orders

Our Orders

Orders from matters handled by Dr. Gaurav Manuja before the Delhi High Court, the Appellate Tribunal MCD and Delhi District Courts – each with a short summary of what the court decided.

Book a ConsultationCall +91 98100 13263
Home/About Us/Recent Orders

Recent Court Orders

Orders from matters where Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared – covering MCD and municipal disputes, property and civil suits, commercial, tax, arbitration and banking matters, insurance, pension and family cases. Use the filters to see a practice area, and click View Order on any card to read the full order (PDF).

27 mattersDelhi High Court · ATMCD · District Courts2021 – 2026
In the news – Satya Niketan: After the Satya Niketan PG building collapse on 6 September 2026, MCD demolished 543 properties and sealed 178 in a 17-day crackdown. Dr. Gaurav Manuja obtained Delhi High Court orders stopping coercive action against three Satya Niketan property owners (first three orders below). Read the Economic Times report →  ·  Read our article on the Satya Niketan cases →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2026
View PDF
MCD · Sec 348 DMC Act18 September 2026

Stay on MCD “Dangerous Building” Order – 75, Satya Niketan

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 13789/2026 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Archana Kalra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi – petitioner represented by Dr. Gaurav Manuja

MCD declared the building dangerous under Section 348 of the DMC Act and issued a vacation notice on 10 September 2026, after the Satya Niketan PG building collapse, without any physical or structural inspection. MCD proceeded towards demolition of the residential property.

Outcome: MCD directed to carry out a proper inspection and examine whether the building can be repaired; no coercive action against the property till the next date of hearing.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2026
View PDF
MCD · Sec 348 DMC Act17 September 2026

Stay on MCD “Dangerous Building” Order – 74, Satya Niketan

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 13694/2026 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Sh. Yograj v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi – petitioner represented by Dr. Gaurav Manuja

MCD declared the building dangerous under Section 348 of the DMC Act and issued a vacation notice on 10 September 2026, after the Satya Niketan PG building collapse, without any physical or structural inspection. The petitioner lives in the property he owns.

Outcome: MCD directed to inspect the building and file a status report; no coercive action against the property till the next date of hearing.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2026
View PDF
MCD · Sec 348 DMC Act16 September 2026

Lead Order: Court Examines MCD Power Under Section 348 – 76, Satya Niketan

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 13564/2026 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Senior Citizen Kundan Lal & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi – petitioner represented by Dr. Gaurav Manuja

MCD declared the building dangerous under Section 348 of the DMC Act and issued a vacation notice on 10 September 2026, after the Satya Niketan PG building collapse, without any physical or structural inspection. The Court set out the scope of Section 348 in detail – this order was then followed in the other Satya Niketan cases.

Outcome: MCD directed to carry out a proper structural inspection and consider repair before any action; no coercive action against the property till the next date of hearing.
View Order (PDF) →
Appellate Tribunal MCDORDER · 2026
View PDF
MCD · ATMCD24 August & 18 September 2026

Interim Protection Continued in Two MCD Appeals

Appellate Tribunal, MCD · Appeal Nos. 346/25 & 877/24 · Sh. Amit Kumar, ADSJ / Presiding Officer

Appeals against MCD action – appellants represented by Dr. Gaurav Manuja

Two appeals against MCD building action are being argued before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD. Part arguments have been heard in both, and in Appeal No. 877/24 the appellant confirmed that the sanctioned building plan is on record.

Outcome: The interim orders protecting the appellants continue till the next hearings (29.10.2026 and 07.01.2027).
Appeal 346/25 (PDF) →Appeal 877/24 (PDF)
Saket CourtsORDER · 2026
View PDF
Civil Suit · Defence18 August 2026

Costs Imposed on Plaintiff; Maintainability of Suit Questioned

Saket Courts, New Delhi · CS SCJ 1062/24 · Ms. Shilpi Singh, ACJ/CCJ/ARC (South)

Dharminder Singh v. Sukhdev Singh

Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for Defendant No. 1 in a civil suit in which the plaintiff sought to bring a delayed replication on record.

Outcome: The replication was allowed only on payment of ₹1,000 costs to our client, and the plaintiff was directed to explain how the suit is maintainable, as some of its prayers cannot be heard by that court.
View Order (PDF) →
Tis Hazari – West DistrictORDER · 2026
View PDF
Commercial · Recovery Suit24 January & 12 August 2026

Company’s Recovery Suit Moves to Pleadings Stage

District Judge-03 (West), Delhi · CIV DJ 1059/2025 · Sh. Gopal Singh Chauhan

Webplus Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Madhu Ranjan Kumar

Civil suit filed by Dr. Gaurav Manuja for the plaintiff company. After the first summons returned unserved, fresh summons were issued and the defendant has now entered appearance.

Status: The defendant’s written statement and an application seeking condonation of delay in filing it are on the file; the plaintiff may reply, and the matter is listed for consideration on 04.11.2026.
Order 12.08.2026 (PDF) →Order 24.01.2026
Karkardooma CourtsORDER · 2026
View PDF
Civil Suit · Defence22 July 2026

Suit Against Our Clients Rejected at the Threshold

Karkardooma Courts (Shahdara) · Civil Suit 1524/2025 · Ms. Arjinder Kaur, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ

Afsar Ali v. Vakil & Ors.

A neighbour sued Dr. Gaurav Manuja’s clients (Defendants 1 and 2), alleging encroachment and illegal construction over the street. On behalf of the defendants it was argued that the plaintiff had no cause of action.

Outcome: The court held that being a neighbour alone gives no right to sue unless one’s own legal rights are affected, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The case was closed.
View Order (PDF) →
Appellate Tribunal MCDORDER · 2026
View PDF
MCD · Demolition08 July 2026

No Coercive Action by MCD on Demolition Order

Appellate Tribunal, MCD · Appeal No. 575/26 · Sh. Amit Kumar, ADSJ / Presiding Officer

Neelam Kohli v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Appeal against an MCD demolition order dated 19.06.2026 concerning a property in Janakpuri, Delhi. Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for the appellant.

Outcome: Notice issued to the MCD, with the concerned AE (Building) directed to appear with the record. Till the next date, no coercive action against the property (except the fourth-floor construction), subject to no further construction.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2025–26
View PDF
Commercial SuitDecember 2025 – July 2026

Commercial Suit Referred to Mediation – Settlement Imminent

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 155/2025 · Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora / Joint Registrar (Judicial)

Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M.M. Oil Traders

Dr. Gaurav Manuja represents the defendant in a commercial suit filed by Hero Investcorp. The parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, and on 02.07.2026 the plaintiff’s change of authorised representative was allowed.

Outcome: The Court recorded that a settlement is imminent, asked the mediator to conclude the mediation, and gave the parties liberty to seek early listing once the settlement agreement is signed.
Order 15.12.2025 (PDF) →Order 01.12.2025Order 02.07.2026
Saket CourtsMCD APPEAL · 2026
View PDF
MCD · Appeal13 May 2026

MCD Appeal Admitted – Notice Issued to South Delhi MCD

Principal District & Sessions Judge (South-East), Saket · MCD Appeal No. 9/2026 · Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal

Yogender Kumar Gupta v. South Delhi MCD & Ors.

Fresh appeal under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, filed by Dr. Gaurav Manuja with Sh. Karan Gupta and Sh. Pranav Sapra for the appellant.

Outcome: The appeal was registered and fresh notice was issued to the respondents.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2026
View PDF
Civil Appeal08 May 2026

Execution Stayed in Appeal Against ₹29.73 Lakh Money Decree

Delhi High Court · RFA 478/2026 · Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

M/s Gargi Packaging & Ors. v. M/s Greattech Telecom Technology Pvt. Ltd.

Regular first appeal against a trial-court decree of ₹29,73,145 with interest, challenged mainly on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for the appellants along with Senior Advocate Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth.

Outcome: Execution against Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stayed; operation of the decree stayed subject to deposit of the principal amount within six weeks. The executing court at Rohini recorded the stay on 22.05.2026. Appeal listed for final arguments.
High Court Order (PDF) →Execution Court 22.05.2026
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2026
View PDF
MCD · Municipal Law25 March 2026

MCD Show-Cause Notice: Right to Reply and Hearing Secured

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 3869/2026 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Kavita Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Writ petition filed by Dr. Gaurav Manuja seeking quashing of a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2026 issued by the MCD under Section 347 read with Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

Outcome: The petitioner was allowed to file a reply, and the MCD was directed to pass an order only after giving her an opportunity of hearing. All contentions and legal remedies were kept open.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT · 2026
View PDF
Property · Title Suit25 February 2026

Impleadment of Buyers in Farm-Land Title Suit

Delhi High Court · CS(OS) 212/2018 · Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Rajive Sawhney & Anr. v. Devika Mehra

Dr. Gaurav Manuja, with Sh. Rajesh Mohan Sinha, appeared for buyers holding an agreement to sell and possession of a 2.5-acre farm at Westend Greens, Rangpuri, who sought to be added as parties to a pending title suit over the same land.

Outcome: The application was dismissed – the Court held that the buyers’ claims form a separate cause of action to be pursued in independent proceedings.
View Judgment (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2026
View PDF
Service · Pension16 February 2026

Widow’s Family Pension: Court Directs Time-Bound Release

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 15159/2025 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Smt. Satyavati v. Delhi Public Library & Anr.

The family pension of the widow of a retired Delhi Public Library employee was held up because her date of birth in Aadhaar and PAN did not match the department’s records. Dr. Gaurav Manuja argued for the widow, and the Court found the department’s approach “unduly rigid”.

Outcome: The department must complete verification within two weeks of receiving her documents and release the family pension – with arrears, if payable – within six weeks, without insisting on prior correction of Aadhaar or PAN.
View Order (PDF) →
Karkardooma CourtsORDER · 2026
View PDF
Civil Suit17 January 2026

Civil Suit – Written Statements Filed, Pleadings Being Completed

Karkardooma Courts (Shahdara) · CS 2542/24 · Sh. Deepanker Mohan, District Judge-04

Rahul Biswas v. Sumit Kumar & Ors.

Civil suit in which Dr. Gaurav Manuja appears for the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 have filed their written statements and document affidavits.

Status: The plaintiff was given 30 days to file replications and will seek deletion of Defendant No. 4; pending applications are to be heard on the next date.
View Order (PDF) →
Karkardooma CourtsORDER · 2025
View PDF
Property · Title & SARFAESI12 November 2025

Ownership Suit Over Ganga Vihar Property – Suit Proceeds Against Private Defendants

Karkardooma Courts · CS 285/25 · Sh. Aashish Gupta, District Judge-01 (North-East)

Shakuntla Devi v. Sarvottam Panchal & Ors.

The plaintiff, represented by Dr. Gaurav Manuja, claims her Ganga Vihar property is being treated as security for a loan taken by others on the basis of a different sale deed, and sought declaration and injunctions against the private parties, the lenders and the Sub-Registrar.

Outcome: The Court held that the claims against the lenders fall within the Debts Recovery Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act (where the plaintiff’s application is already pending), rejected the plaint against the lenders and the Sub-Registrar, and issued summons to the private defendants on the main claim.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2025
View PDF
Family · Cross-Border13 November & 01 December 2025

Transfer of Guardianship Petition – Notice Issued

Delhi High Court · TR.P.(C) 200/2025 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Child-guardianship matter – parties’ names withheld on this page

Petition to transfer a guardianship case pending before the Family Court at Karkardooma to the court having proper territorial jurisdiction, with a prayer for interim visitation rights. The dispute also involves parallel proceedings in Australia. Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for the petitioner with Senior Advocate Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth.

Outcome: Notice issued to the respondent on the transfer petition and the visitation application. On 01.12.2025, the application regarding the Australian proceedings was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Order 13.11.2025 (PDF) →Order 01.12.2025
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2025
View PDF
MCD · Demolition15 October 2025

No Coercive Action for Four Weeks – Senior Citizen Protected Before Appeal to ATMCD

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 15914/2025 · Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Rajan Kumar Jain (Senior Citizen) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

A senior citizen challenged an MCD show-cause notice under Sections 343 and 344 of the DMC Act after receiving a vacation notice – the demolition order itself had never been served on him. Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for the petitioner.

Outcome: The MCD was directed to supply the demolition order, and no coercive action could be taken against the property for four weeks so that the petitioner could file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD).
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT · 2025
View PDF
DDA · Refund06 March 2025

Refund of Wrongly Credited Deposit – DDA to Decide Within Eight Weeks

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 14262/2021 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain

Nakul Manuja v. Delhi Development Authority

₹2,90,000 deposited with the DDA had by mistake been credited to another person’s account instead of the intended account, and the DDA had not returned it.

Outcome: With the DDA’s consent, the petition was treated as a representation, and the DDA was directed to decide it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks.
View Judgment (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2025
View PDF
MCD · Show-Cause Notice27 January 2025

MCD Action to Follow Supreme Court Demolition Guidelines

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 1005/2025 · Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

Subhash Chaudhary v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Writ petition against an MCD show-cause notice under Sections 343/344 of the DMC Act, filed by Dr. Gaurav Manuja. The MCD placed on record that personal hearings were already being given and that the next hearing was fixed for 29.01.2025.

Outcome: The petition was dismissed as the hearing before the MCD was pending; the Court made clear that any MCD action must be in line with the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment on demolition of structures, and left the petitioner free to challenge it before the appropriate forum.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT · 2024
View PDF
Motor Accident · Insurance10 December 2024

Appeal Allowed: Insurer’s Recovery Rights Set Aside

Delhi High Court · MAC.APP. 566/2023 · Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Anil Kumar v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had allowed the insurance company to recover ₹10.20 lakh compensation from the vehicle owner, holding that the driver was drunk. Dr. Gaurav Manuja showed that the medical report recorded 0.250 mg/100 ml – far below the legal limit of 30 mg/100 ml – and that the forensic report found no alcohol at all.

Outcome: Appeal allowed – there was no breach of the insurance policy, so the insurance company has no recovery rights against the owner.
View Judgment (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2024
View PDF
Arbitration · Section 917 September 2024

Section 9 Arbitration Petition – Amendment Allowed; Petition Held Premature

Delhi High Court · O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 430/2023 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla

Atul Malik & Ors. v. Rohini Sawhney & Ors.

Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by buyers under an MOU for a farm property, seeking to keep the termination of the MOU in abeyance till a connected title suit is decided. Argued by Sh. Rajesh Mohan Sinha with Dr. Gaurav Manuja.

Outcome: The petitioners’ amendment application was allowed; the Section 9 petition was dismissed as not maintainable, the Court holding that no arbitrable dispute had yet arisen while the connected suit is pending.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2024
View PDF
Tax · GST / VAT17 May 2024

Tax Writ: Trade & Taxes Officer Impleaded, Notice Issued

Delhi High Court (Division Bench) · W.P.(C) 6983/2024 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja

M/s Techno Craft Engineers v. Commissioner, CGST

Writ petition in a GST/VAT matter, argued by Sh. R.M. Sinha with Dr. Gaurav Manuja and Sh. P.M. Sinha for the petitioner firm.

Outcome: On the petitioner’s request, the Assistant VAT Officer of the Trade & Taxes Department was added as a respondent; notice was issued and the department directed to file its reply.
View Order (PDF) →
Rohini CourtsORDER · 2022
View PDF
Property · Injunction19 October 2022

Temporary Injunction Granted in Agreement-to-Sell Dispute

Rohini Courts, Delhi · CS DJ 639/21 · Ms. Ruchika Singla, ADJ-03 (North-West)

Deepak Sethi v. Ayushman Gupta & Ors.

Suit by the buyer under an agreement to sell dated 01.04.2021. Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for the plaintiff and placed the original agreement on record the same day.

Outcome: The plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was allowed.
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2022
View PDF
CGHS · Medical Claim20 July 2022

CGHS Medical Reimbursement Claim Against Union of India

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 4367/2022 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma

Suresh Chandra Nanhorya v. Union of India & Anr.

Writ petition filed by Dr. Gaurav Manuja seeking reimbursement of medical bills under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS).

Status: The Union of India stated that the bills relate to a period when the petitioner was not registered with CGHS; the matter was adjourned for the petitioner’s counsel to take instructions and address further submissions.
View Order (PDF) →
Rohini CourtsORDER · 2022
View PDF
Property · Status Quo16 March 2022

Status Quo Ordered to Protect Buyer’s Rights in Rohini Plot

Rohini Courts, Delhi · CS DJ 197/22 · Ms. Rekha, ADJ-02 (North)

Sonu Gola v. Smt. Raju Nagpal & Ors.

The seller of a 60 sq. m plot in Sector 34, Rohini, refused further payment under a ₹63 lakh agreement to sell and executed a sale deed in favour of another person, with registration of a further deed about to happen.

Outcome: On Dr. Gaurav Manuja’s arguments, the court directed all parties to maintain status quo over the property (ex-parte ad-interim order).
View Order (PDF) →
Delhi High CourtORDER · 2021
View PDF
Banking · SARFAESI11 October 2021

Bank’s Possession Deferred – Time Given to Regularise Home Loan

Delhi High Court · W.P.(C) 11680/2021 · Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan

Deepika Gupta v. IDFC First Bank Ltd.

A receiver appointed at the bank’s request was about to take possession of a mortgaged house in Rohini under the SARFAESI Act, while the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not functioning. Dr. Gaurav Manuja appeared for the co-borrower.

Outcome: Possession was deferred by one month on deposit of two instalments of ₹10 lakh each, giving time to regularise the loan account, with liberty to seek an early hearing before the DRT.
View Order (PDF) →

These orders are public court records shared for information only. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Book a Consultation

Schedule a Confidential Consultation

Share a few details about your matter and our team will get back to you to confirm a suitable time.

☎+91 98100 13263✉drgauravmanuja@yahoo.com

Please note: we do not provide free consultations. All consultations are chargeable.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

What is 7+3 ?

© 2026 Dr. Gaurav Manuja, Advocate. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer