M/S Orris Infrastructure Private Limited v. State & ORS.

$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1004/2021 M/S ORRIS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Mr. Aniket Vijay Seth, Mr. Ujjawal Sinha, Mr. Rithvik Mathur, Ms. Avneet Kaur and Ms.

Jyoti Taneja, Advocates.

versus STATE & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC for State with Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate with Insp. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, EOW, New Delhi.

Mr. Rajkamal, Mr. Arush Khanna and Mr. Aseem Atwal and Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 09.05.2025 CRL.M.A. 14504/2025 (under Section 528 BNSS on behalf of Respondent No.3 for Clarification of the Order dated 08.04.2025) 1.

An Application has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 for seeking minor correction in the Order dated 08.04.2025 whereby it is stated that in the paragraph 7 it has been stated that while Prayer „A‟ in the present Petition already stands withdrawn, Prayers „B‟, „C‟ and „D‟ are essentially The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:05

civil in nature, for which "civil Writ Petition has already been filed by the petitioner". It is submitted that the Civil Writ Petition has not been filed by the Petitioner but by some home buyers, where ROC inquiry is ongoing. 2.

Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner on advance Notice has appeared and submitted that the corrections sought in the impugned Order is not typographical but it changes the entire context of the Order. The same is, therefore, opposed on the ground that in case the proposed correction is made, it would confer him with a right to seek the revival of his Writ Petition.

3.

Submission heard.

4.

Be as it may, it is only a clarification sought to be made as to who has filed the Writ Petition. The Respondent states that it is not the Petitioner who has filed the Writ Petition but some Home Buyer has done so. 5.

Considering the submissions made, the requisite correction is made in the impugned Order and it is clarified that instead of „Writ Petition being filed by the Petitioner‟ be read as „Petition being filed by some Home Buyer‟.

6.

The Application is accordingly disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J MAY 9, 2025/va The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:43:05