Partly allowed

Sudha Singh v. Suchin Rana

Delhi HC1 Feb 2018FAO/352/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought modification of an electricity payment order, proposing sub-meter installation to reduce charges. The respondent consented to limited relief contingent on payment terms. The court granted an extension for payment of disputed monies and directed payment of water charges, making previous orders voidable upon infraction.

What did the court decide?

Extension for payment granted; water charges imposed; previous order deemed vacated on infraction.

Sudha Singh Vs Suchin Rana — Delhi HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~40

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO 352/2016

¶4

SUDHA SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kripa Shankar, Mr.Susheel Tomar and Mr. D. S. Parmar, Advocates.

¶5

Versus SUCHIN RANA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S. D. Ansari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 07.03.2018 Rev. Pet. No.101/2018

¶6

This application seeks modification of the order dated 01.02.2018.

¶7

At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the averments or allusions purporting to question the authority of the learned counsel, who had appeared for the applicant earlier, may be treated as deleted. It is so ordered.

¶8

It is the applicant’s case that the electricity charges fixed in the previous order is perhaps on the higher side because the applicant occupies only a small portion of a building whose composite monthly electricity charges are in the range of Rs.12,000/-. Hence, the learned counsel for the applicant suggests that with the permission of the respondent, a sub-meter may be installed at the expense of the applicant and the charges for the electricity thus consumed alongwith the meter charges would be payable directly to the respondent.

¶9

Issue notice.

¶10

Mr. Ansari, the learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent. He states upon instructions that the respondent would have no objection to the limited relief sought, provided all the installation charges for the sub-meter including its rental, user charges and all other charges applicable to the meter alongwith the minimum charges, etc. be paid to the respondent within 15 days of any electricity bill being raised. In the circumstances, it is so ordered.

¶11

There is evidently a default in payment of the first instalment as fixed by the previous order.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant seeks and is granted extension of time for the payment of the said monies till 20.03.2018 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent.

¶13

In addition to the electricity bill, a sum of Rs.500/- per month towards water charges shall be paid to the respondent. Should there be any infraction of this order and the other payments directed in the order dated 01.02.2018, the said orders shall be deemed to have been vacated automatically.

¶14

The application is disposed off in the above terms.

¶15

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

¶16

MARCH 07, 2018 sb

Sudha Singh v. Suchin Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Singh v. Suchin Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimla Vs L.I.C. & Anr.

The Oriental Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Kusum Lata & Ors.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Flipkart India Private Limited Vs M/S Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Shivdhar Prasad Vs Union of India & Anr.

Santosh Bhasin & Anr. Vs Vinod Kumar Kohli & Ors.