Dismissed

M/S Kolmet Enterprises and Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi HC8 Nov 2019W.P.(C)/11832/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenging arrears and misuse charges under the Electricity Act was treated as withdrawn after the petitioner agreed to deposit 50% of the disputed amount, with an undertaking to pursue the pending appeal. The Court reserved its opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted four weeks to deposit 50% of assessed amount to enable appeal.

M/S Kolmet Enterprises and Anr. Vs New Delhi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~55

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 08.11.2019

¶4

W.P.(C) 11832/2019 & CM APPL. 48490-91/2019

¶5

M/S KOLMET ENTERPRISES AND ANR. ..... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. S.K. Maniktala with Mr. Udit Maniktala and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocates

¶10

For the Respondents: Ms. Malvika Trivedi, ASC with Mr. Anurag Misra, Ms. Shivani Garg, Advocates for NDMC.

¶11

CORAM:-

¶12

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Petitioner, by this petition, impugns the bill raised by the respondent-NDMC showing arrears of ₹ 27,61,630.53 ps. towards electricity connection bearing No. K-64233 P/Com and Consumer No. 1007748 installed at premises No. F-8, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject bill incorrectly shows arrears as also misuse charges as no arrears have been reflected in the previous bills. Learned counsel submits that the misuse charges have been incorrectly claimed from

W.P.(C) 11832/2019

Page 1 of 3

the petitioner.

Learned Counsel further submits that petitioner had filed an appeal impugning bill for the billing cycle July, 2017, which for the first time claims misuse charges and said appeal is pending. Subsequently, a Bill for the billing cycle August, 2019 has been raised where the impugned arrears of ₹ 27,61,630.53 ps. besides misuse charges has been shown.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the said bill has been returned in view of the fact that the petitioner has not pre-deposited 50% of the disputed amount in terms of Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent-NDMC submits that the misuse charges as also the arrears have been reflected in terms of Section 126 of the said Act. She submits that in terms of Section 127 of the Act, no appeal is entertainable unless deposit of 50% of the assessed amount.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice submits that petitioner shall deposit the 50% of the assessed amount in terms of Section 127(2) of the Act. however he prays that four weeks time be granted to deposit the amount. He further seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue his appeal before the appellate authority.

¶24

W.P.(C) 11832/2019

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% of the assessed amount with the respondent-NDMC within four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and the appeal of the petitioner would be entertained in accordance with law.

¶27

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶28

It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the case of either party. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.

¶29

Order Dasti under signatures of Court Master.

¶30

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶31

NOVEMBER 08, 2019

¶32

‘ rs’

¶33

W.P.(C) 11832/2019

¶34

Page 3 of 3

M/S Kolmet Enterprises and Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kolmet Enterprises and Anr. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Multani Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Gorkha Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Baba Sahebambedkar Hospital through Its Medical Superintendent & Anr.

Aditi Infrabuild & Services Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) & Anr.

New Shama Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Surender Kumar

Sh. Sujeet Swami and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vinay Rai Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors.

Vishwa Nath Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs Government of India and Anr.

Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar Puri

Nizamuddin Vs Rehan Siddiqui & Ors.

Satyendra Bansal Vs Dipti Goel

Amit Dawar Vs Suman Jain

Ram Kishore Aggarwal Vs Sandeep Aggarwal

Gopal Kukreja Vs Suman Chhabra @ Suman Mehta