Disposed¶24

Pankaj Mittal & Anr. v. Gajanan S. Kale & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Apr 2025CONT.CAS(C)/413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court contempt case CONT.CAS(C) 413/2025, Anish Dayal J, decided 15.04.2025; alleges wilful disobedience of order dated 17.09.2024 in W.P. (C) 931/2019; Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. disconnected electricity in December 2024 after summons in suit (filed 15.10.2024) received late on 11.02.2025; over-charge/half-rate grievance deferred to civil suit listed 27.05.2025; Court disposed of petition directing Rs. 5 lakh deposit within 3 weeks as interest-bearing FDR adjustable towards TPDDL demand subject to suit outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioners directed to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with the Registry within 3 weeks, to be kept as an interest-bearing FDR, adjustable towards the ultimate demand of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. and subject to the outcome of the civil suit. ¶24

Pankaj Mittal & Anr. Vs Gajanan S. Kale & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether there was wilful disobedience of the order dated 17 September 2024 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 931/2019. +2 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court considered the issue before it as merely one of disconnection and held that the relief sought by the petitioner ought to be raised in the civil suit, which is listed before the Suit Court on 27 May 2025.

¶22

Key takeaways

To show bona fides, the petitioners are to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with the Registry within a period of next 3 weeks, to be kept in the form of an interest-bearing FDR.ratio¶23
The deposited amount shall be adjusted towards the ultimate demand of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. and is subject to the outcome of the suit.ratio¶23
The contempt petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 413/2025) before the High Court of Delhi alleging wilful disobedience of the Court's order dated 17.09.2024 in W.P. (C) 931/2019, compliance with which had involved deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and restoration of electricity. Summons in the civil suit (filed 15.10.2024 per petitioner's counsel) reached Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. only on 11.02.2025, after the 30-day window had expired, leading the company to disconnect supply in December 2024; it claimed accumulated unpaid demand exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. Holding the matter to be merely one of disconnection properly belonging to the civil suit (listed before the Suit Court on 27.05.2025), the Court disposed of the petition, directing deposit of a further Rs. 5 lakhs within three weeks as an interest-bearing FDR, adjustable towards TPDDL's ultimate demand and subject to the outcome of the suit. Bench: Anish Dayal, J. Dated: 15.04.2025.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 413/2025 CM APPL. 16034/2025

¶4

PANKAJ MITTAL & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Parth Mahajan, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

GAJANAN S. KALE & ANR.

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Ankit Bhushan and Ms. Riya Kumar, Advocates

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶11

O R D E R % 15.04.2025

¶12

This petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 17^th September 2024, passed by this Court in W.P. (C) 931/2019. The relevant part of the said order is extracted as under:

¶13

The interim order referred to the order passed on 29^th January 2019, which is reproduced hereunder:

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. 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 01/07/2025 at 01:32:57

¶15

Pursuant to the same Rs.5 lakhs was deposited and the electricity connection was restored. However, summons in the suit were only received on 11^th February 2025 by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd ., and, therefore, since the time has expired to file a civil suit within 30 days, Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd had disconnected the electricity in December 2024.

¶16

Counsel for petitioner, however, states that the suit was filed on 15^th October 2024. However, it is stated that no interim orders have been passed and, therefore, petitioner’s counsel states that relief granted by the Court shall continue.

¶17

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Counsel for Tata Power Delhi Distribution

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 01/07/2025 at 01:32:57

¶20

Ltd., however, states that petitioner has still not paid their current demand as well, which has now accumulated to more than Rs.10 lakhs .

¶21

Counsel for petitioner states that the whole issue was of over-charge and they ought to have been paid at half the rate at which the demand is made by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd .

¶22

Considering that the issue before this Court is merely of disconnection, the said relief, if any, sought by petitioner ought to be raised in the civil suit, which is now listed before the Suit Court on 27^th May 2025.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner states that at the very least, electricity should be restored in the interim till further relief is granted in the civil suit. 9. In order to show his bona fides , they are willing to deposit Rs.5 lakhs before this Court. The same be deposited with the Registry within a period of next 3 weeks which shall be kept in form of interest-bearing FDR. The said amount shall be adjusted towards the ultimate demand of the Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. and subject to the outcome of the suit.

¶24

This petition stands disposed of in above terms. 11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶25

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶26

APRIL 15, 2025/sm/ bp

¶27

Pankaj Mittal & Anr. v. Gajanan S. Kale & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Mittal & Anr. v. Gajanan S. Kale & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ram Vs Arun Kumar Jha

Sunita Yadav Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Baby Kira through Her Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt Deepali Mahajani Vs Chetan Mathur

Pragati Path Educational Foundation S Millennium National School Vs Rahul Singh and Ors.

Adib Fatema Nomani Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Sompal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sunny Arya Vs Bhawna Arya

Firoz Bakht Ahmed Vs Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors.

Hari Ram Vs Arun Kumar Jha

Sunita Yadav Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Baby Kira through Her Mother (Natural Guardian) Smt Deepali Mahajani Vs Chetan Mathur

Jai Shanker & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi-East (Edmc)

Gulzar Ali Vs Ashwani Kumar and Anr.

Mrs Abhilasha Chauhan and Anr. Vs Mr. Ankur Rajput