Disposed

M/S Spotasia Digital Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Naveen Kumar & Ors.

Delhi HC15 May 2025CONT.CAS(C)/779/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act concerning maintenance charges payable inclusive of GST. The Court clarified that invoices should be raised for Rs.1,90,000 per month inclusive of GST, recorded the respondent's undertaking to deposit the balance Rs.18,88,000 in fixed deposit within six weeks, and dispos

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to raise invoices at Rs.1,90,000/month inclusive of GST; respondent to deposit accumulated Rs.18,88,000 in fixed deposit within six weeks; disputes left to arbitrator.

M/S Spotasia Digital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Naveen Kumar & Ors. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~95

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 779/2025 CM APPL. 29551/2025

¶4

CM APPL. 29552/2025

¶5

M/S SPOTASIA DIGITAL PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Saurabh D. Karan Singh & Kanika Jain, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

MR. NAVEEN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nishant Anand, Ms. Gunjan Bansal, Ms. Vanya Gupta and Mr. Gaurav Chauhan, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶10

O R D E R % 15.05.2025

¶11

CM APPL. 29552/2025 (Exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

CONT.CAS(C) 779/2025

¶15

This petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 19^th February 2024 passed by this Court in ARB. A (COMM) No. 13/2024 . The relevant directions are as under:

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 01:17:58

¶18

Mr. Akshay Makhija , Senior Counsel appears on advance notice and states that they have been paying Rs.1,90,000/- as maintenance charges inclusive of GST but the GST amount is being reversed on the GST portal by the petitioner and, therefore, they cannot get the input benefit of that payment.

¶19

As regards the balance amount Rs.1,18,000/- per month to be placed in a fixed deposit, the said amount has not been deposited, as per Mr. Makhija , since there was confusion related to the GST component.

¶20

However, aside from this, what is agreed between the parties that the amount of Rs.3,08,000/- per month, which was the maintenance charges demanded by the petitioner, was inclusive of GST . This amount was split in terms of the directions passed, as noted above, between Rs.1,90,000/- and Rs.1,18,000/- ; needless to state, therefore, both will be inclusive of GST .

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 01:17:58

¶23

The problem is arising because the petitioner is issuing invoices at Rs.3,08,000/- per month inclusive of GST , whereas the Court's direction was for them for respondent no. 2 to pay Rs.1,90,000/- in the meantime, subject to disputes being decided by the arbitrator.

¶24

Accordingly, the petitioner ought to be raising invoices for Rs.1,90,000/- with a qualification that this is as per the order of 19^th February 2025 of this Court. This, of course, will be further subject to directions of the Ld. Arbitrator.

¶25

The second amount payable of Rs.1,18,000/- per month, inclusive of GST, shall be deposited as directed by the respondent; as per the petitioner this now accumulates to Rs. 18, 88,000/- .

¶26

Mr. Makhija , states that the said amount will be deposited within six weeks in a fixed deposit as directed by this Court in para 21 b of order dated 19^th February 2024.

¶27

Petitioners’ counsel states that they should also pay the interest in this regard.

¶28

These issues can be always adjudicated by the Arbitrator, considering the order by the Court was passed in an application under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order passed by the Arbitrator under section 17 A&C Act.

¶29

The Court had already held in para 18 of the said order that, “ Needless to state we learned Arbitrator will take a final decision at the appropriate stage, uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order and the present judgment .”; the said observation still holds good.

¶30

Needless to state, the directions passed in the order dated 19^th February 2024, will continue and there should be no further confusion which

¶31

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 01:17:58

¶32

triggers a late deposition of the said amounts.

¶33

Petition is disposed of.

¶34

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶35

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶36

MAY 15, 2025/RK/na

¶37

M/S Spotasia Digital Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Naveen Kumar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Spotasia Digital Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Naveen Kumar & Ors.

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

Pallavi Sharma Vs Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors.

Mohammad Zahid Vs Municipal Coropration of Delhi through Its Commisioner & Ors.

Aashish Sethi Vs Amol Srivastava & Ors.

Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs Sh. Surender Gupta @Sumit

Mukesh Rajora Vs Sh. K.K.Verma and Anr.

Shabnam Rashid Vs Rashid Malik

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amit Bansal Vs Amit Garg

Pallavi Sharma Vs Shri Katikithal Srinivas and Ors.

Mohammad Zahid Vs Municipal Coropration of Delhi through Its Commisioner & Ors.

Aashish Sethi Vs Amol Srivastava & Ors.

Rajesh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Nath Endley & Ors. Vs Lieutenant General Arvind Walia Walia, & Ors.

Pramod Kumar Jain Vs Shri Vijay Kumar Singh and Anr.