Disposed¶18

M/S. Pratibha Mosinzhstroi Consortium v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.

Delhi HC18 May 2026W.P.(C)/7564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 7564/2022; CM APPL. 23212/2022; Delhi High Court; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J; order dated 18.05.2026; Pratibha Mosinzhostroi Consortium; Delhi Jal Board substituted as petitioner; Order I Rule 10 CPC application allowed; National Commission for Scheduled Castes order dated 28.03.2022 not adjudicated; R. Krishnamurthy & Co.; grievance of non-receipt of payment from Contractor; DJB took over contractor's work; liberty to approach Delhi Jal Board; petition and pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application under Order I Rule 10 CPC allowed with Delhi Jal Board substituted as petitioner; petition disposed of with liberty to aggrieved parties to approach Delhi Jal Board, which was directed to examine any grievance and act in accordance with law. ¶18

M/S. Pratibha Mosinzhstroi Consortium Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC should be accepted so that Delhi Jal Board, having stepped into the shoes of the petitioner, is treated as the petitioner in the matter. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC is allowed and Delhi Jal Board shall henceforth be treated as the petitioner in the present matter.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Adjudication of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes does not appear to be necessary at this stage.

¶15

Key takeaways

In the event any party has any surviving grievance, it shall be at liberty to approach Delhi Jal Board.ratio¶16
Delhi Jal Board is directed to examine the grievance, if raised, and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav), W.P.(C) 7564/2022 with CM APPL. 23212/2022, disposed of on 18.05.2026. An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, moved on behalf of Delhi Jal Board on the ground that it had stepped into the shoes of the petitioner, was taken up on oral request and allowed; Delhi Jal Board was henceforth to be treated as the petitioner. As the underlying controversy concerned the grievance of R. Krishnamurthy & Co. regarding non-receipt of payment from the Contractor, and neither the original petitioner nor R. Krishnamurthy & Co. was pursuing the matter, while considerable time had elapsed and Delhi Jal Board had taken over the work originally assigned to the Contractor, the Court held that adjudication of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes did not appear necessary at that stage. Parties with surviving grievances were given liberty to approach Delhi Jal Board, which was directed to examine any grievance raised and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7564/2022 and CM APPL. 23212/2022

¶4

M/S. PRATIBHA MOSINZHSTROI CONSORTIUM .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu and Ms. Rajbala, Advocates for Delhi Jal Board.

¶6

versus

¶7

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel for R-1. Mr. Brijesh K Tamber, Ms.Chanchala Kumari, Advocates for R- Indian Bank. Mr. OP Gaggar and Mr. Sachindra Karn, Advocates for R-5/ Union Bank.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 18.05.2026

¶12

Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel, submits that Delhi Jal Board has stepped into the shoes of the petitioner and, accordingly, an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘ CPC’ ) has been filed. Though the said application is not listed today, upon the oral request made by Mr. Sannu, the same is taken up for consideration and is allowed. 2. Accordingly, Delhi Jal Board shall henceforth be treated as the petitioner in the present matter.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 20/05/2026 at 16:47:38

¶15

The controversy involved in the present petition pertains to the grievance raised by R. Krishnamurthy & Co. regarding non-receipt of payment from the Contractor. However, neither the original petitioner is appearing before this Court nor is R. Krishnamurthy & Co. is pursuing the original complaint. Since the filing of the complaint, considerable time has elapsed and Delhi Jal Board has taken over the work which was originally assigned to the Contractor. In these circumstances, adjudication of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by National Commission for Scheduled Castes does not appear to be necessary at this stage.

¶16

Needless to observe that, in the event any party has any surviving grievance, it shall be at liberty to approach Delhi Jal Board.

¶17

Delhi Jal Board is also directed to examine the grievance, if raised, and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶19

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶20

MAY 18, 2026 Nc

¶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 20/05/2026 at 16:47:38

M/S. Pratibha Mosinzhstroi Consortium v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Pratibha Mosinzhstroi Consortium v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.C.Jain & Ors. Vs Vice Chancellor, Delhi Univers

M.R.Giri Vs Registrar National Museum Inst

Tapash Datta Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Dr Virender Baboria Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kamlesh Singh and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi Ors.

Gti Infotel Private Limited Vs 1. Union of India & Ors.

Neena Bhasin Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vasi Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Harmandeep Singh Kandhari Vs Bureau of Immigration & Ors.

Subramaniam Mahindan Vs Union of India & Anr.

Vipin Kumar Tyagi Vs UOI and Ors.

Kamal Bedi Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Priya Jeanne Strome Iyer & Anr. Vs Union of India

Icici Bank Limited Vs Cpio, Reserve Bank of India & Ors.