Disposed

M/S Khub Chand Tyagi v. Delhi Jal Board

Delhi HC9 Jan 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance with orders directing Delhi Jal Board to deposit an arbitral award amount in execution proceedings. As the deposit was purportedly made and a deficiency-related application was pending before the executing court, liberty was granted to pursue that application and the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to pursue its pending application in the execution proceedings; respondent's undertaking to comply recorded.

M/S Khub Chand Tyagi Vs Delhi Jal Board — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1150/2025

¶4

M/S KHUB CHAND TYAGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, Ms. Diksha Suri and Ms. Riya Jain, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

DELHI JAL BOARD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Mr. Prabin Mohan and Mr. Sarthak Mittal, Advs. for DJB.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 09.01.2026

¶11

CM APPL.46485/2025 (Exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

Application stands disposed of.

¶14

CONT.CAS(C) 1150/2025

¶15

The present petition alleges wilful disobedience / non-compliance of the orders dated 21.03.2025, 08.05.2025, 11.07.2025, passed in O.M.P.(ENF.) (COMM.)178/2024. The said orders concern deposit by the respondent of the awarded amount in terms of an Arbitral Award dated 07.04.2015 in inter se arbitral proceedings.

¶16

During the course of hearing, it transpires that the respondent / Delhi Jal Board has purported to deposit the arbitral amount in the execution proceedings, in line with the directions contained in the aforesaid orders.

¶17

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there exists a deficiency in the deposit made by the respondent. This assertion is refuted by

¶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 12/01/2026 at 12:56:56

¶20

learned counsel for the respondent. It also transpires that an application has been filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings seeking to agitate this very issue viz. whether there is any deficiency in the deposit of the requisite amount by the respondent.The said application is still pending. 6. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass any further orders in the present proceedings, except to grant liberty to the petitioner to pursue its pending application in the execution proceedings.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that orders passed by the concerned court in the execution proceedings shall be scrupulously complied with. If any additional deposit is required to be made by the respondent in terms thereof, the same shall be duly made. It is further stated that the respondent shall forthwith comply with the orders whereby it has been directed to place on record its calculation of the awarded amount.

¶22

The aforesaid statement on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. 9. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶24

JANUARY 9, 2026/ cl

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 12/01/2026 at 12:56:56

M/S Khub Chand Tyagi v. Delhi Jal Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Khub Chand Tyagi v. Delhi Jal Board

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

Sh. Satpal Vs Ms. Sujata Gulyani

Laxman Singh Bisht Vs Hotel Corporation of India

Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs Lt Governor & Ors.

Gurmeet Singh HUF Vs Vardhman Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd.

Dila Ram & Ors. Vs Ram Dayal & Anr.

Nanadar Ni Ni Vs Vishal Pal Singh, Commissioner of Customs & Ors.

Tina Goyal Vs Prateek Madhan & Anr.

M/S Spb Tradelink Private Limited Vs Shashank Saxena

Sh. Satpal Vs Ms. Sujata Gulyani

Laxman Singh Bisht Vs Hotel Corporation of India

Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs Lt Governor & Ors.

Gagan Jindal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Kamlesh Sharma Vs Municipal Coporation of Delhi & Ors.

South Patel Nagar 9 Block and Ranjit Nagar Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar IAS Commissioner