Disposed¶22

Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd. v. Udit Khatri & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2026CONT.CAS(C)/1512/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court contempt proceeding arising from decree in CS(COMM) 72/2022 (judgment dated 09.01.2023); non-payment of costs directed by paragraph 19 despite compliance with prayers (i) and (iii); settlement at Rs.2 Lakhs against claimed costs of Rs.2.19 Lakhs; undertaking to pay within three months; default deemed wilful and egregious breach; petition disposed; compliance report listed 20.07.2026; bench: Justice Sachin Datta.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on settlement: respondents undertook to pay Rs.2 Lakhs in full and final settlement within three months; petitioner's counsel to provide bank account details; default in payment to be treated as wilful and egregious breach; compliance listing on 20.07.2026. ¶22

Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Udit Khatri & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the judgment/order dated 09.01.2023 passed in CS(COMM) 72/2022, in particular the costs directed in paragraph 19 thereof which remained unpaid.

¶10

Court's answer

The Court found that the respondents had complied with the decree in respect of prayers (i) and (iii) of the plaint, but the costs directed in paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 09.01.2023 in CS(COMM) 72/2022 had not been paid.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

In full and final settlement, the respondents agreed to pay Rs.2 Lakhs to the petitioner within a period of three months.

¶18

Key takeaways

The respondents' undertaking to make the settlement payment within the stipulated period was recorded and taken on record by the Court.ratio¶19
Any failure to pay the settled amount shall be construed as wilful and egregious breach of the orders passed by this Court.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C)) alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment/order dated 09.01.2023 in CS(COMM) 72/2022, whereby the suit stood decreed in terms of prayers (i) and (iii) of the plaint, with paragraph 19 directing payment of actual costs through the Taxation Officer. The Court recorded that the respondents had complied with the decree in respect of prayers (i) and (iii) but the paragraph 19 costs remained unpaid; counsel for the petitioner placed the computed costs at Rs.2.19 Lakhs. In full and final settlement the respondents undertook to pay Rs.2 Lakhs within three months, the undertaking was taken on record, and any failure to pay was agreed to be construed as wilful and egregious breach of the Court's orders. Petition disposed of accordingly; compliance listed on 20.07.2026 (Sachin Datta, J.).

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1512/2023

¶4

KLEENOIL FILTRATION INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nancy Roy, Advocate (through VC) along with Ms. Aastha Kakkar, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UDIT KHATRI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶9

O R D E R % 12.03.2026

¶10

The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the judgment/order dated 09.01.2023 passed in CS(COMM) 72/2022. By way of the said judgment/order, the suit was decreed in terms of prayers (i) and (iii) in the plaint. Further, it was directed as under:-

¶11

“19. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has, on instructions, undertaken not to press for damages but presses for costs. The plaintiff would be entitled to actual costs in the suit, for which purpose the plaintiff may apply for costs before the Taxation Officer within one week from today. For the said purpose, the matter would be listed before the concerned Taxation Officer on 19^th January 2023.”

¶12

It transpires that the respondents have complied with the decree insofar as prayers (i) and (iii) of the plaint are concerned. The costs, in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 09.01.2023 passed in CS(COMM) 72/2022, have not been paid.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said costs,

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 16/03/2026 at 17:10:17

¶16

as duly computed in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 19, are to the tune of Rs.2.19 Lakhs.

¶17

The respondents have joined the proceedings virtually.

¶18

After some hearing, it is agreed that in full and final settlement, the respondents would pay an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the petitioner. The same would be paid within a period of three months from today.

¶19

The respondents assure and undertake that the said payment shall be made within the aforesaid period. The said undertaking is taken on record.

¶20

The bank account details into which the said amount is to be remitted shall be provided by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶21

It is agreed that any failure to pay the said amount shall be construed as wilful and egregious breach of the order/s passed by this Court.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

List for reporting compliance on 20.07.2026.

¶24

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶25

MARCH 12, 2026/r

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 16/03/2026 at 17:10:17

Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd. v. Udit Khatri & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd. v. Udit Khatri & 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

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ex Sgt Pravat Ravi Vs Dr Niten Chandra IAS and Ors.

Susan James Vs Sumit Nath & Ors.

Lt Col R K Purohit Vs Ms Rachna Shah & Anr.

Ciss Services Ltd. Vs Vivek Aggarwal

Savitri Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Ors. & Ors.

Anshu Vs SHO Ps Hari Nagar and Anr.

Ciss Services Ltd. Vs Vivek Aggarwal

M/S Aastha Gill Media Technologies LLP Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ex Sgt Pravat Ravi Vs Dr Niten Chandra IAS and Ors.

Lt Col R K Purohit Vs Ms Rachna Shah & Anr.

Smt. Kailash Kumari Tuteja Vs Harsh Kumar Tuteja and Anr.

Wushu Association of India (Wai) Vs Mr Vipin Kumar Saini & Ors.

Anoop Gaur Vs Ashwani Kumar