Disposed¶25

Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Jan 2026CONT.CAS(C)/51/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt / wilful disobedience - High Court of Delhi - CONT.CAS(C) 45/2026 & 51/2026, CM APPL. 1928/2026 - judgment dated 17.09.2024 in W.P(C) 980/2019 - Central Electronics Limited (CEL) - enhanced gratuity Rs.20 lacs - speaking order dated 18.03.2025 - Nawab Khan v. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 891/2016 (High Court of Uttarakhand, upheld by the Supreme Court) - no wilful disobedience found; contempt petitions disposed of; misconception-of-law argument left to pending writ petition. Bench: Sachin Datta, J. Decision date: 13.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the contempt complaint; the contempt petitions are disposed of, the petitioners remaining free to pursue their grievance against the speaking order dated 18.03.2025 in the substantive writ petition already filed. ¶25

Maharaj Singh & Ors. Vs Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P(C) 980/2019, so as to constitute contempt. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

As the respondents have passed a speaking order dated 18.03.2025 in terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated 17.09.2024, it cannot be said that there has been any wilful disobedience of those directions; the contempt petitions are therefore not entertained and stand disposed of.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are well within their rights to urge that the speaking order dated 18.03.2025 is based on a clear misconception and misunderstanding of the law laid down in Nawab Khan (Supra), but that aspect is required to be urged by them in the writ petition already filed, not in these contempt petitions.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petitions CONT.CAS(C) 45/2026 and 51/2026 (Prasanna Kumari; Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.), High Court of Delhi, Sachin Datta, J., 13.01.2026: the petitions alleged wilful disobedience of the directions in the judgment dated 17.09.2024 in W.P(C) 980/2019, whereby the writ petitions were disposed of leaving the Petitioners open to make comprehensive representation(s) to Central Electronics Limited (CEL) for reconsideration of the denial of enhanced gratuity of Rs.20 lacs, keeping in backdrop the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Nawab Khan (upheld by the Supreme Court), with CEL to decide within 3 months by a reasoned and speaking order. CEL passed a speaking order dated 18.03.2025. Held: since a speaking order was passed in terms of the directions, there was no wilful disobedience; the contempt petitions were disposed of. The Petitioners' plea that the speaking order rests on a misconception and misunderstanding of the law laid down in Nawab Khan (Supra) is to be urged in the substantive writ petition already filed by them.

¶1

$~91 & 76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 51/2026

¶4

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Naved Khan, Ms. Renu, Advs. versus CHETAN PRAKASH JAIN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Atul Chauhan, Mr. Bhim Singh, Advs. for R1 Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Advs. along Mr. Nipun Jain (GP) for R2 + CONT.CAS(C) 45/2026, CM APPL. 1928/2026 PRASANNA KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Mr. Naved Khan, Ms. Renu, Advs versus CHETAN PRAKASH JAIN & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Mittal, Mr. Atul Chauhan, Mr. Bhim Singh, Advs. for R1 Mr. T.P. Singh (Sr. CGSC) for R2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 13.01.2026

¶5

CM APPL.2060/2026 (Exemption) in CONT.CAS(C) 51/2026

¶6

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶7

The application stands disposed of.

¶8

CONT.CAS(C) 51/2026 CONT.CAS(C) 45/2026

¶9

The present petitions allege wilful disobedience of the directions

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 17/01/2026 at 12:28:51

¶12

contained in the judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P(C) 980/2019. The operative directions in the said judgement are as under:-

¶13

“18. In view of the limited relief now sought by the Petitioners and without entering into the merits of the inter se disputes, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the Petitioners to make a comprehensive representation(s) to CEL for reconsideration of the decision denying enhanced gratuity of Rs.20 lacs to the Petitioners in light of the submissions that may be made in the said representations and keeping in backdrop the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Nawab Khan (Supra) which was upheld by the Supreme Court. As and when the representation(s) are received, the same shall be decided by CEL within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed thereon. Needless to state Petitioners will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies in case of any surviving grievance.”

¶14

It transpires that pursuant to the above directions, a speaking order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed by the Central Electronics Limited (CEL), inter alia, holding as under:-

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 17/01/2026 at 12:28:51

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 17/01/2026 at 12:28:51

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a speaking order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed by CEL, the same is not in consonance with the dicta laid down in Nawab Khan v. Union of India & Others , Writ Petition (M/S) No. 891/2016 and connected matters. It also transpires that the petitioners have already taken legal recourse by assailing the aforesaid speaking order by way of a substantive writ petition.

¶20

Considering that the respondents have passed a speaking order in

¶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 17/01/2026 at 12:28:51

¶23

terms of the directions contained in the judgment dated 17.09.2024 and on a perusal of the said speaking order, it cannot be said that there has been any wilful disobedience by the said respondents with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 17.09.2024.

¶24

The petitioners are well within their rights to urge that the speaking order dated 18.03.2025 is based on a clear misconception and misunderstanding of the law laid down in Nawab Khan (Supra). However, this is an aspect which is required to be urged by the petitioners in the writ petition already filed.

¶25

In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain these contempt petitions. Accordingly, the present contempt petitions are disposed of.

¶26

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶27

JANUARY 13, 2026/uk

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 17/01/2026 at 12:28:51

Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Singh & Ors. v. Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Chand Bahl Vs K.S.Mehra & Ors.

Yogesh Jain & Ors. Vs G K Singh

Raj Kumar Anand Vs Ks Mehra & Ors.

Jyoti Devi Vs Rakesh Dahiya

Anup N Kothari and Anr. Vs Roopak N Kothari and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Jain Vs Chetan Prakash Jain & Anr.

Abdul Malik Vs Tarun Kapoor

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp & Anr. Vs Mr. Jayesh Mehta & Anr.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Vs Judo Fedration of India and Ors.

Acm Legal through Partner Mr. Amitesh Chandra Mishra Vs Inspecting Officer/Inspector Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner District East Labour Departme

M/S Spb Tradelink Private Limited Vs Shashank Saxena

Rathina Sabapathi, President, Party for the Right of Other Backward Classes Vs Election Commission of India Represented by the Ms Shubhra Saxena, Director

Arvind Kumar Sharma Vs Govind Mohan and Anr.

Dheeraj Gupta Vs Addl. Commissioner of Police Licensing Unit and Anr.