Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil Jaswal, Ad vs. Versus GANGA PLASTIC v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Sep 2011
- Bench
- R MIDHA
Outcome
Remanded
In view of the above, the case is remanded back to the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that new plea relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrika…
- Para 55. In view of the above, the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to give a finding on the plea of the appellant relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court after hearing both the parties. It is clarified that…
Judgment
Through : Mr. Vikram Nandrajog and Mr. Sushil Jaswal, Advs. Versus GANGA PLASTIC ..... Respondent Through : Dr. Anurag K. Agarwal and Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advs. CORAM :- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
3. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? To be referred to the Reporter or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT (ORAL) NO NO NO
The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Trial Court on various grounds inter alia that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and the remedy of the respondent was to approach the Special Court under the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant has referred to and relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of B.L. Kantroo v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., 154 (2008) DLT 56 (DB). RFA No.515/2009
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that this plea was not raised by the appellant before the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the action was taken by the appellant pursuant to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards-Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002 framed under Section 61 of the Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 and not under the Delhi Electricity Supply Code and Performance Standards Regulations, 2007 framed under Section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and, therefore, the judgment in the case of B.L. Kantroo (Supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that new plea relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to and relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391 where it was held that a new plea relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage even if it was not raised before the learned Trial Court.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, this case needs to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for a RFA No.515/2009 finding on the plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction raised by the appellant.
Operative part
In view of the above, the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to give a finding on the plea of the appellant relating to inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court after hearing both the parties. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case and, therefore, the parties shall be entitled to challenge the finding of the learned Trial Court on the merits of the case after the decision of the issue of jurisdiction. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
Both the parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 17th October, 2011 when the learned Trial Court shall fix the date for hearing of both the parties on the issue of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The learned Trial Court shall expedite the hearing in the matter.
LCR be returned back immediately through a special messenger.
Copy of this order be given ‘Dasti’ to learned counsels for both the parties under signature of Court Master. SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 J.R. MIDHA, J RFA No.515/2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the case is remanded back to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 50; Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 — s. 61.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 26 Sep 2011. The bench was R MIDHA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.