Delhi District Court
Ms Ganga Steels Anr vs Delhi Vidyut Board on 30 January, 2026
Digitally signed
by TARUN
YOGESH
TARUN Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.30
16:08:00
+0530
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH,
DISTRICT JUDGE-13, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS DJ No. 613780/16
Unique ID No. DLCT01-000176-2010
In the matter of:
1) M/s Ganga Steels
Through its Prop. Shri Ram Rattan
E-41, Karnal Road, Delhi
2) Shri Ram Rattan,
Sole Prop. Of M/s Ganga Steel
E-41, S.M.A. Industrial Area,
G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi
......... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
1) Delhi Vidyut Board (Presently N.D.P.L.)
Through its C.E.O. (Corporate Sector)
Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
........... Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.05.2010
Date of Judgment : 30.01.2026
-:JUDGMENT:-
Preface
1. Plaintiffs' suit assailing 'inspection report' dated 06.05.1999
of electricity connection bearing K. No. 503-1326662-IP in the
name of M/s. Ganga Steels AND seeking recovery of
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 1 / 16
Digitally signed
TARUN by TARUN
YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30
16:08:35 +0530
Rs.9,08,044.99/- against 'impugned bill' raised by Delhi Vidyut
Board (DVB) has been registered on 15.05.2010.
2. Issues were settled on 28.07.2012 and testimony of witnesses
have been recorded till 06.08.2015.
Case of the Plaintiff
3. Plaintiff No.1 M/s Ganga Steels being 'registered consumer'
of electricity connection bearing K.No.503-1326662-IP with
sanctioned load 94.52 KW installed in the Ground Floor of premises
No. E-41, S.M.A, Industrial Area, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi had been
using electricity for carrying its business since January, 1997 and
another electricity connection in the name of M/s New Bright
Hosiery with sanctioned load of 94.52 KW is stated to be installed
in the same premises.
4. It is alleged that officials of Delhi Vidyut Board (now NDPL)
entered the premises on 06.05.1999 and prepared false & fabricated
'inspection report' by illegally and wrongly noting combined load
155.657 KW of electricity connection in the name of (i) M/s. Ganga
Steels AND (ii) M/s. New Bright Hosiery for raising illegal demand
to the tune of Rs.46,40,020.07/- which was eventually reduced to
Rs.9,08,044.99/-.
5. Plaintiffs, in addition, have averred about (i) removal of meter
equipment & service line by the officials of Delhi Vidyut Board; (ii)
complaint lodged in the office of Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board on
14.05.1999; (iii) suit for restoration of electricity connection filed by
M/s. New Bright Hosiery; (iv) arrest of plaintiff No.2 Sh. Ram
Ratan, Proprietor M/s. Ganga Steels who was directed to be released
on bail subject to deposit of 30% of the bill AND file their suit - (a)
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 2 / 16
Digitally signed
TARUN by TARUN
YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30
16:08:42 +0530
assailing 'inspection report' & 'impugned bill' as illegal, arbitrary,
unjustified, null & void AND (b) seeking recovery of deposited
amount with interest @ 18% per annum.
Case of the Defendant
6. Defendant North Delhi Power Limited (erstwhile Delhi
Vidyut Board) has contested the suit seeking its dismissal with heavy
cost inter alia on following grounds:-
(i) No receipt has been filed by plaintiffs verifying
deposit of Rs.9,08,044.99/-.
(ii) Plaintiffs' suit has been filed beyond prescribed period
of limitation as Rs.5,00,000/- was paid on 02.06.1999
followed by second installment Rs.4,00,000/- paid on
06.07.1999 and final installment of Rs.2278/- paid on
20.12.1999.
7. Averments in the plaint have been disputed in corresponding
paras of reply on merit by affirming about two connections found
existing in premises No.E-41, SMA, G.T. Karnal Road at the time of
joint raid bearing K.No.503-1326662-IP/U022 in the name of M/s.
Ganga Steel AND K.No.503/1326654-IP/U022 in the name of M/s.
New Bright Hosiery which was lying idle without outgoing cable
and/or load connected at the time of inspection.
8. It is submitted that load of the entire factory was found
connected on K.No.503-1326662 which was used by Sh. Ram
Rattan and 'Assessment Bill' of Rs.46,40,020.07/- was raised by the
Department for Fraudulent Abstraction of Electricity (FAE) on the
basis of connected load of 155.657 KW.
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 3 / 16
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.30
16:08:50 +0530
9. Averments in para 18 of the plaint have been also disputed by
adverting to - (i) Fresh Bill of Rs.18,25,012.09/- raised by the
Department followed by payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each by the
consumer on 31.07.2000 & 25.08.2000 in terms of directions of the
Permanent Lok Adalat-01 AND (ii) Revised Bill of Rs.9,08,044.99/-
in terms of order of XEN (Enf.) taking connected load 98.371 KW
from 07.01.1999 to 06.04.1999 AND 155.657 KW from 07.04.1999
to 06.05.1999.
Trial
10. Following issues were settled on 28.07.2012 after replication
and completion of pleadings and matter was posted for plaintiff's
evidence.
(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation as alleged in
the written statement ? (OPD)
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for
declaration as sought in the plaint ? (OPP)
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an
amount of Rs.9,08,044.99/- as prayed for ? (OPP)
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest ? If so, at
what rate and for which period ? (OPP)
(v) Relief.
11. Sh. Ram Rattan, Proprietor M/s. Ganga Steels examined as
PW1 has reiterated averments of the plaint in his affidavit
Ex.PW1/A tendered in evidence and relied upon certified copy of
Criminal Record in FIR No.267/2011, PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi
referred as Ex.PW1/1(colly).
12. Cross-examination of PW1 Ram Rattan has been recorded
and plaintiff's evidence was closed on 19.03.2015.
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 4 / 16
Digitally signed
TARUN by TARUN
YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30
16:08:56 +0530
13. Sh. Mahender Gupta, Retired Additional General Manager,
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (TPDDL), examined as DW1 has
deposed that he was working as Superintendent (T) MTD in the
erstwhile DVB and was one of the members of the 'Joint
Enforcement Team' which carried out inspection at E-41, SMA, GT
Karnal Road, Delhi on 06.05.1999 when total load was found
connected and running on connection bearing K No.503-1326662
while connection bearing KNo.503-1326654 was lying idle without
any load. He has relied upon following documents:-
(i) Copy of Inspection Report dated 06.05.1999 referred
as Ex.DW1/1
(ii) Copy of MTD Report of K No.503-1326662
referred as Ex.DW1/2
(iii) Copy of MTD Report of K No.503-1326654
referred as Ex.DW1/3
(iv) Copy of Joint Inspection Report referred as Ex.DW1/4
14. Sh. O.P. Singh working as AGM in the Regulatory
Department of TPDDL being another member of the 'Joint
Enforcement Team' of erstwhile DVB examined as DW2 has
deposed on similar lines by adverting to Inspection Report, MTD
Report(s) and Joint Report referred as Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4,
and in addition, has relied upon - (i) letter dated 10.05.1999 verifying
handing over photographs to SHO P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi referred
as Ex.DW2/1 (ii) complaint dated 06.05.1999 lodged by Sh. D.C
Vashisth, the then A.E. Zone for registration of FIR referred as
Ex.DW2/2 AND (iii) seizure-memo of case property prepared on
07.05.1999 referred as Ex.DW2/3.
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 5 / 16
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.30
16:09:02 +0530
15. Sh. Naresh Kaushik, Jr. Judicial Assistant, Record Room,
Criminal, Saket (South District), Delhi examined as DW3 has
brought judicial record of criminal case bearing FIR No.267/1999
P.S Jahangir Puri, Delhi decided on 28.04.2011 by Sh. Deepak
Sehrawat, Ld. MM-02, South, Saket, Delhi and referred to true
copies of documents, compared with original as Ex.DW1/1 to
Ex.DW1/4 & Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/3.
16. Cross-examination of DW1 Sh. Mahender Gupta and DW2
Sh. O.P Singh have been recorded and defendant's evidence was
closed on 06.08.2015.
Discussion and Conclusion
17. Advocate Sh. B.P. Aggarwal for plaintiffs and Sh. Avdhesh
Singh, Authorized Representative, TPDDL have addressed their
submissions by relying upon judgments/case laws in support of their
respective contentions.
18. I have considered their submissions and carefully perused
pleadings and testimony of witnesses examined on judicial record.
My issue wise finding is recorded below:-
19. Issue No.1:
Whether the suit is barred by limitation as
alleged in the written statement? (OPD)
20. It is submitted that suit for mandatory and permanent
injunction was registered on 21.05.1999 and plaintiffs' application
under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking permission to
amend the plaint by adding relief of declaration and recovery of
Rs.9,08,044.99/- was allowed by Ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC,
North on 15.03.2010 as amendments sought were necessitated in the
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 6 / 16
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.30
16:09:10 +0530
wake of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Sarjiwan
Singh vs. Delhi Vidyut Board; 110 (2004) DLT 633 holding that
relief of declaration in respect of disputed bills is mandatory and
plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee for seeking
recovery of Rs.9,08,044.99/-.
21. Sh. Avdhesh Singh for TPDDL, per contra has relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled Tarlok Singh vs.
Vijay Kumar Sabharwal (1996) 8 SCC 367 for contending that
application under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking
declaration and recovery of Rs.9,08,044.99/- was filed beyond
prescribed period of limitation and plaintiffs' suit filed on
15.05.2010 pursuant to order dated 15.03.2010 of Ld. Senior Civil
Judge-cum-RC, North is therefore barred by limitation.
22. Perusal of judicial record would reveal that plaintiffs' suit was
dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 CPC on 07.09.2005
followed by miscellaneous application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC
for restoring the suit to its original number and position which was
allowed subject to cost Rs.500/- vide order dated 03.06.2006 and
matter was adjourned for submissions on plaintiffs' application
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
23. Subsequently, application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated
29.05.2004 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh
vide order dated 09.12.2009 and fresh application under Order VI
Rule 17 CPC dated 15.03.2010 was filed incorporating relief of
declaration and recovery of Rs.9,08,044.99/- which was allowed and
matter was returned with necessary endorsement to be filed before
Ld. District Judge-II, North as plaintiffs' suit valued for
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 7 / 16
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.30
16:09:16 +0530
Rs.9,08,044.99/- had gone beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC, North, Delhi.
24. It is, however, significant to note that similar application dated
14.05.2002 requesting permission to amend the prayer clause of the
plaint for seeking additional relief to the effect that act of
defendant/DVB officials in removing the meter, metering equipment
& service line AND raising bill of Rs.46,40,020.07/- be declared
illegal was declined vide order dated 15.09.2003. Relevant paras of
the order disallowing plaintiffs' request seeking permission to
amend the prayer clause is extracted below for reference:-
"Now, I shall deal with the proposed
amendment of the prayer clause of the plaint.
As already observed that the proposed
amendment was further amended by way of
an application u/s.151 CPC which has been
allowed. By amending para C of the prayer
clause in the plaint the plaintiffs claim
additional relief in the form of a declaration
that the acts of the defendant dated 06.05.99
are illegal as well as null and void. It is
noteworthy that application for amendment
was made on 14.05.02 and on that date a suit
claiming such relief of declaration was prima
facie time barred under article 58 of the First
Schedule appended to the Limitation Act,
1963. In my opinion this reason is sufficient
to decline to allow the proposed amendment.
Even otherwise besides seeking declaration
simplicitor the plaintiffs may seek further
relief consequential to such declaration but
they are not claiming so. Hence, the relief by
way of amendment can not be allowed in
view of proviso to section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963. Therefore, amendment in
the clause C of the prayer clause of the
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 8 / 16
Digitally signed
TARUN by TARUN
YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30
16:09:24 +0530
plaint disallowed, however, other
amendments sought to be made in the prayer
clause are allowed.
The plaintiffs also want to amend para
27 of the plaint. In my opinion as the
amendment in clause C of the prayer clause is
disallowed, any amendment in para 27 is
inconsequential. This proposed amendment
is also disallowed."
25. Advocate Sh. B.P. Aggarwal for plaintiff has relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled Sarjiwan Singh vs.
Delhi Vidyut Board (Supra) for urging that relief of declaration and
recovery were necessitated in view of pronouncement of law/change
of law hence application seeking permission to amend the plaint
filed beyond prescribed period of limitation was allowed vide order
dated 15.03.2010.
26. It is, however relevant to note that several References on the
point that it was essential for the plaintiff to pray for declaration
holding the electricity bill to be invalid before he could be entitled
to pray for the consequential relief of injunction were answered by
Hon'ble High Court in Sarjiwan Singh (supra) by adverting to its
earlier judgment in Rampur Distillery and Chemical Company Ltd.
vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/0391/1995 for holding that where a
bill raised by the Electricity Department is prima facie legal, a
declaration must be prayed to the effect that bill is incorrect or illegal
before plaintiff can pray for injunction against the recoveries made
on the basis of such bills.
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 9 / 16
Digitally signed by
TARUN TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30
16:09:30 +0530
27. Relief of declaration being time barred was therefore neither
controverted nor decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Sarjiwan Singh vs. Delhi Vidyut Board (supra).
28. Para 6 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarlok
Singh vs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal (supra) on the point of limitation
in the case of suit for injunction which was amended and converted
to suit for specific performance reads as under:-
"6. Shri Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for
the respondent, contended that since the
respondent had refused performance the suit must be deemed to have been filed on 23- 12-1987 and, therefore, when the amendment was allowed, it would relate back to the date of filing the suit which was filed within three years from the date of the refusal.
Accordingly, the suit is not barred by limitation. Shri U.R. Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the liberty given by the High Court the appellant is entitled to raise the plea of limitation. The suit filed after expiry of 3 years from 1986 is barred by limitation. The question is: as to when the limitation began to run? In view of the admitted position that the contract was to be performed within 15 days after the injunction was vacated, the limitation began to run on 06-04-1986. In view of the position that the suit for perpetual injunction was converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25-08-1989, the suit must be deemed to have been instituted on 25-08-1989 and the suit was clearly barred by limitation. We find force in the stand of the appellant. We think that parties had, by agreement, determined the date for performance of the contract. Thereby limitation began to run from 06-04-1986. Suit CS DJ No. 13780/16 Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 10 / 16 Digitally signed by TARUN TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date:
2026.01.30 16:09:37 +0530 merely for injunction laid on 23-12-1987 would not be of any avail nor the limitation began to run from that date. Suit for perpetual injunction is different from suit for specific performance. The suit for specific performance in fact was claimed by way of amendment application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC on 12-09-1979. It will operate only on the application being ordered. Since the amendment was ordered on 25-08-1989 the crucial date would be the date on which the amendment was ordered by which date, admittedly, the suit is barred by limitation. The courts below, therefore, were not right in decreeing the suit."
29. Article 58 of the Schedule appended to Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes period of 3 years to file suit to obtain declaration which has been referred in order dated 15.09.2003 of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi declining proposed amendment in the prayer clause for seeking relief of declaration. Plaintiffs' suit was thereafter dismissed on 07.09.2005 and order dated 15.03.2010 allowing amendment of title and prayer clause for adding relief of declaration & recovery of Rs.9,08,044.99/- was thereafter obtained by plaintiff without disclosing about order dated 15.09.2003 declining amendments by adding relief of declaration sought in the earlier application dated 14.05.2002 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
30. Finding : Issue No.1 is therefore decided in favour of defendant NDPL by holding that plaintiffs' suit for declaration and recovery registered on 15.05.2010 after the earlier plaint was returned vide order dated 15.03.2010 is barred by limitation.CS DJ No. 13780/16 Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 11 / 16 Digitally signed by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
YOGESH Date:
2026.01.30
16:09:45 +0530
31. Issue No.2
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration as sought in the plaint ? (OPP)
32. PW1 Ram Rattan in paras 2 to 17 of affidavit Ex.PW1/A has inter alia deposed that officials of Delhi Vidyut Board (now NDPL) entered the premises on 06.05.1999 and prepared false & fabricated 'inspection report' by illegally and wrongly noting combined load 155.657 KW of electricity connection in the name of (i) M/s. Ganga Steels AND (ii) M/s. New Bright Hosiery for raising illegal demand to the tune of Rs.46,40,020.07/- which was eventually reduced to Rs.9,08,044.99/-.
33. He has also relied upon certified copy of criminal record in FIR No.267/2011, P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi for contending that he has been acquitted for offence under Section 39/44 of Indian Electricity Act vide judgment dated 28.04.2011 passed by Sh. Deepak Sehrawat, Ld. MM-02, South District, Saket, Delhi.
34. Plaintiff Ram Rattan, nonetheless, having averred about two electricity connections, one in the name of M/s. Ganga Steels and other in the name of M/s. New Bright Hosiery has neither mentioned particulars of the other electricity connection in the name of M/s.
New Bright Hosiery nor admitted that electricity connection bearing K.No.1326654 in the name of M/s. New Bright Hosiery was found installed at the time of inspection on 06.05.1999. He was confronted with Inspection Report prepared at the spot in his presence bearing his signature at point A and denied suggestion that total load found CS DJ No. 13780/16 Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 12 / 16 Digitally signed TARUN by TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30 16:09:55 +0530 connected and running on connection bearing K.No.1326662 was 155.657 KW.
35. DW1 Sh. Mahender Gupta and DW2 Sh. O.P. Singh being members of 'Joint Enforcement Team' on the other hand have deposed about inspection carried at E-41, SMA, GT Karnal Road, Delhi on 06.05.1999 when total load was found connected and running on connection bearing K No.503-1326662 in the name of M/s Ganga Steels while connection bearing KNo.503-1326654 in the name of M/s New Bright Hosiery was lying idle without any load. They have also relied upon Inspection Report, MTD Report(s) and Joint Report referred as Ex. DW1/1 to Ex. DW1/4 in addition to
- (i) letter dated 10.05.1999 verifying handing over photographs to SHO P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi; (ii) complaint dated 06.05.1999 lodged by Sh. D.C Vashisth, the then A.E. Zone for registration of FIR & (iii) seizure-memo of case property prepared on 07.05.1999 referred as Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/3 respectively.
36. Testimony of DW1 and DW2 have remained consistent and nothing material could be elicited during their cross-examination by Ld. counsel for plaintiff which could assail their deposition or impeach its veracity.
37. Inspection Report dated 06.05.1999 referred as Ex.PW1/DX-1 & Ex.DW1/1 would reveal that no load was connected with main station of electricity connection bearing K.No.1326654 in the name of M/s. New Bright Hosiery and entire load was connected and running on electricity connection bearing K.No.503-1326662-IP/U022 in the name of M/s. Ganga Steels.
CS DJ No. 13780/16 Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 13 / 16 Digitally signed TARUN by TARUN
YOGESH
YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30
16:10:01 +0530
38. Similarly, MTD Report referred as Ex.DW1/2 would reveal that all appliances/load were connected with the meter of electricity connection bearing K No. 503-1326662 in the name of M/s Ganga Steels whereas MTD Report referred as Ex.DW1/3 would reveal that no load/appliance was connected with electricity connection bearing K No.503-1326654 in the name of M/s New Bright Hosiery.
39. No evidence has been led by plaintiffs to establish that other connection in the name of M/s New Bright Hosiery was not lying idle and load thereof was indeed being recorded in the meter connected with electricity connection bearing K No.503-1326654.
40. Finding : Issue No.2 is therefore decided against plaintiffs in the absence of cogent evidence verifying their contention about false and fabricated Inspection Report prepared by officials of Delhi Vidyut Board by illegally and wrongly noting combined load 155.67 K.W of electricity connection in the name of - (i) M/s. Ganga Steels AND (ii) M/s. New Bright Hosiery.
41. Issue No.3.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.9,08,044.99/- as prayed for ? (OPP)
42. Advocate Sh. B.P. Aggarwal for plaintiff has relied upon judgments titled (i) Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.; AIR 1967 Supreme Court 349 (ii) M/s. Cycle Equipments (P.) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. AIR 1983 Delhi 94; AND (iii) Modern Terry Towels Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board , Vadodara & Ors.; AIR 2003 Gujarat 63 read with Office Order No. Co.II/P-25/96-97/58 dated 26.02.1997 of 'Delhi CS DJ No. 13780/16 Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 14 / 16 Digitally signed TARUN by TARUN YOGESH YOGESH Date: 2026.01.30 16:10:08 +0530 Electric Supply Undertaking' (DESU) laying 'Guidelines for processing of theft of energy and fraudulent abstraction/tampering cases' for contending that provisions directing - (a) show-cause notice; (b) consideration of reply of the consumer AND (c) personal hearing before approval of competent authority for raising bill was not complied by defendant Delhi Vidyut Board.
43. Next, he has also referred to judgment titled Lalit Gulati vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 176 (2011) DLT 1 passed in Writ Petition (C) 8568/2009 striking down portions of Clauses (1) and (2) of Notification dated 16/19.05.2008 issued by Department of Power, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Notification dated 20.02.2004 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India extending benefit to petitioners/consumers by writing off principal dues against sale of power and waiver of late payment surcharge which was upheld by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPAs titled TPDDL Vs. Guru Darshan Lal Chanana and Ors. assailing impugned order dated 02.12.2010 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and attained finality after dismissal of Special Leave Petition by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.01.2024.
44. Aforesaid judgments were however passed in respect of 'stale claims' for period much earlier than the date of bill and not in case of theft/fraudulent abstraction of energy/tampering cases and are therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case.
45. Finding : Since Issue No.2 assailing Inspection Report dated 06.05.1999 have been decided against plaintiffs so they are not CS DJ No. 13780/16 Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 15 / 16 entitled to recover Rs.9,08,044.99/- against impugned bills. Issue No.3 is therefore decided against plaintiffs.
46. Issues No.4 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest ? If so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP)
47. Finding : Since Issue No.2 & 3 apropos Inspection Report dated 06.05.1999 and Impugned Bill of Rs.9,08,044.99/- have been decided against plaintiffs so they are not entitled to any interest. Issue No.4 is also decided against plaintiffs. Relief
48. Plaintiff's suit for declaration and recovery of Rs.9,08,044.99/- is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
49. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
50. File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by TARUN
on 30.01.2026 TARUN YOGESH
Date:
YOGESH 2026.01.30
16:10:16
+0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
District Judge-13 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS DJ No. 13780/16
Ms Ganga Steels Anr Vs. Delhi Vidyut Board Page No. 16 / 16