Ndpl vs Ganga Plastic
2011 Latest Caselaw 4782 Del

12
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                    +       RFA No.515/2009

%                          Date of decision: 26th September, 2011.

      NDPL                                         ..... Appellant
                        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

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may              NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?             NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                     NO
        reported in the Digest?

                        JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this case

needs to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for a

finding on the plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction raised by the

appellant.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. LCR be returned back immediately through a special

messenger.

8. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsels for

both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 mk