[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

M/S Techno Electric & Engg. Co. Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 March, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

                                                     2026:JHHC:7628-DB



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          Cont. Case (Cvl.) No.150 of 2024
                              ------

M/s Techno Electric & Engg. Co. Ltd., a Company within the meaning of section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013, having its Registered Office at C-218, Ground Floor (GR-1), Sector-63, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and its Unit at 415/2, 4th floor, "Saffron Enclave" Motorola Building, M.G. Road, Sector-14, Gurugram- 122001 (Haryana) through its President (Business Development), Electrical cum Authorised Signatory Sheikh Anoar Ali, son of Sheikh Golum Murshed, aged about 57 years, resident of Sherwood Estate, 169 N S C Bose Road, Block-H, Lobby-2, Flat-1E, Rajpur Sonarpur (M), South 24 Parganas, Narendrapur, West Bengal, P.O. Narendrapur, P.S. South 24 Parganas, Town & District-Kolkata, West Bengal .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Avinash Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having his place of business at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand.

3. Theophil Kullu, Finance Controller, JBVNL, having its office at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. ..... .... Opp. Parties With Cont. Case (Cvl.) No.152 of 2024

------

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

(M), South 24 Parganas, Narendrapur, West Bengal, P.O. Narendrapur, P.S. South 24 Parganas, Town & District-Kolkata, West Bengal .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Avinash Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having his place of business at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand.

------

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Avinash Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having his place of business at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand.

3. Theophil Kullu, Finance Controller, JBVNL, having its office at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. ..... .... Opp. Parties

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

With Cont. Case (Cvl.) No.154 of 2024

------

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Avinash Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, having his place of business at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand.

3. Theophil Kullu, Finance Controller, JBVNL, having its office at Engineers Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. ..... .... Opp. Parties

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate (In all the cases) For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. S.C. Mr. Srikant Swaroop, A.C. to Sr. S.C. Ms. Aditi Raj, A.C. to Sr. S.C.

------

14/Dated: 19.03.2026

1. The instant contempt cases have been filed against the opposite

parties for alleged, willful and deliberate non-compliance of the

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

common order dated 26.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(T)

No.4904 of 2022 and analogous cases.

2. Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all

the cases, has submitted that this Court while passing the order

dated 26.07.2023, which is the subject matter of the present

contempt cases, has remitted the matter back to the respondent-

JBVNL, opposite party herein, to calculate and pay the withheld

amount which has been deducted from various bills of the

petitioner since September, 2019 till the date of actual payment as

the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of GST along with

statutory interest in terms of the GST Act, 2017 read with the

Rules framed thereunder. The said exercise was directed to be

completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of

receipt/production of copy of the order.

3. It has been submitted that the order when was not complied with,

these contempt cases have been filed.

4. He has drawn the attention towards the various orders passed in

the present contempt proceeding.

5. The submission has been made that in pursuant to the orders

passed by this Court in the present contempt proceeding, an

amount of Rs.30.80 crores has been paid.

6. The submission has also been made that the petitioner is entitled

for an amount of Rs.52 crores and more, as per the pleading

made in the writ petition, but the entire amount has not been paid,

rather, without showing any basis of calculation of an amount of

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

Rs.30.80 crores, the said amount has been paid.

7. It has been submitted that the petitioners since are entitled for

more amount and as such, at least, the opposite parties ought to

have come out with the calculation chart justifying the entitlement

of the petitioners of an amount of Rs.30.80 crores.

8. Mr. Nitin Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the

above, has submitted that the order, therefore, has not been

complied with.

9. While on the other hand, Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.

appearing for the opposite parties has submitted by referring to

the show cause notice filed on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and

3 that the amount, as per the entitlement, has already been paid.

10. It has been submitted by referring to the order passed by the

writ court that the matter was remitted back to the respondent-

JBVNL to calculate and pay the withheld amount which has been

deducted from various bills of the petitioner since September,

2019 till the date of actual payment as the petitioner is entitled for

reimbursement of GST along with statutory interest in terms of the

GST Act, 2017 read with Rules framed thereunder.

11. It has been submitted that the said order has been carried out

after taking into consideration the entitlement of the amount and

even the petitioner has been requested to come with the

document but, on one pretext or the other, the relevant document

which has been made basis of amount more than the amount

which has been paid, i.e., 30.80 crores has not been produced

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

before the authority.

12. The submission has been made that the petitioner has been

held entitled for an amount of Rs.30.80 crores and for the same,

the detailed calculation has been furnished, as available in tabular

chart, appended as Annexure-B to the show cause notice dated

17.02.2026.

13. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. S.C. for the opposite parties has

further submitted that since, there is no specific command by the

writ court, rather, the matter was remitted before the authority to

decide the issue of entitlement of quantum of amount and the

same has already been decided and as such, it is incorrect on the

part of the petitioner to claim that the order has not been complied

with.

14. He has further submitted that the order since has substantially

been complied with and as such, the present contempt cases are

not fit to be proceeded.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

16. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at

length, thought it proper first to refer the order passed by the writ

court, which is the subject matter of the present contempt case,

for ready reference, the operative part of the said order, as

available at paragraph-16 thereof, is being quoted as under: -

"16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled proposition of law we are of the considered opinion that the respondents were not justified in withholding the amount of GST impact and the same is arbitrary, violative and against their own terms of agreement.

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

Consequently, we hold that in view of introduction of GST during the continuance of the ongoing contract, the liability to pay GST shall be that of the Respondent JBVNL in terms of the amended work order incorporating the impact of GST.

Hence, the matter is remitted back to the Respondent JBVNL to calculate and pay the withheld amount which has been deducted from various bills of the petitioner since September, 2019 till the date of actual payment as the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of GST along with statutory interest in terms of the GST Act, 2017 read with the Rules framed thereunder.

It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order."

17. It is evident from the aforesaid order that after referring the

factual aspects, the matter was remitted back to the respondent

JBVNL to calculate the withheld amount.

18. It is, thus, evident that there is no mandamus issued by the

State holding the writ petitioner entitled for certain amount, rather,

it has been left upon the respondent-JBVNL itself and due to that

reason, the matter has been remitted. The respondent-JBVNL has

decided the issue by holding the writ petitioner entitled for an

amount of Rs.30.80 crores. The writ petitioner, however, is not

satisfied with the said calculation of an amount of Rs.30.80

crores.

19. The grievance of the writ petitioner as has been referred

hereinabove that he is entitled for more amount, which according

to the petitioner is based upon deduction already made, which

would be evident from the various bills.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has insisted upon

this Court to issue further direction to hold the writ petitioner

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

entitled for further more amount.

21. This Court is conscious that the power conferred to this Court

to initiate the proceeding for contempt is under Article 215 of the

Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

22. Article 215 of the Constitution of India, is to be exercised by

the High Court, being the Court of record, but the procedure,

since, has not been available under Article 215 of the Constitution

of India, for which, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been

enacted.

23. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 contains the definition of the

word 'civil contempt' as under Section 2(b) thereof, which is being

quoted as under:-

"2.(b) civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court."

24. The word 'willful and deliberate non-compliance is the core of

the issue for the purpose of the High Court, in exercise of power

conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with

the relevant provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971, by which, the power is to be exercised by the

High Court to initiate a proceeding for contempt.

25. This Court is of the view that when the writ court has passed

an order remitting the matter before the JBVNL to decide the

claim of the writ petitioner which has been decided by holding the

2026:JHHC:7628-DB

writ petitioner entitled for an amount of Rs.30.80 crores and as

such, in absence of any specific adjudication by the writ court, it