Purnima Saini v. Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & ANR.

$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3826/2024 and CM APPL.18881/2024 (Stay) PURNIMA SAINI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Neeraj Shehar, Mr. Binod Gupta, Ms. Kshama Sharma and Mr. Kartik Kumar, Advs.

versus BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh Ramdurg and Mr.

Yash Srivastava, Advs. for BSES RPL.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 01.04.2024

O R D E R

W.P.(C) 3826/2024 and CM APPL.18881/2024 (Stay) 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 04.03.2024, whereby the respondent no.1 has sought to disconnect the electricity connection of the building (12 metered connection) at property bearing no. A-1/63, 64, near 25 Foot Road, Chanakya Place Part-1, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059. The petitioner also raisesa challenge to the claim of Rs.49,73,058.05, stated to have been asserted by the respondent in the impugned notice. 2.

After some hearing, respective counsel for the parties are in agreement that the disputes between the parties emanate from the covenants contained in the Licence Agreement dated 22.02.2022, executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The terms thereof have been extensively referred to in the show cause notice dated 04.03.2024. 3.

Admittedly, the Licence Agreement between the parties containsa 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 04/04/2024 at 12:02:03

dispute resolution clause in the following terms: "11. In case of any dispute between the parties, the same shall be resolved mutually whereas in case of failure in resolution of dispute by mutual deliberations of parties, the same shall be resolved/ adjudicated by the Sole Arbitrator mutually appointed by die parties. Whereas it isagreed between the parties that die notice/ intimation by the owner of vacation of premises byBRPL and/ or the claim of money qua use of the said premises shall not be accept ed as a point ofdispute before the Arbitration and/ ·or any other Judicial /quasi Judicial forum." 4.

After some hearing, respective counsel for the parties are in agreement that the disputes between the parties are liable to be resolved by taking recourse to the aforesaid disputes resolution clause. 5.

The petitioner, accordingly, seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take appropriate steps seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator and/or seeking appropriate injunctive orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty, as prayed for.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitsthat the without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the respondent shall maintain status quo and refrain from taking any precipitative steps qua the aforesaid electricity connection/s, for a period of three weeks from today, during which period the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the aforesaid remedies. Needless to say, this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the contention/s as may be raised by the petitioner in the proposed proceedings. 8.

The date fixed, 26.04.2024 stands cancelled.

SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 1, 2024/cl 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 04/04/2024 at 12:02:03