Uei Global Education Private Limited vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, UEI Global Education Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking restoration of electricity supply to its premises on the 5th floor of Vikas Surya Shopping Mall, Rohini, Delhi. An interim application also sought access to the mall's terrace for operating air conditioning units. Initially, the Court directed the respondents to restore electricity supply upon the petitioner depositing Rs. 3,70,048/-. The petitioner complied, and electricity was restored. The dispute stemmed from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 for license fees for terrace space for AC units, which included GST. A tax invoice for Rs. 3,70,048/- was raised by respondent no. 3. The petitioner contended the MoU was no longer in existence, but the electricity supply was restored, and the amount was deposited with the Court registry.
Held
The Court directed that the amount of Rs. 3,70,048/-, deposited with the Registry of the Court, along with any accrued interest, be released to respondent no. 3. Consequently, respondent no. 3 was directed to forthwith grant access to the petitioner to the terrace of the building on all working days when the petitioner's institute is open. The Court clarified that this order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, and any dispute regarding amounts payable under the MoU would be subject to arbitration proceedings or other legal recourse. The Court explicitly stated it had not made any finding regarding the entitlement of respondent no. 3 to recover the amount, and all rights and contentions of the parties were left open. The writ petitions and pending application were disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the restoration of electricity supply to the petitioner's premises, considering the dispute over outstanding dues and the existence of an MoU. (Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, and relevant provisions concerning supply of electricity and contractual obligations). 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted access to the terrace for operating its AC units, even if the MoU is disputed, to ensure the usability of its premises. (Principles of natural justice and contractual interpretation). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued for the restoration of electricity and terrace access to enable the use of its premises. They highlighted that the electricity supply was disconnected, impacting their operations. They also stated that the MoU was no longer in existence, implying the basis for the disputed amount was questionable. They relied on the fact that the amount was deposited with the Court registry as a show of good faith. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, particularly respondent no. 3, contended that dues were payable as per the MoU, which included GST. The tax invoice raised by respondent no. 3 formed the basis of the disputed amount. They sought the release of the deposited amount.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
paragraph no. 3 of this order.
It is made clear that if the deposit is not made on or before 02.01.2025, this Court will recall the directions of restoration of electricity on the next date of hearing.
xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied) CONT.CAS(C) 717/2025 & W.P.(C) 18033/2024 6. Subsequently, in the order dated 03rd January, 2025, fact of the petitioner having deposited the said amount of Rs. 3,70,048/- with the Registry of this Court has been recorded. It has further been recorded that the electricity has been restored to the petitioner in compliance to the directions of this Court. The order dated 03rd January, 2025, reads as under:
“1. Pursuant to the previous order dated 30th December 2024, counsel for petitioner states that they have complied with directions given in para 3 of the said order and deposited Rs. 3,70,048/- with the Registry of this Court.
A communication has also been received from UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch stating that the ‘amount has been deposited’.
Counsel for respondent nos. 3-5 appears and states that the electricity has now been restored in compliance of directions of this Court.
Notice be issued to respondent no.2 as well, on steps being taken by petitioner, through all permissible modes including email. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)
This Court notes that a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) dated 16th May, 2023, was entered into between the petitioner and respondent no. 3, which was for a license to use the space situated on the terrace of the said mall for Split AC outdoor units. As per the MoU, the license fees was payable by the petitioner, in the following manner:
License Fees For the Period commencing w.e.f. 01-06-2023 to 31-03-2024, the License Fees shall be Rs. 5,000/- (for 8 units) per month plus GST, as per applicable laws, in advance within 7 days of the start of the respective month w.e.f. the commencement date. In case the License term be extended after the expiry of present license term i.e. after 31/03/2024, the License Fees shall be paid @ Rs. 4000/- per outdoor Unit (eg. 8 units*4000 = Rs. 32000/- plus GST) for next 11 months extended period.
Further, there is an arbitration clause in the said MoU, which reads CONT.CAS(C) 717/2025 & W.P.(C) 18033/2024 as under:
This Court notes that pursuant to this MoU, a tax invoice dated 01st December, 2024, was raised by respondent no. 3, with respect to the dues payable by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,70,048/- only.
Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid tax invoice as raised by respondent no. 3, directions were given by this Court vide order dated 30th December, 2024, to deposit amounts with the Registry of this Court.
This Court further records the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid MoU, is no longer in existence.
Be that as it may, this Court notes that the electricity connection already stands restored to the petitioner. Further, in terms of the directions passed by this Court, the amount of Rs. 3,70,048/-, is lying deposited with the Registry of this Court.
This Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of access to the terrace, even though the electricity connection has been restored to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to use its premises, since the air conditioning facilities are not possible to be maintained or used, without access to the terrace.
Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is directed that amount of Rs. 3,70,048/-, as deposited with the Registry of this Court, along with any interest that has accrued, be released to respondent no.
The respondent no. 3 is directed to approach the CONT.CAS(C) 717/2025 & W.P.(C) 18033/2024 Registry of this Court for the purpose of release of the aforesaid amount through itself or through its authorized representative. The Registry of this Court, upon the respondent no. 3 filing an application in that regard, shall release the aforesaid amount, along with any accrued interest, in favour of respondent no. 3. 15. In view of the aforesaid direction being made by this Court, it is directed that respondent no. 3 shall forthwith grant access to the petitioner to the terrace of the building in question, i.e., Vikas Surya Shopping Mall, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi-110085, on all working days, when the institute of the petitioner is open.
Accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed in the present matters.
It is clarified that the present order is being passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
In case of any dispute between the parties with respect to the aforesaid MoU, including, with respect to any amounts which are due and payable by the petitioner, the parties are at liberty to invoke arbitration in terms of the aforesaid clause of the MoU.
It is further clarified that this Court has not given any finding as regards the entitlement of respondent no. 3, to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,70,048/-, which has been directed to be released to respondent no. 3, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
Any dispute with regard to the amounts payable by the petitioner under the aforesaid MoU, shall be subject to any order/directions passed in the arbitration proceedings or any other proceedings between the parties. CONT.CAS(C) 717/2025 & W.P.(C) 18033/2024 21. With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions, along with pending application, are disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 12, 2025/au
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.