Tapas Kumar Sahoo vs Dr. N. Kalaiselvi and Ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 21, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1272393

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1272393
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice C.Hari Shankar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Decided On: May 21, 2026
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C)/1644/2025
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Tapas Kumar Sahoo

Advocate Mr. Akshay Saxena, Mr. Anurag Soan

Respondent

Dr. N. Kalaiselvi and Ors

Advocate Mr. Santosh Hegde, Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, Mr. Mangesh Naik

Excerpt

* in the high court of delhi at new delhi+ cont.cas(c) 1644/2025 tapas kumar sahoo .....petitioner through: mr. akshay saxena and mr. anurag soan, advocatesversusdr. n. kalaiselvi and ors .....respondents through: mr. santosh hegde sr adv with mr v. s. r. krishna and mr. mangesh naik, advs.coram:hon'ble mr. justice c. hari shankarhon'ble mr. justice om prakash shuklajudgment (oral)% 21.05.20261. mr. saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits thatthough oms have been issued, making payments to the petitioners in terms of the orders passed by the tribunal and the order passed by this court on 28 april 2026, they incorporate the requirement of an undertaking by the petitioners to return the amounts in the case of adverse order in the writ petitions along with interest. he submits that the respondents could not have incorporated a requirement of payment of interest when there was no such permission granted by the tribunal or by this court.cont.cas(c) 1644/2025 page 1 of 22. mr. hedge, learned senior counsel for the respondentsundertakes for the present, not to press the covenant requiring payment of interest on the amounts which have been disbursed by the impugned orders, in the event of an adverse order in the writ petitions, but reserves his right to move the court for permission to incorporate such a clause.3. reserving right as aforesaid, in view of the statement made by mr. hedge, there is no purpose in continuing with this contempt petition.4. the contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.5. however, liberty would remain reserved with the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in case they are aggrieved by the amounts disbursed.om prakash shukla, j.may 21, 2026/yg cont.cas(c) 1644/2025 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1644/2025 TAPAS KUMAR SAHOO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshay Saxena and Mr. Anurag Soan, Advocates
versus
DR. N. KALAISELVI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Hegde Sr Adv with Mr V. S. R. Krishna and Mr. Mangesh Naik, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 21.05.2026

1. Mr. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that

though OMs have been issued, making payments to the petitioners in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the order passed by this Court on 28 April 2026, they incorporate the requirement of an undertaking by the petitioners to return the amounts in the case of adverse order in the writ petitions along with interest. He submits that the respondents could not have incorporated a requirement of payment of interest when there was no such permission granted by the Tribunal or by this Court.

CONT.CAS(C) 1644/2025 Page 1 of 2

2. Mr. Hedge, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents

undertakes for the present, not to press the covenant requiring payment of interest on the amounts which have been disbursed by the impugned orders, in the event of an adverse order in the writ petitions, but reserves his right to move the Court for permission to incorporate such a clause.

3. Reserving right as aforesaid, in view of the statement made by Mr. Hedge, there is no purpose in continuing with this contempt petition.

4. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

5. However, liberty would remain reserved with the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in case they are aggrieved by the amounts disbursed.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

MAY 21, 2026/yg CONT.CAS(C) 1644/2025 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Tapas Kumar Sahoo vs Dr. N. Kalaiselvi and Ors Same Subject Education Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice C.Hari Shankar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Om Pra...