Tapas Kumar Sahoo vs Dr. N. Kalaiselvi and Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1272393
SubjectEducation
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnMay-21-2026
Case NumberCONT.CAS(C)/1644/2025
JudgeHon'Ble Mr. Justice C.Hari Shankar,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
AppellantTapas Kumar Sahoo
RespondentDr. N. Kalaiselvi and Ors
Appellant AdvocateMr. Akshay Saxena, Mr. Anurag Soan
Respondent AdvocateMr. 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
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