LPA 607/2026 $~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010355212026 + LPA 607/2026 & CM APPL. 51094/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Swastika Kumari, Ms. Aakanksha Nehra, Mr. Mayank Biyani, Ms. Sanya Mann & Ms. Tanishka, Advs. Versus DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Priyankar Tiwari, Ms. Diksha Punia & Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Advs. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 05.08.2026 CM No.51093/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. CM No.51095/2026 3. The Appellant has filed the present Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of delay of 84 days in re-filing the present Appeal. 4. Having regard to the averments made in the Application, the prayer made therein is allowed and the delay in re-filing the present Appeal is condoned. 5. The Application stands disposed of. This is a digitally signed order. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:44:24 LPA 607/2026 LPA 607/2026 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 assisted by Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Advocate. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in the Judgment dated 28.03.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17743/2025 (“Writ Petition”) it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that it will be open for the Appellant to avail any other remedy which may be available under law on the ground that the relief sought in the Writ Petition could not be granted in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, there are certain observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment which may come in the way of the Appellant in case the Appellant institute any proceedings before the competent court / forum. 8. Our attention in this regard has been drawn to observations made in Paragraph Nos.19 to 25 and Paragraph No.28 of the Impugned Judgment. In this view of the matter, it has been submitted that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the said paragraphs in the Impugned Judgment have the potential of prejudicing the proceedings, if the same are instituted by the Appellant seeking quashing of the Cancellation Order dated 12.11.2025. Thus, a prayer has been made that it may be directed that in case the Appellant take recourse to any other remedy available to it under law, such proceedings shall be considered and decided without being influenced by any observations made in the Impugned Judgment. This is a digitally signed order. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:44:24 LPA 607/2026 9. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1, however, argued that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment were invited by the Appellant itself and the same merely reiterate the legal position and, therefore, the prayer made by the Appellant need not be acceded to. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the opinion that since the relief which was sought by the Appellant in the proceedings of the Writ Petition has been denied only on the count that such relief was impermissible to be granted in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and accordingly, the Appellant ought to invoke other remedies, it was unnecessary for the learned Single Judge to make any observations either on facts or on law. The observations made may pertain to reiteration of legal position or otherwise and which may be correct / incorrect, however, once the Appellant is being relegated to seek any other remedy, such observations may have the potential of causing some kind of prejudice to the Parties in the proceedings which may be instituted by the Appellant. 11. Accordingly, we clarify that in case the Appellant seeks redressal of its grievance by instituting any other proceedings before any other court / forum against the cancellation order dated 12.11.2025, such proceedings shall be entertained by the court / forum concerned without being influenced in any manner by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order dated 28.03.2026. We may also observe that it will always be open to either Parties to take all grounds and make all contentions which may be available to them under law in case any proceedings are instituted by the Appellant. This is a digitally signed order. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:44:24 LPA 607/2026 12. The Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J AUGUST 5, 2026 ‘gsr’ This is a digitally signed order. 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 07/08/2026 at 11:44:24