GURUGRAM: A civil court on Monday, November 2, 2026, restrained Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam from disconnecting or curtailing electricity to Indiabulls Enigma in Sector 110 over disputed historical dues. The interim protection, reported on November 2 and 3, affects 562 families and requires the residents' association to continue paying current and future monthly consumption charges.

The dispute separates two amounts on the society's electricity account: the current consumption bill, which the association says it has paid, and approximately Rs 50.33 lakh in earlier liabilities. Enigma Residents Welfare Association maintains that the disputed dues relate to a period before management of the complex was handed over to it.

What the court protection covers

Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ayush Garg granted the ad-interim injunction on November 2, according to matching reports of the proceedings. DHBVN was restrained from interrupting the society's supply over the disputed past arrears. The protection addresses the immediate risk of disconnection while the underlying dispute is considered.

The court's reported reasoning focused on the hardship an abrupt interruption could cause to residents, including older people and patients. Electricity was treated as an essential amenity for daily life in the complex. The association sought protection before the defendants had been heard, rather than waiting for service of the proceedings while facing another possible disruption.

The payment condition remains central. Residents' protection depends on the association regularly depositing current and future monthly consumption charges. The reported order does not provide a waiver of ongoing electricity bills, and it should not be read as cancelling the disputed historical liability.

How the billing dispute reached court

According to the association's account of the documents placed before the court, a revised bill received on October 27 combined the current consumption demand with earlier liabilities of more than Rs 50 lakh. The association says the older amount belongs to the period before the residential complex was transferred to residents' management.

The association submitted that it paid Rs 43,45,024 for the current billing cycle through banking channels on October 27. Despite that payment, it said power was briefly disconnected on October 31. Two opened reports place that interruption at roughly three hours. The association alleged that the interruption occurred without the required notice.

Those points are the residents' submissions in a disputed case. The temporary protection does not establish which party must ultimately pay the older dues. Nor does it resolve every issue in the electricity account. The immediate outcome is continuity of supply under the court's payment condition.

  • Society: Indiabulls Enigma, Sector 110.
  • Order date: November 2, 2026.
  • Families covered in the reports: 562.
  • Disputed past dues: approximately Rs 50.33 lakh.
  • Current bill paid, according to the association: Rs 43,45,024.
  • Condition: regular payment of current and future monthly charges.

What remains to be decided

The association's stated request was limited to avoiding disconnection over the historical demand. It was not challenging the technical calculation of the tariff or seeking exemption from actual current consumption charges. That distinction explains why ongoing payments remain part of the protection even as the older demand remains contested.

This report is based on corroborated accounts of the proceedings. The full case order was not available in the official material opened for this report. The District Court Gurugram website provides the official starting point for court order and case status services; the homepage itself is not the November 2 injunction.

For separate local service issues, readers can consult earlier coverage of the power distribution licence proceedings, the earlier distribution licence and switching questions and the AIT Chowk water pipeline repair. These are background reports on other utility matters, rather than rulings in the Enigma billing case.

The statutory notice provision appears in section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, reproduced in the Supreme Court's judgment dated May 19, 2023. It requires at least fifteen clear days of written notice before a licensee cuts supply for non-payment under that section.

Section 56(1) also provides protection against disconnection during a dispute where the consumer deposits money under protest. The specified alternatives are the amount claimed or monthly electricity charges calculated using the average paid over the preceding six months, whichever is less.

Paragraph 121 of that Supreme Court judgment explains that a supplier can pursue both the statutory disconnection remedy and a civil suit for recovery. Paragraph 118 places section 56 within Part VI of the Act, concerning electricity distribution. These provisions form the published statutory framework for non-payment disputes; the earlier judgment concerns separate proceedings from Enigma's November 2 application.