D. P. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) The controversy raised in these appeals relates to the validity of appointment of arbitrator by the Banaras Electric Light and Power Company Ltd. (for short 'the company'), respondent herein. The High Court of Calcutta having upheld the appointment made by the company and extended the time for submission of award, repelling the objections raised by the U. P. State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'), the Board filed these appeals assailing the judgment of the High Court.
(2.) The short resume of the facts of the case relevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy may be stated thus : The appellant Board, in exercise of its power under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short '1910 Act') purchased the undertaking of the respondent company. Certain disputes having arisen regarding the mode of assessment of the purchase money to be paid by the Board to the company, the company appointed an arbitrator purportedly under Section 52 of the 1910 Act. The objection raised by the Board against such appointment was based on the amendments introduced in the 1910 Act by the Indian Electricity (U. P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Amendment and Validation Act'). It was the contention of the Board that in view of the specific provisions made in Section 7-A (6) of the 1910 Act the Special Officer appointed by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh alone has the jurisdiction to assess the net amount payable to the Company as purchase money. The Special Officer was to make the assessment in accordance with the provisions in Section 7-AA of the Amendment and Validation Act. It was the further contention of the Board that in view of such specific statutory provisions in the Amendment and Validation Act, it was not open to the company to appoint the arbitrator under Section 52 of the 1910 Act. It may be relevant to state here that the core controversy between the parties was whether the purchase price payable to the company was to be assessed on the basis of market value of the undertaking on the date of takeover as contended by the company or the assessment was to be made on the basis of book-value of the undertaking as it was contended by the Board.
(3.) A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of U. P. State Electricity Board vs. Upper Jamuna Valley Electricity Company Ltd., AIR 1988 Calcutta 336, had declared the Amendment and Validating Acts as unconstitutional being discriminatory and violative of Articles 19(1)(f), 31 and 14. The High Court had held that the price had to be paid as per market value prevailing on the date of taking over of the undertaking.;