DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. PARAMOUNT POLYMERS PVT LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 19,2006
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
PARAMOUNT POLYMERS PVT. LTD.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ISHA MARBLES BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD:WAXPOL INDUSTRIES:SUMAN PACKAGING P LTD [REFERRED TO]HYDERABAD VANASPATHI LIMITED VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BIPIN LAXMANBHAI KATHIRIYA VS. GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-259] [REFERRED TO]M P PASCHIM VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY LTD VS. ELECTRICITY CONSUMER GRIEANCES REDRESSAL FORUM [LAWS(MPH)-2009-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
VENUS REAL CON LLP VS. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2021-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
SARAVANA GLOBAL ENERGY LIMITED VS. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-253] [REFERRED TO]
KADHARIYA ORIENTAL NURSERY AND PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ORS. VS. TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-380] [REFERRED TO]
K C NINAN VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLIVITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. EXCEL BUILDCON (PRIVATE) LTD [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-166] [REFERRED TO]
PHIROJA VINIMOY PVT LTD VS. WESTERN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY OF ORISSA LTD [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
CARBON RESOURCES PVT LTD VS. ASSAM ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(GAU)-2010-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAKSHMI IRON INDUSTRIES LTD VS. CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO OF A P LTD [LAWS(APH)-2014-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
CLASSIC DEVELOPERS BANGALORE REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SUSHIL MANTRI VS. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2011-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH PAPER MILL PVT LTD VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR [LAWS(ORI)-2010-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
BEEGEE FORGE VS. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-364] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL OFFICER COMMERCE NESCO VS. RAGHUNATH PAPER MILLS PVT LTD [LAWS(ORI)-2010-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. ANNAMALAI COTTON MILLS P LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-248] [REFERRED TO]
AKANKSHA INTERNATIONAL VS. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VS. SRIGDHAA BEVERAGES [LAWS(SC)-2020-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
M/S S.N. BAJAJ ALLOYS VS. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-203] [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. PREM KUMAR NARANG AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-528] [REFERRED TO]
G.NAGENDRAN VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICIY BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. VS. AMARDEEP ASSOCIATION [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-62] [REFERRED TO]
TORRENT POWER LIMITED VS. ABHISAR DEVELOPERS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED VS. MAHESHWARI STEELS [LAWS(CHH)-2021-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE KRISHNA PAPER MILLS VS. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2009-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY BALVANTRAI DESAI VS. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI SOMNATHBHAI SUTHAR PROPRIETOR OF GSP INDUSTRIAL VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI SOMNATHBHAI SUTHAR PROPRIETOR OF GSP INDUSTRIAL VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-242] [REFERRED TO]
KOLMET BUILDERS VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
ANAMALAI PAPER MILLS PVT., LTD VS. TAMIL NADU GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
SPRAY ENGINEERING SUGARS LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, PATIALA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-1-633] [REFERRED]
ANSHUMAN BEHERA VS. ORRISA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(ORI)-2009-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISAR DEVELOPERS VS. TORRENT POWER LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
HOTEL SATYAKETU VS. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
SAMBHAJI MAHARAJ SPINNING MILL PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COOPERATION & TEXTILE DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA STATE, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-188] [REFERRED TO]
SPS TUBE INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-3-650] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS. SHREE RAMDOOT ROLLERS PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2020-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LTD VS. SALASAR IRON SYNDICATE LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-14] [REFERRED TO]
GAMPA SRINIVAS VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. HANUMAN RICE MILLS [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHANA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS. M P PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN COMPANY LTD [LAWS(MPH)-2009-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
AGARWAL STRIPS PVT LTD VS. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ELCT CESCO [LAWS(ORI)-2010-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI SOMNATHBHAI SUTHAR PROPRIETOR GSP INDUSTRIAL VS. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2011-12-262] [REFERRED TO]
RAYANA PAPER BOARD INDUSTRIES LTD VS. U P POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
JS FURNISHING PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-181] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD VS. SHYAMAL CHANDRA DEBNATH [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
HMINGDAILOVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2008-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. was a consumer of electricity from the appellant, a distributing company established in the place of the State Electricity Board. It allegedly fell into arrears to the tune of Rs.64,23,695/- towards consumption charges of electrical energy including interest and other incidental charges. Because of the failure to pay the consumption charges, the power to the undertaking was disconnected on 6.4.1998. M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. had also borrowed amounts from the Haryana Financial Corporation and had mortgaged the undertaking to the Financial Corporation. In exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the undertaking was taken over by the Financial Corporation and advertised for sale. In the advertisement, the undertaking was offered for sale on "as is where is basis". The first respondent herein bid the undertaking and its bid was accepted. Possession was given by the Financial Corporation to the first respondent on 22.4.1999.
(3.)On 27.11.2001, the appellant- Company decided to incorporate a term in the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical energy by providing that in cases where a consumer had defaulted in paying electrical charges and there had been a consequent disconnection of supply, no fresh connection in respect of the premises would be given to a purchaser unless the purchaser cleared the amount that was left in arrears by the consumer whose undertaking had been purchased. It is seen that the first respondent applied for a connection on 1.1.2002. The appellant- Company took the stand that unless the first respondent paid the amount outstanding against M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd., the prior consumer, no fresh connection could be given to the first respondent. Since the first respondent was not willing to comply, the application of the first respondent was rejected. The first respondent thereupon filed a suit, Civil Suit No. 23 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, seeking to restrain the appellant- Company from interfering with the use of generators by the first respondent for generating electricity for its use and for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant- Company to give a fresh electric connection to the first respondent without insisting on the clearing of the dues of the prior owner of the premises. Even while the suit was pending, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition, Civil Writ Petition No. 5350 of 2002 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the circular dated 27.11.2001 introducing a condition for fresh connection only on payment of the dues of the previous consumer of electricity in the premises concerned, for a writ of prohibition restraining the appellant from removing the generators installed by the first respondent in the premises, for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to provide electric connection temporarily to enable the first respondent to run its factory during the pendency of the Writ Petition and for other incidental reliefs. The scrutiny of the prayers made in the Writ Petition shows that there was no prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant- Company to provide a permanent electric connection to the first respondent. The appellant resisted the Writ Petition submitting that the first respondent having already approached the Civil Court for relief, the Writ Petition was not maintainable. It was further contended that the Circular dated 27.11.2001 sought to be challenged in the Writ Petition was issued in exercise of power under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 by the competent authority thereunder and that incorporation of such a condition in the Terms and Conditions of Supply was statutory in nature and was perfectly valid. It was also pleaded that the fact that a substantial amount was due to the appellant from M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. was brought to the notice of the Financial Corporation and a request was made that the amount of Rs.60,48,504/- should also be recovered when the sale was effected by it. The sale by the Financial Corporation was on "as is where is basis" and hence the first respondent was liable for the dues run up in respect of the premises by the prior consumer. It was submitted that there was no merit in the Writ Petition and it was liable to be dismissed.
(2.)M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. was a consumer of electricity from the appellant, a distributing company established in the place of the State Electricity Board. It allegedly fell into arrears to the tune of Rs.64,23,695/- towards consumption charges of electrical energy including interest and other incidental charges. Because of the failure to pay the consumption charges, the power to the undertaking was disconnected on 6.4.1998. M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. had also borrowed amounts from the Haryana Financial Corporation and had mortgaged the undertaking to the Financial Corporation. In exercise of power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the undertaking was taken over by the Financial Corporation and advertised for sale. In the advertisement, the undertaking was offered for sale on "as is where is basis". The first respondent herein bid the undertaking and its bid was accepted. Possession was given by the Financial Corporation to the first respondent on 22.4.1999.
(3.)On 27.11.2001, the appellant- Company decided to incorporate a term in the Terms and Conditions of Supply of electrical energy by providing that in cases where a consumer had defaulted in paying electrical charges and there had been a consequent disconnection of supply, no fresh connection in respect of the premises would be given to a purchaser unless the purchaser cleared the amount that was left in arrears by the consumer whose undertaking had been purchased. It is seen that the first respondent applied for a connection on 1.1.2002. The appellant- Company took the stand that unless the first respondent paid the amount outstanding against M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd., the prior consumer, no fresh connection could be given to the first respondent. Since the first respondent was not willing to comply, the application of the first respondent was rejected. The first respondent thereupon filed a suit, Civil Suit No. 23 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, seeking to restrain the appellant- Company from interfering with the use of generators by the first respondent for generating electricity for its use and for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant- Company to give a fresh electric connection to the first respondent without insisting on the clearing of the dues of the prior owner of the premises. Even while the suit was pending, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition, Civil Writ Petition No. 5350 of 2002 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the circular dated 27.11.2001 introducing a condition for fresh connection only on payment of the dues of the previous consumer of electricity in the premises concerned, for a writ of prohibition restraining the appellant from removing the generators installed by the first respondent in the premises, for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to provide electric connection temporarily to enable the first respondent to run its factory during the pendency of the Writ Petition and for other incidental reliefs. The scrutiny of the prayers made in the Writ Petition shows that there was no prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the appellant- Company to provide a permanent electric connection to the first respondent. The appellant resisted the Writ Petition submitting that the first respondent having already approached the Civil Court for relief, the Writ Petition was not maintainable. It was further contended that the Circular dated 27.11.2001 sought to be challenged in the Writ Petition was issued in exercise of power under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 by the competent authority thereunder and that incorporation of such a condition in the Terms and Conditions of Supply was statutory in nature and was perfectly valid. It was also pleaded that the fact that a substantial amount was due to the appellant from M/s L.L.C. Steels Pvt. Ltd. was brought to the notice of the Financial Corporation and a request was made that the amount of Rs.60,48,504/- should also be recovered when the sale was effected by it. The sale by the Financial Corporation was on "as is where is basis" and hence the first respondent was liable for the dues run up in respect of the premises by the prior consumer. It was submitted that there was no merit in the Writ Petition and it was liable to be dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.