N.N.Mithal, J. - (1.) THE present revision is directed against the order passed by the court below rejecting the plaintiffs application for issue of temporary injunction in the proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff entered into a special agreement with the U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 26-9-1979 for supply of electricity to its Roller Flour Mill. A sum of Rs. 55,100/- was deposited as security and the Board in pursuance of the agreement installed a meter for indicating units of electric power consumed, No other meter for indicating the maximum demand was, however, installed in the premises at that time. In the agreement one of the terms thereof related to settlement of disputes of certain nature through arbitration. THE revisionist continued to pay all the charges in respect of the units consumed by it up to Apr. 1979 in accordance with the readings recorded by the meter. However, on 17-4-1979 the applicant received a bill for Rs. 7429-13P pertaining to the period from January, 76 to August, 77. Although the correctness and legality of this demand was disputed by the revisionist the money claimed in the bill was paid under protest on 1-5-79. In the month of April, with the permission of the authorities concerned, the flour mill in question was shifted from Dehradun to Agra. On 30th May, 1979 therefore a written request was made to the Board to disconnect the supply. It was so actually disconnected on 24-6-79. In the mean time, another bill for Rs. 4684/-for the period from September, 77 to December, 78 was received and this too was paid by the revisionist under protest, Since the rolling flour mill units had been discontinued at Dehradun and all the bills sent to the revisionist already stood paid up, a request was made to get refund of Rs. 55,100/- deposited with the Board by way of security. It appears that simultaneously the revisionist had also approached the higher authorities seeking direction for getting refund of its security deposit (See Annexure 16, letter of Chief Secretary of the Electricity Board) due to which the local staff got annoyed This immediately resulted in two bills one for Rs. 92891/-for the period from 1-1-76 to April, 78 and the other for Rs. 28243-20 P for the period from 31st May, 79 to 12-7-79 being served on the revisionist on 1-9-79. It is alleged that this action of the Board was mala fide as the second bill was obviously wrong in as much as the roller flour mill unit of the revisionist itself had been closed down and shifted in April, 79 and the electricity supply had also been actually disconnected on 24-6-79 (Annexure 15 dated 2-7-79) yet the second bill covered a period even subsequent to the date of such disconnection. These bills were followed by a notice of demand under Section 3 of U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act 1958 (herein-after referred to as Dues Recovery Act) demanding payment of Rs. 73,004.33 P. after making an adjustment of the security amount of Rs. 55,100/-.
(3.) SINCE correctness of this demand was disputed the revisionist moved .an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act alleging that dispute had arisen between the parties to the agreement which are covered by the arbitration clause and prayed that the matter may be referred to arbitration. Simultaneously, he moved an application for issue of a temporary injunction also under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act against the board restraining it from realising the amount in question as arrears of land revenue. This application was contested on behalf of the Board mainly on the ground that after a notice under Section 3 of the Dues Recovery Act had been served, the only way for revisionist to get any relief was to deposit the claimed amount first and then to file a suit for its refund from the Board. SINCE in this case, the money mentioned in the notice had not been deposited, it was contended that the application was not maintainable. It was further stated that Revenue/Recovery Act, 1890 and U. P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 also barred the suit.;