- (1.) The plaintiff is in Second Appeal assailing the judgments and decrees dated 19.5.1997 and 27.1.2000 passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from recovering the penalty of Rs. 47343.20. The averments made by the appellant in the plaint were that it was a consumer of electricity having a sanctioned load of 19.342 KW. in the hotel premises run by it. The appellant was also having a sister concern by the name of Ajit Theatres, Gurgaon. A dispute had arisen between this sister concern of the appellant and the respondent on the issue of payment of electricity charges bills which were inflated. A demand of Rs. 2,60,000/- had been raised on M/S Ajit Theatres by the respondent and this was questioned by the former in a suit filed on 8.7.1991. A compromise was effected in the said suit and the respondent had agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as against the original demand raised by it. On 25.7.1991, Assistant Director and the Director of the Vigilance Branch of the respondent conducted a raid on the hotel premises of the appellant and prepared a report showing that the appellant was utilising a load of 78.5 Kws against the sanctioned capacity of 19.342 Kws. A penalty of Rs. 47343.20 was imposed on account of this alleged mal practice being indulged by the appellant and this action was assailed by the appellant by virtue of a civil suit in which it prayed that the respondent be restrained from effecting recovery of the penalty amount and from disconnecting the supply of electricity to its premises.
(2.) One of the grounds on which the imposition of penalty was challenged was that the appellant himself had applied for enlargement of the sanctioned load and that the test report had been submitted and the matter regarding the sanctioning of the increased load was pending with the respondent when the raid was actually conducted.
(3.) The respondent resisted the suit of the appellant and stated that the Director, Vigilance of the Board along with other two officials based at Gurgaon checked the premises of the appellant and found the connected load of 78.5 Kws against the sanctioned load of 19.342 KWs and, therefore, justified the imposition of penalty of Rs. 47343.20. It was contended that the appellant was charged double tariff on its monthly consumption for the last six months prior to 25.7.1991 as per the sale circular which was prevalent at that point of time. The averments regarding mala fides were specifically denied.;