- (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revisions No. 2746, 2747 and 3104 of 198? and Civil Revisions No. 2689 and 1556 of i988.
(2.) THE respondent-Messrs hanu Steels Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the applicants') filed an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act (for short 'the Ace') against the petitioner- Haryana State Electricity Board (for short 'the respondents') for direction to file the arbitration agreement in Court and refer the dispute to the arbitrator for decision. The dispute was regarding correction on energy bills drawn up on the basis of fast running electric meters installed in the factory of the applicants having account No. LS 2 ' It was alleged that the electric meter supplied by the respondents had been running very fast as compared to the actual energy consumption. The defect was dejected on receipt of exhorbitant highly excessive bills. A complaint was made to the respondents on October 24, 1985 for testing the meter. The respondents did not take any prompt action in fixing the test meter and even after fixing the same it did not inform the applicants' of the test meter and continued to send bills on the basis of the consumption shown by defective meter. After detection that the meter was running fast, the respondent did not correct the energy bill despite requests made vide letters date December 24, i985, January 24, 1986, June 25, 1986, July 17, 1986 and July 18, 1986. The respondents sent intimation vide letter July 23, 198 that the meter had been got checked from the Executive Engineer (Mandp) Hissar and the basis of the result declared by him in February. 1986, proposal for over-hauling the accounts of the applicants had been sent to the higher authorities for decision. The letter indicated that excessive billing due to the defective meter was to the tune of 8,00,000/- The applicants asked the respondents to intimate the result of checking of the meter and the test percentage of fast running So that the applicants may deposit the actual amount due to the respondents, but the latter had not yet intimated the result of the test report and instead were pressing the applicants to deposit the amount of energy bills as per the reading of the defective meter. The applicants maintained that the respondents were not legally entitled to claim the excessive energy bills from the applicants although they bad been depositing the amount of excessive bills under threat of disconnection. The threat was conveyed vide letter dated February, 27, 1987 It was also alleged that the respondents had been adding surcharge @ 2% on the amount not due and the same was illegal The arbitration agreement arrived at between the parties provides for reference for dispute to the Arbitrator for decision. The applicants sought the intervention of the Court for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator since the respondents had failed to refer the dispute as enjoined by the arbitration agreement. Along with the application under Section 20 of the Act, application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, filed for temporary injunction for restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electric connection till settlement of the dispute.
(3.) THE respondents controverted the allegations made and pleaded that the meters were replaced on November 29, 1985 and January 30, 1986 and unless there was a decision of the competent authority to the contrary the consumption of the electricity recorded by the meter treated as conclusive. After the meters had been changed, there was n dispute and the applicants had paid the old bills and there was no dispute with regard to the payment of Rs. 29,60,476. 12 P. which relates to the period October 1986 to March, 1987. It was maintained that the applicants had neglected to pay the arrears of electricity bills and the supply of electric energy was liable to be stopped. The arbitration agreement was duly executed between the parties, but there was no dispute requiring reference to the Arbitrator.;