BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. KALYANPUR LIME AND CEMENT WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision directed against an order of injunction passed against the petitioners as also rejecting an application by the petitioners for amendment of the valuation given by the opposite party.

(2.) The application arises out of a proceeding under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It appears that there was an agreement between the parties for supply of electrical energy to the opposite party which is a company carrying on business of manufacture of lime and cement at its factory at Banjari (hereinafter called 'the company'). Such an agreement was executed in the year 1962. According to the petitioners there was another agreement in the year 1966 superseding the earlier agreement of 1962. The earliest agreement is said to have contained a clause to refer to arbitration disputes arising in regard to any matter arising out of or in connection with the agreement. According to petitioners, in the later agreement of 1966 this clause was omitted. The company, in its application, made out a case that they "had to stop the work of production from time to ' time due to the trippings and low voltage and has suffered damage to the extent of Rs. 14,58 lacs besides excess payment to the extent of Rs. 6,05.562 upto July, 1970, towards maximum demand charges." The amount of damages for the subsequent period were said to be under preparation It is further said "that the trippings aforesaid resulting in the dimunition of supply causing dimunition of voltage and resulting in the stoppage of factory machines and work, was all due to the bad working of the defendant's maintenance staff and improper maintenance of transmission lines and sub-station as well as incapacity and inability to generate sufficient quantity of electrical energy for the requirements of its consumers" It was said again that these were not covered by a clause in the agreement which provides that the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board') would not be responsible for any interruption or dimunition or stoppage of the supply due to lock outs, strikes, breakdown of machinery or plant, flood or other'force ma jure' or other causes beyond the control of the Board. The company also based its claim for arbitration on the provisions of Section 52 of the Electricity Act, 1910 which provides that all cases of disputes or differences relating to losses or damages arising between the consumer and the licensee will have to be decided by arbitration, which are said to have been incorporated in the agreement of 1962. The company further stated that its effect to get the matter referred to arbitration failed because of the non-compliance by the Board with the conditions of the agreement. Hence an application under Section 20(1) of Act was filed by the company on the aforesaid allegations for an order to file the agreement in court and after the matter to arbitration.

(3.) In this petition it was further stated that the Board had claimed a sum of Rs. 13,000.00and odd as charges for consumption of electrical energy for the months of September to December, 1970 for which bills had been submitted. Since they had not been paid, the Executive Engineer served a notice upon the Manager of the company to pay the bills within a week failing which the supply line would be disconnected. The company took up the stand that "the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 upto July, 1970 exceeds the demand of the defendant towards the error bills for September to December, 1970 which should have been decided by arbitrations before any notice for disconnecting the supply under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 should have been given." The company, it is stated, has already challenged the revised tariff and the conditions of supply published in a notification of July, 1970, according to which the energy bills were prepared. This was done in Title Suit 915 of 1970 in the court of Subordinate Judge of Sasaram in which the Board was injuncted from realising the increased charges and from disconnecting the power line. In view of these statements the company also prayed in its petition under Section 20(1) of the Act for another relief viz that the defendants be restrained from disconnecting the power supply to the plaintiff's factory or to take any action for enforcing any claim arising out of such supply.