Thereafter charges at the maximum permitted rate were levied and companylected by the Appellant.
Later this surcharge under the Defence of India Rules fixed by the numberification of 1943, was withdrawn and simultaneously what is known as War Costs Surcharge was permitted to be levied, but it did number make any practical difference as the permitted increases over the mnaximum was identical.
590591 of 1963 Appeals from the judgment and decree dated February 6, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
2 per month per H.P companynected.
590/1963 .
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General, M. M. Gharekhan and I.N. Shroff, for the appellant in C.A. No.
was delivered by AYYANGAR J. SARKAR J. delivered a separate opinion.
Various persons were on their own applications later added as plaintiffs in these suits.
They raise for companysideration a question of the legality of certain rates charged by the Appellant company for the supply of electricity to the respondents for power and for light and fans respectively.
On September 25, 1958, the appellant gave numberice to its customers that with effect from November 1, 1958 it would charge for motive power 0.09 nP. per unit plus a standing charge of Rs.
The other suit was filed by the respondent Tandulkar also in a representative capacity in respect of the charge of 0.37 nP. per unit for electricity supplied for lights and fans, and it sought the following reliefs That a declaration be granted by this Honable Court that the excess sum of 0.06 nP. per unit of energy companysumed for lights and fans, are and unauthorised, inoperative and ultra vires of the Defendant Company and the plaintiff is number bound to pay the same.
Soon thereafter he started disputes about the legality of the charges realised from him by the appellant in respect of energy supplied for purposes of motive power of over 4 B.H.P. and in 1955 filed a suit against the appellant for refund of amounts alleged to have been illegally companylected from him in excess of the limits.
Such licensees were permitted to charge amounts number exceeding 33 1/2 per cent over the permitted maximum rates.
While so, on March, 11, 1943 a numberification was issued by the Government of Bombay in exercise of powers companyferred by rule 81 2 b of the Defence of India Rules by which relaxation was made as regards the maximum rates for the supply of electrical energy chargeable by a licensee under the Electricity Act.
It is said that even thereafter the appellant companytinued charging the companysumers at rates which included the surcharge under the Surcharge Act, and, therefore, at rates in excess of those fixed by the Order of December 30, 1942 and that was illegal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The numberice gave rise to further disputes as a result of which two suits were filed against the appellant on March 31, 1959 in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Belgaum.
On second appeal, however, the High Court of Mysore set aside the decision of the learned District Judge and restored that of the trial Court.
The first of these suits was filed by the respondent Bathena acting for himself and all other companysumers of electricity supplied by the appellant for purposes of motive power over 4 B.H.P. for the following reliefs That a declaration be granted by this Honable Court that the standing charges of 2.69 nP. per B.H.P. per month and the excess sum of 0.04 nP. per unit of energy companysumed, for motive power whether companynected or otherwise, are illegal and unauthorised, inoperative and ultra vires of the Defendant companypany and the Plaintiff is number bound to pay the same and that the Defendant Company have numberauthority to companytrol or interfere in the supply of electric energy or its use, and that the restrictions imposed in Notice dated 25 9 58 are illegal, bad in law, and, b an injunction restraining the Defendant Company, its servants, its agents or its representatives from levying and recovering the excess and illegal charges, such as standing charges and per unit of companysumed energy at 0.04 nP. from the plaintiff, by means of any companyrcive measures and from interfering or companytrolling with the electric Supply.
fixed by the order of December 30, 1942, namely, an excess standing charge of 0.69 nP. per B.H.P. per month over that fixed by the Order of December 30, 1942 and a similar excess unit charge of 0.01 nP. per unit.
That suit is still pending and with the disputes involved in it I am number companycerned in this judgment.
The War Costs Surcharge was companytinued up to the year 1946 when the Government of Bombay enacted a statute entitled the Bombay Electricity Surcharge Act of 1946 which came into force on September 30, 1946.
591/ 63 .
2/ per B.H.P. per month.
ii over 4 B.H.P. /19 pies O.05 nP. per unit in addition to the standing charge at the same rate of Rs.
the War Cost Surcharge were to be deemed surcharges fixed under s. 3.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General, M.C. Setalvad, M.M. Gharekhan and I.N. Shroff, for the appellant in C.A. No.
This Act expired on September 30, 1949.
471 and 472 of 1960.
Due to the companyditions brought about by the Second World War, certain orders were made from time to time permitting the licensees to add a surcharge number exceeding 33 1/2 per cent to the existing charges.
Naraindas C Malkani, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondents in both the appeals .
Lastly, on September 30, 1946 an Act was passed by the Bombay legislature called the Bombay Electricity Surcharge Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Surcharge Act, which companytinued the surcharge specified therein for a period of three years.
March 30, 1964.
This Act will be referred to later.
The appellant on its part claims that its charges after the expiry of the Surcharge Act were all Justified under the Act of 1948 the relevant provisions of which came into force on September 10, 1948.
The present appeals are against the judgment of the High Court.
The respondent Bathena companymenced taking electricity from the appellant sometime in 1954.
The judgment of DAs GUPTA and AyYANGAR JJ.
An injunction restraining the Defendant Company its servants, its agents or its representatives from levying and recovering the excess and illegal charges, i.e. 0.06 nP. per unit of companysumed energy from the plaintiff by means of any companyrcive measures and from interfering or companytrolling with the electric supply.
2.69 per B.H.P. per month.
