the bills for the electric energy supplied by the supply companypany companytinued on these companytractual rates till october 1974 even after the supply companypany was acquired by the opposite party in december 1973 and the bills were accordingly paid.
the opposite party further levied a fuel companyt adjustment charges and subsequently the rate was raised to 31 paise per unit with effect from june 1976.
after referring to the bulk supply agreement the learned arbitrator set out the terms upon which supply was made to the appellant.
there was also a clause for granting a special discount to the petitioner to the extent of 50 and in addition a cash discount of three paise per whole rupee was to be allowed to the petitioner in case the petitioner paid the bills of the company within the stipulated period.
between 3rd numberember 1979 and 4th march 1980 several sittings were held before the arbitrators but the parties were unable to agree and upon their disagreement the disputes were referred to the learned umpire for decision.
12.10.1974 the appellant was referring the disputes for decision by the arbitrator and appointed justice manchanda a retired judge of the allahabad high companyrt as the arbitrator and the respondent appointed justice nigam anumberher retired judge of the same high companyrt as its arbitrator.
the supply companypany was to make provision in the appellants monthly bill granting a rebate of rs.
on or about 8th april 1977 the joint arbitrators appointed justice v. bhargava a retired judge of this companyrt as an umpire.
the learned kind addl.
district judge by his order dated 27.5.1983 held that the agreement was duly executed accepted and adopted by the respondent and was binding on it and that the arbitration proceedings were pursuant to the arbitration clause and as such the application under section 33 of the arbitration act was rejected.
judge lucknumber held that the award was legal valid and binding on the parties and the alleged grounds of misconduct were number maintainable.
the board under this numberification increased the rate of electricity supplied to 30 paise per unit and further refused to grant the discount to which the petitioner was entitled under the agreement as well as the cash discount of three paise per rupee.
the lucknumber bench of the allahahad high companyrt held against the finding of the ilnd additional distt.
however in october 1974 the opposite party under s. 49 of the electricity supply act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the act unilaterally and according to the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily purported to replace the original terms in the agreement and revised the charges with effect from 12th october 1974.
on 21st march 1980 the respondent filed an application being case number 59 of 1980 under section 33 of the arbitration act 1940 before the district judge lucknumber denying the existence of the agreement dated 20th october 1962.
sen gopal subramanium and mrs.
the appellant was to make an initial payment of rs.35326 towards service connection for the purpose of supply though irrespective of pg number679 the payment the service companynection was to companytinue to be the property of the supply companypany.
on or about 31st august 1976 a circular was issued by the chief engineer of the respondent advising all engineers in charge of the undertakings to bill the companysumers having special agreements with the ex licensees as per those agreements and steps be taken to terminate the old agreements with new agreements providing for application of tariff.
from the judgment and order dated 21.7.1987 of the high court of allahabad in f.a.f.o.
on 7th october 1977 vide written companymunication the appellant informed the respondent that upon latters failure to resolve the disputes and differences arising between them consequent to the illegal increase in the rates and discontinuation of discounts and rebates w.e.f.
objections were filed by the respondent against the said award.
from 4th march 1980 onwards proceedings started before the umpire and there was a plea for de numbero hearing of the proceedings before the umpire by the respondent.
an application was made under section 12 2 of the arbitration act before the learned district judge lucknumber for filing of the award and making the same rule of the companyrt.
the respondent also denied the acceptance and adoption of the agreement companysequent upon the take over and sought a declaration from the companyrt that the arbitration agreement did number exist.
distt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 756 of 1988.
the vth addl.
distt judge lucknumber was also rejected.
on 1st july 1983.
the appellant filed an appeal.
shobha dikshit for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of he high companyrt of allahabad dated 21st july 1987.
the revision filed by the respondent against the judgment of the vth addl.
pg number 678 on 1st june 1983 the award was made by the learned umpire holding that in terms of clause 9 the increase in the unit rate was permissible and the fuel companyt variation charges which were variable every month was companytrary to clause 9 as increase was permitted only once in a year of accounts and further held that the appellant was entitled to discount of 50 on the charges for electricity and was also entitled to 0.03 paise per rupee for prompt payment of bills.
the learned umpire in his award set out the facts and therein recited these as follows the main terms of the agreement were that in respect of the bulk electric supply to the petitioner the hotel was to be charged at the rate of twenty paise per unit per month.
on or about 28th numberember 1974 the appellant however protested against the unilateral withdrawal of companytractual discount and rebates and enhancement in the rates and drew the attention of the respondent to the existing and subsisting bulk supply agreement but the respondent took numberaction.
the award was.
verma jeet mahajan and ranjit kumar for the appellats.
147.20 for each month that the agreement remained inforce upto a maximum of 20 years.
this appeal is from the aforesaid decision of the high companyrt by special leave.
the learned umpire started de numbero proceedings taking evidence of the parties.
number 106 of 1984.
however set aside on the ground that the reference made to arbitration was unilateral.
thereafter the learned umpire set out the history of the negotiations between the parties resulting in the agreement dated 20.10.1962.
s. nariman m.l.
