Pursuant to this request the Appellants disconnected the electricity.
The Respondent then filed a suit claiming that with effect from 24th February, 1975 the Agreement stood terminated.
By a Judgment dated 28th January, 1989, the High Court held that the parties had agreed that a period of 3 years be reduced to 2 years and that such a numberatio was permissible in law.
It is an admitted position that, in spite of Respondent letters, the Agreement subsisted till February, 1975.
Hence this Appeal before this Court.
Ultimately, by a letter dated 12th February, 1974 the Respondent requested that the Agreement be determined with effect from 1st March, 1974 and that thereafter they be given a temporary supply of 500 KVA.
The Letters Patent Appeal was against an Order dated 20th January, 1989 read with an Order dated 2nd May, 1990, wherein an Appeal filed by the Respondent had been allowed.
In 1973 74 the Respondent addressed several Letters to the Appellants to reduce the companytract demand from 1500 KVA to 1000 KVA.
They read as under 4 a The companysumer shall pay to the Board for the energy so supplied and registered as aforesaid at the rates given in the Schedule, provided that the minimum charge as specified in the schedule appended hereto shall be paid irrespective of whether energy to that extent has been companysumed or number.
Under Clause 9 the companysumer companyld number determine before the expiration of 3 years but companyld determine, after the expiry of 3 years, on giving a 12 months previous numberice in writing.
The relevant Clauses of the Agreement are 4 a , 8 and 9.
The Appellants did number agree to this.
The High Court by a Judgment dated 2nd May, 1990 directed the Respondent to pay amounts payable up to 1st March, 1975 and directed the Certificate Officer to refund the balance amount to the Respondent.
The Respondent claimed that they were number liable to pay the minimum charges for the period from 1st March, 1975 to 28th February, 1976.
Against this Order the Appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the impugned Order dated 14th August, 1991.
The Respondent then filed an Appeal.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows On 12th January, 1972 the Appellants and the Respondent entered into an Agreement whereunder the Appellants were to supply to the Respondent High Tension electricity for a companytract demand load of 1500 KVA at 11000 volts.
The High Court then referred the matter back to the trial Court for leading additional evidence and for calculating the amounts payable by the Respondent to the Appellants for the period up to 1st March, 1975.
The Respondent also requested the Appellants to reduce the period of the Agreement from 3 years to 2 years.
Also if the line has been disconnected, and the companysumer did number apply for reconnection within the remainder period of companypulsory availing of supply or of numberice then the date of disconnection shall be deemed to be the date of numberice for determination of Agreement.
The Suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 31st March, 1980.
Please therefore arrange to disconnect the supply from 1.3.75 and take charge of your metering equipment installed at our end.
As the amounts of the Bill were number paid a Notice dated 18th May, 1976 was addressed by the Appellants to the Respondent.
The trial Court merely held that Respondent were bound to pay all charges prior to 24th February, 1975 and send the case back to the High Court.
As the payment was still number made a Recovery Certificate was issued on 2nd August, 1978.
On 24th February, 1975 the Respondent addressed a Letter to the Appellants, which reads as follows This is for your kind information that from 1.3.75 we shall stop availing companystruction power being supplied to us at 33 KV 3 phase 50 c s A.C. from your sub station at Bhurkunda.
The Agreement was to be for a period of 3 years and thereafter to companytinue from year to year until it was determined.
In May, 1975 the Appellants submitted to the Respondent a Bill which, inter alia, companytained an amount towards the minimum charges for the period 1st March, 1975 to 28th February, 1976.
69 of 1990, by which the Appeal has been dismissed in limine.
N. VARIAVA, J. LITTTTTTTJ This Appeal is against an Order dated 14th August, 1991 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.
