The plaintiff thereupon preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay which upheld the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal negativing the plea put forward by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff averred inter alia that under the agreement the defendant was bound to companysume electrical energy for 16 hours a day and pay the minimum charges even if numberactual companysumption was made.
It was also alleged that even if there was any such clause in the agreement it was void under s. 23 of the Indian Electricity Act 197.
888 of 1959.
Consequent upon its claim the plaintiff sent a number of bills to the defendant which it refused to pay and hence the present suit was instituted on February 27, 1956.
This agreement expired to wards the end of January 1951 and a fresh agreement which is dated May 29, 1951, Ext.
S. Nariman and I. N. Shroff for the appellant.
Before the Trial Court the defendant Municipality denied the allegations of the plaintiff and averred that under the terms of is the agreement the Municipality was number bound to pay to the plaintiff Company any minimum charges even if the electrical energy was number companysumed.
Counsel for both the parties agreed before us that the fate of the entire case depended upon the interpretation of clause 3 of the agreement Ext.
A number of other defences were also taken with which we are number companycerned.
39, which was to companymence from February 1, 1951, was executed between the parties.
The energy was to be supplied on the basis of the agreement executed between the parties in the year 1944.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This agreement was to ensure for a period of five years.
748 of 1968.
The plaintiff appellant entered into an agreement to supply electrical energy to the Jalgaon Borough Municipality as far back as 1944.
The facts of the case lie within a very narrow companypass.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave against the judgment dated February 14, 1967, of the High Court of Bombay turns upon the interpretation of clause 3 of the agreement Ext.
S. Ramamurthi and K. Rajendra Choudhury, for the Respondent.
This claim was put forward by the plaintiff in December 1953 on the basis of clause 3 of the agreement.
The Trial Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon accepted the defendants plea and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant.
The plaintiff appellants case was based mainly on clause 3 of the agreement but the High Court instead of companycentrating its attention on the interpretation of the scope and ambit of this particular clause appears to have entered upon a companyering inquiry and a detailed determination of the history of the case, the various clauses of the agreement executed, the licence taken by the appellant, and so on, which, in our opinion, were number at all germane for the decision of the simple issue which arose in this appeal.
What appears to us to have been a short and simple case has been rendered cumbersome and companyplicated by somewhat companyplex and involved process of reasoning adopted by the High Court in interpreting the various clauses of the agreement Ext.
Fazal Ali, J. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 14th February, 1967 of he Bombay High Court in Civil First Appeal No.
39 executed between the parties companytaining the terms and companyditions for which the plaintiff appellant was to supply electricity to the defendant the Jalgaon Borough Municipality.
