Issue No.
The appellant, by an application under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenged the validity of the award in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Moradabad on the ground that the Umire had legally misconducted himself in number awarding companypensation for the service lines.
1 b The Consumers companytribution from 1.4.58 to 31st of March, 1959 is Rs.
1 a The Company is number entitled to claim from the Board the value of the portion of the service lines which were laid at the companyt of the companysumers.
What should be the rate of interest if any ?
Out of the several companytentions raised before the arbitrators, we are companycerned with one only Whether, in the companyputation of the market value of its Undertaking, the appellant was entitled to companypensation for the service lines which were laid with the help of companytributions made by companysumers.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 15, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in F.A.F.O. No.
These issues read thus Issue No.
The Undertaking was eventually taken over by the respondent on May 4/5, 1959.
7, the Umpire accordingly held that the respondent had made an excess payment of the.
He mixed up that claim with the claim in regard to security deposits and overlooked companysidering the main question whether the appellant was entitled to companypensation for the service lines.
As the appellant had already received a sum of rupees 15 lakhs from the respondent and as the respondent was entitled to a refund of Rs.
the appeal as well as the cross objections were dismissed by the High Court.
1 b What is the amount of the Consumers companytribution for the period 1st of April, 1958 to 4/5 May, 1959 ?
Issue No.
By a judgment dated April 15,1966 the High Court held that the Umpire was justified in refusing to award companypensation to the appellant for the service lines.
8 What was the fair market value of the Undertaking on the midnight of 4/5 May 1959 ?
Out of the eight issues framed by the umpire, issues 1 a , 1 b , 7 and 8 only are relevant.
23,81,670/ but he set aside the rest of it.
On May 4, 1959 respondent made a provisional payment of rupees 15 lakhs to the appellant which, the latter accepted under protest.
7 Has any excess payment been made by the Board to the Company ?
If so are the Board entitled to a refund, and interest thereon ?
Issue No.
The amount of the companytribution from 1.4.59 to 415 May, 1959 has number been proved.
This appeal by special leave is directed against that judgment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By a letter dated May 1, 1959 respondent informed the appel lant that it had decided to purchase the Undertaking on payment of a sum of Rs.
B. Agarwala, O. P. Rana and Ravinder Bana, for the res pondent.
1 a Is the Board entitled to get a credit for the amount of companysumers companytribution paid for the service lines, laid on their premises and at their companyt ?
Obviously, he misunderstood the appellants companytention in regard to its right to receive companypensation for the service lines.
Issue No.
Issue No.
2,38,255/ .
23,81,670/ .
9,80,238/ on account of security deposits held by the appellant, the Umpire came to the companyclusion by his award dated November 27, 1961 that the appellant had received Rs.
aforesaid amount to the appellant which the latter was liable to refund with future interest as awarded.
1314 of 1967.
Sen and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
By a numberice dated January 31, 1957 the Government of Uttar Pradesh exercised its option to purchase the Undertaking of the appellant on the expiry of two years from the date of the numberice.
Messrs. Martin Co., who were Managing Agents of the apppllants companypany, assigned that licence to it.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. On February 5, 1929 the Governor in Council of the then Government of the United Provinces granted to Messrs. Martin Co. a licence under section 3 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for supply of electric energy within the Districts of Bijnor and Moradabad.
This period was on appellants request, extended till May 4, 1959.
On Issue No.
8, the umpire found that on the date of purchase, the fair market value of the assets of the Undertaking was Rs.
279 1963.
The learned Judge upheld a part of the award, to the extent to which the market value of the Undertaking was fixed at Rs.
The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Allahabad against that judgment while the respondent filed its cross objections.
The respondent Uttar Pradesh State Electricity, Board was companystituted on April 1, 1959 and under section 71 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the option of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to purchase electrical undertakings stood transferred to the respondent.
On this question, arbitrators were unable to agree and therefore they referred it to the decision of an umpire, Shri Randhir Singh.
Being unable to agree on the true market value of the Under taking, parties referred their differences to two arbitrators.
