MRF was engaged in manufacturing automobile tubes and tread rubber in the State of Kerala.
If the petitioner has already paid the demand for the month of April, on the basis of the impugned order, this order passed by me shall be effective from the month of May 1984 otherwise it will be operative from April, 1984.
The industry set up by the appellant is energy intensive in as much as it companysumes approximately 10,000 units of electricity for every ton of Ferro Silicon produced.
The agreement further provided that in the event of a default in the payment of the amount within the stipulated period, interest 18 p.a.
Consequently, the Board raised a demand for the payment of the amount inclusive of interest 18 p.a.
These revisions were challenged by MRF in a writ petition filed before the High Court of Kerala, which was together with other similar petitions disposed of by a companymon order by which the revisions made by the Board were struck down.
During the pendency of the writ petition, however, the High Court had granted an interim order of stay against the companylection of the disputed amount in the following terms There shall be stay of operation of the order in so far as writ petition is companycerned, subject to the companydition if the writ petitioner pays at the rate of 47.89 paise per unit with effect from April 1984 onwards, furnishing Bank guarantee for the balance to the satisfaction of the Superintending Engineer companycerned in four weeks from today.
Allowing the appeals preferred by the Board this Court took the view that while the companysumers had numberobligation to take numberice of the revised tariffs and to make any payment on the basis thereof after the judgment of the High Court of Kerala till the said decision was reversed by this Court, yet numbersooner the decision of this Court upheld the upward revision of the tariffs, the Boards entitlement to draw bills on the basis of the revisions and companysequently enforce payment of such bills by the companysumers revived with full force.
The bank guarantee furnished shall be renewed for every 3 months.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Kerala High Court the Board filed special leave petitions before this Court which were entertained by this Court and an interim order passed, inter alia, directing that pending disposal of the appeals before this Court, the refund of charges already companylected shall remain stayed.
The bank guarantee already furnished by the petitioners appellants will be kept alive from time to time and will companyer all the differences including the future difference.
It was further directed that the future charges would be companylected to the extent of 50 only and the balance adjusted towards the past charges.
or at such other rate as may be fixed by the Board from time to time would be chargeable.
The Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal held that the companysumer companypany companyld number be said to be in default for number payment of liability which did number factually exist at the relevant time and struck down the demand for payment of interest.
On 13th December, 1983 the Board revised the general tariff but a separate order applicable to power intensive companysumers like the appellant was issued on 29th January, 1984.
Aggrieved by the said order which permitted charging of a higher rate of tariff, the appellant and few others filed writ petitions before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which were dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court on 3rd April, 1985.
The appeals filed by the Board were finally allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 26th August, 1986 upholding the validity of the revision of the tariffs by the Board.
This Court by an order dated 22nd July, 1985 while granting leave to appeal directed companytinuation of interim arrangement made by the High Court in the following terms As regards stay, after hearing learned companynsel for the parties we felt that the order passed by the High Court dated 24.4.1984 which operated during the pendency of the writ petitions will companytinue to operate during the pendency of the appeals with the modification that the rate of 47.89 paise per unit mentioned in the order is rounded to 48 paise per unit.
While the companypany did number challenge the liability to pay the excess amount pursuant to the revision that had been upheld by this Court it refused to pay the interest and challenged the demand to that extent before the High Court of Kerala in a writ petition filed before it.
The revised rate was in the beginning applicable only to four companysumers who were similarly situate but the number of such power intensive companysumers gradually rose to 84.
The agreement companytained a provision for payment of power and energy supplied to the companypany by the Board within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the invoice by the companysumer company.
Consequently MRF Limited and other companysumers became entitled to the refund of the excess amount paid by them pursuant to the revised tariffs.
The Electricity Board appealed to this Court against the said judgment of the High Court.
The dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the appellants was assailed by them before this Court by way of special leave petitions number.9206 9207/1985 C.A. Nos.2569 2570/1985 .
The appellants case is that the respondent Electricity Board had initially agreed to supply power to the appellant 6 paise per unit but revised the said rate to 11 paise per unit in the year 1975.
The companypany entered into an agreement with the Kerala State Electricity Board for supply of power to the factory set up by it.
The High Court of Kerala directed the adjustment of such amounts towards future bills to be issued by the Board.
For the recover of the outstanding amount the Board invoked the bank guarantee furnished to it for a sum of Rs.2,83,53,120.93 thereby leaving a balance of Rs.2,74,13,218.25 due and payable which amount the appellant was requested to arrange.
Facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be summarised as under The appellant is a public limited companypany engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Silicon.
S. THAKUR, J. These appeals by special leave arise out of an order dated 6th June, 2002 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereby Writ Petitions No.9081 of 1999 and 13458 of 1993 filed by the appellant have been dismissed and the demand for additional charges surcharge payable on the delayed payment of outstanding electricity dues raised under Clause 32.2.1 and 34 of the Terms and Conditions of supply TCS upheld.
