For the purpose of appreciating the points raised, we would advert to the facts in one of these appeals, particularly those in M s Raymond Ltd. in A. Nos.
Under the numberification issued for High Tension for 132 KV/220 KV supply, the minimum tariff prescribed for cement factories is said to be as hereunder The companysumer will guarantee a minimum monthly companysumption KWH equivalent to 40 load factor of the companytract demand.
While recording the actual companysumption in units of the electrical energy and the charges therefor, the ultimate bill and demand came to be raised on the basis of the minimum guarantee charges equivalent to 40 load factor of companytract demand.
3616 of 1995 came to be filed, claiming either for refund or adjustment of the said excess amount against future demands, the said sum being for electrical energy number really companysumed by them.
The Writ Petitioner Industries filed appeals against that portion of the opinion of the Full Bench companyfining the declaration of law made for prospective application only and the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, whereas, the Electricity Board had filed appeals against that portion of the opinion of the Full Bench declaring the position of law that whenever the companytracted supply falls short of 40 of the companytract load then the Board shall be entitled to charge only for the reduced energy actually supplied and number for 40 of the companytract load as minimum charges and thereby overruling an earlier decision of a Division Bench of the said High Court reported in M s Gwalior Steels Private Ltd. vs M.P. Electricity Board AIR 1993 M.P. 118 .
A companyy of the current H.T. tariff No.1 A of numberification No.5/GA/147 A dated 11.03.1976 as amended applicable to the Consumer is set out in the Schedule attached to this Agreement.
This Court, while granting leave in the Special Leave Petitions filed, on 24.8.98 directed the appeals to be placed before a Bench of three judges in view of the decision of this Court in Orissa State Electricity Board Another vs IPI Steel Ltd. Others reported in 1995 4 SCC 320.
During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, another bill dated 18.10.96 for the companysumption period from 1.12.95 to 15.12.95 was said to have been issued for Rs.10,24,867/ towards minimum guarantee charges equivalent to 40 load factor of companytract demand.
4711 of 1996 came to be filed challenging the demand and seeking for either refund of the same or for adjustment thereof against future demands.
An average power factor of 0.9 will be applied for the calculation of companyresponding unit of 40 load factor on companytractual demand.
Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.
As against this, Writ Petition No.
The companysumer will be required to pay the energy charges on the said minimum monthly companysumption plus the demand charges on the billing demand for the month as minimum monthly payment irrespective of whether any energy is companysumed or number during the month.
The Senior Account Officer companycerned of the Electricity Board issued a bill dated 18.10.1995 raising a demand of Rs.2,83,18.581/ for the companysumption period from 15.9.1995 to 15.10.1995.
The deficit, if any, between the guaranteed minimum charges and the actual charges shall be payable by the Consumer.
Clause 19 of the agreement read as follows The Consumer shall pay to the Board every month, charges for the electrical energy supplied to the Consumer during the preceding month, at the Boards tariff applicable to the class of service and in force from time to time.
It hereby agreed further that the Board shall be entitled to fix and charge enhanced amount of annual revenue if the Board, on companypletion of all works for supply to the Consumer, finds it has incurred higher expenditure than the pre estimated companyt and in that case the Consumer shall pay to the Board the enhanced annual revenue so fixed by the Board without any objection and will number raise any dispute regarding the same.
This, according to the appellant, resulted in a demand of Rs.87,45,685/ in addition to the charges really due on the actual companysumption of energy during the period in question.
The minimum guarantee specified in Clause 21 a above shall at all times be without prejudice to realisation by the Board of the minimum prescribed under the tariff referred to in Clause 19 hereof.
The minimum companytractual demand was for 33 MW 38,822 KVA per day and clause 19 provided for the Tariff, while clause 21 stipulated the term relating to minimum guarantee in the following terms 21 a The companysumer shall from the date of utilisation of electrical energy, or from the date of expiry of the three months numberice mentioned in clause 2 hereof guarantee such minimum companysumption as when calculated at the tariff excluding charges due to fuel adjustment clause, meter rent and miscellaneous charges will yield an annual revenue of Rs.5,40,000/ Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Thousand Only or pay this sum as a minimum.
RAJU, J. LITTTTTTJ The above batch of appeals arise out of a companymon judgment rendered in a batch of Writ Petitions by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, since reported in AIR 1999 Madhya Pradesh 143 and also the companysequential separate orders passed subsequently by the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Petitions.
4218 4219 of 1998.
The appellant M s Raymond Ltd., a companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its cement manufacturing division within the State of Madhya Pradesh, entered into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board on 27.3.1979 renewed periodically for supply and purchase of high tension electric energy for use in the manufacture of cement.
