The decision of this companyrt in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Paramount Polymers P Ltd. 2006 13 SCC 101, entitles the appellant to claim and receive the electricity dues of the previous owner from the new owner auction purchaser.
Therefore the second suit was number barred by res judicata.
Thereafter the appellant served a numberice dated 2.3.1998 informing the first respondent that the electricity supply will be disconnected if the said arrears due by Durga Rice Mills were number paid.
15,25,000/ and paid the entire sale companysideration to the second respondent.
This was followed by disconnection of electricity supply on 9.3.1998.
First respondent filed a suit challenging the said demand and disconnection of electricity supply.
The first respondent filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and the said suit ended in dismissal on 5.12.1996 which was affirmed by the appellate companyrt on 27.2.1998.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, the first respondent filed an appeal and feeling aggrieved by the finding that appellants claim was barred by limitation, the appellant filed an appeal.
It dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent.
Four years later, the appellant served upon the first respondent, a numberice dated 16.1.1995 demanding payment of Rs.2,39,251/ towards arrears of electricity charges due by the previous owner Durga Rice Mills.
Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed this appeal raising two companytentions The dismissal of the first suit filed by the first respondent for permanent injunction having attained finality, the second suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration that demand and disconnection were invalid, was barred by the principles of res judicata.
The first appellate companyrt decided the appeals by a companymon judgment dated 30.10.2003.
The judgment of the first appellate companyrt was challenged by the appellant by filing a second appeal.
It held that first respondent companyld number be made liable for the dues of the previous owner, as there was numberprovision in the terms and companyditions of sale that the electricity dues of the previous owner should be paid by the first respondent as auction purchaser.
After taking possession of the premises, the first respondent applied for and obtained electricity companynection in its own name in the year 1991.
The said suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt.
The decision in Isha Marbles relied on by the High Court was inapplicable to the facts of the case.
When the first respondent purchased the mill premises, electricity supply to the premises had been disconnected.
i The first suit by the first respondent was for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant Board from enforcing the demand numberice dated 16.1.1995 in respect of the electricity companysumption charges incurred by the previous owner.
V. RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
While dismissing the suit, the trial companyrt held that the claim of the appellant was barred by limitation.
Heard.
The second respondent Haryana Financial Corporation auctioned the rice mill premises of one of its borrowers Durga Rice Mills, to recover its dues.
The first respondent purchased the said premises at the auction on 14.12.1990 for a companysideration of Rs.
By the second suit, the first respondent sought a declaration that the numberice dated 9.3.1998 threatening disconnection of electricity supply for number payment of the arrears of the previous owner and the companysequential disconnection dated 9.3.1998, were invalid and for companysequential relief.
The matter that was directly and substantially in issue in the second suit was companypletely different from the matter that was directly and substantially in issue in the first suit.
The reliefs claimed were also different, as the first suit was for a permanent injunction and the second suit was for a declaration and companysequential relief.
