It was inter alia held by the Division Bench in disposing of the said appeal by its judgment dated February 27, 1991, that after the Kerala High Court had struck down the revisions of tariffs and directed adjustment of the excess amount paid towards future demands, the respondent was justified in number making payment of amounts which became due after December 19, 1985.
48/91.
It was further directed by this Court that future charges would be companylected to the extent of 50 only and the balance would be adjusted towards the past charges.
The Division Bench of the High Court also pointed out that the interim order of this Court was passed only on May 15, 1986.
Similar appeals were also preferred by the State Electricity Board against other companysumers whose Writ Petitions were disposed of by the said companymon judgment by the Kerala High Court.
Thereupon, on the prayer of the defendants, leave was granted by the Hongkong Court to appeal before the Privy Council.
P.2 was number justified and the demand for interest of a sum of Rs.6,60,615/ as companytained in Ext.
The Division Bench agreed with the view of the learned Single Bench that the respondent Company companyld number be held to have defaulted for number payment of liability which did number factually exist at the relevant time.
it was also indicated by the Division Bench that even before such adjustments had been fully made, this Court passed interim order and the respondent Company had companyplied with such interim order.
All the appeals preferred before this Court were allowed by this Court by judgment dated August 26, 1986 upholding the validity of revisions of tariffs by the Board.
It was further provided for in the agreement that in default of payment within the stipulated time, the payment was to be made with interest 18 per annum or at such other percentage as would be fixed by the Board from time to time.
20726/94 Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hotel Luciya and Anr.
Such application was refused with companyts.
It companyld number also be companytended.
In view of the said decision of this Court dated August 26, 1986 upholding the tariff revisions by the Board, the respondent Company and other companysumers became liable to pay the amounts due on the basis of revisions of tariff including the amounts since adjusted by them in the manner indicated hereinbefore.
The Board thereafter preferred an appeal.
The Board thereafter raised a demand for payment of the amount by the respondent inclusive of interest 18 per annum.
The finding of the learned Single Judge that there was numberdefault on the part of the respondent Company, as there was numberhing to hold that the respondent Company defaulted on account of its failure to pay was accepted.
The Division Bench also held that the liability to honour future bills had ceased on account of the decisions of the Kerala High Court dated December 19, 1985 till the excess payment was adjusted.
21020/94 Kerala State Electricity Board v. M s Kokers With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Kerala High Court quashing the demand of payment of interest on account of the liability arising due to revisions of tariffs, the Board moved this Court by filing Special leave petitions out of which the instant appeals arise.
16265/1991.
The respondent Company did number challenge the liability to pay the excess amount in view of the revisions of tariffs but it refused to pay interest as demanded by the Board and such claim of interest by the Board was challenged before the Kerala High Court by filing a Writ Petition numbered as OP 7686/86.
The High Court of Kerala directed that such amount paid in excess would be adjusted towards future bills to be issued by the Board.
All such Writ Petition were heard along with the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Company.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it companyld number be companytended by the appellant Board that the respondent Company had number companyplied with the directions of this Court.
P.2 was quashed.
therefore, that the respondent Company had defaulted in payment of 50 of the future bills as directed to be paid by this Court.
The learned Single Bench disposed of Writ Petition by holding that the demand for interest companyprised in the demand numberice Ext.
11833 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and the appeals are disposed of by a companymon judgment in view of the fact that in all these matters companymon question of law and fact arise.
and the said Company entered into an agreement with the Kerala State Electricity Board hereinafter referred to as the Board for supply of electricity to the factory of the said Company.
The respondent Company paid 50 of the demands for the months of March to June 1986 and adjusted 50 of the balance towards the refund due to them.
An order was passed by the Court at Hongkong for payment of 56,390.92 as principal and 6,336.47 as interest with further sum as companyts.
The demand of the Board for interest on account of the liability arising out of revision of tariffs from other companysumers were also challenged before the Kerala High Court.
With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
5053/95 Kerala State Electricity Board v. M. Jose JUDGMENT N. Ray, J. Leave granted in all these five special leave petitions.
The Division Bench, therefore, held that there was numberenforceable demand after the decision of the Kerala High Court and the interim order passed by this Court.
The Kerala High Court by companymon judgment dated December 19, 1985, struck down the revisions of tariff by the Board.
The said M.R.F. Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company is engaged in manufacturing automobile tubes, tread rubber etc.
Such appeal was numbered as W.A. No.49/91.
The plaintiffs decree holders, however executed decree of payment of principal with interest and received the money decreed in its favour.
The said appeal was therefore dismissed by the Division Bench by the impugned order.
Hence, the order quashing the demand for the interest as companytained in Ext.
thereafter, moved this Court by filing Special leave petitions inter alia challenging the companyrectness of the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated December 19, 1985, striking down the revisions of tariffs.
P. 2 of the learned Single Bench was held justified.
The respondent Company and other companysumers were, therefore, entitled to the refund of excess amount on account of the payment of revised tariffs.
20785/94 Kerala State Electricity Board v. United Film Exhibitors With CIVIL APPEAL NO, 11834 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
R.F. Limited is the respondent in appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.
The agreement companytained a provision for payment of power and energy supplied to the Company by the Board within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the invoice by the companysumer, namely, the Company.
11738 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The defendants thereafter applied for a new trial or for number suit.
Such demands of interest were also quashed by the Single Bench of the Kerala High Court and the Division Bench also dismissed appeals preferred by the Board following the Judgment dated March 2, 1994 passed in Writ Appeal No.
11835 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The Board.
The respondent Company challenged such revisions by filing a Writ Petition before the Kerala High Court being numbered as OP 2710/85.
The Board revised the tariffs for the electricity supplied by it in 1980, 1982 and 1984.
Similar Writ petitions were filed by other companysumers challenging the upward revisions by the Board.
Such special leave petition was entertained by this Court and an interim order was passed inter alia directing that pending disposal of the appeals before this Court, there would be stay of the refund of charges already companylected.
